Introduction
Due to the specifics of the core operations performed in the legal setting, the relationships between its participants must remain strictly within the confinements of the rules of professional conduct. The Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct are particularly important for paralegal experts since the specified experts have a limited range of responsibilities combined with complete access to a plethora of sensitive information that can potentially be misused (). Therefore, integrating the principles in question allows for identifying core concerns and preventing issues from developing into major obstacles to justice. In the case under analysis, five ethical issues that disagree with the established standards of ethical conduct as communicated by the Tennessee Bar Association (2018) can be identified. By acknowledging the issues in question and introducing appropriate measures to inhibit their further effect on the management of the case under analysis, the court will be able to address the case.
Main body
The financial issues, particularly, the specifics of billing that Kristen identified as she started working on specific cases, need to be addressed first. According to the case details, Kristen billed the customers fully for the services, whereas, according to the existing standards for the procedure, the fee had to be split between her and other paralegals: “Paragraph (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee either based on the proportion of services they render or if each lawyer assumes responsibility for the representation as a whole” (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018, p. 36). Therefore, there is an evident ethical issue observed in the case under analysis. Furthermore, the fact that the client’s agreement has never been obtained indicates the presence of a breach of ethical principles: “In addition, the client must agree to the arrangement, and the agreement must be confirmed in writing” (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018, p. 36). Concerning the issue at hand, the court may limit the range of responsibilities that Kristen is allowed to take as a paralegal expert in the legal environment.
Another major ethical transgression that the case under analysis features is the discussion of court cases among paralegal experts in their leisure time. In addition to sharing sensitive information with a third party, which already represents a major ethical violation, the specified scenario involves the breach of ethical principles requiring that paralegals must not provide a personal perspective and assessment of legal cases on which they work (). Specifically, the case features a breach of informed consent since Kristen and her coworkers’ customers did not allow discussing their cases in a casual environment and sharing details with other lawyers (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018, p. 19). If the specified violation of ethical principles is considered a legal issue by the court, Kristen and her fellow paralegal experts are likely to face repercussions of a fine or even a revocation of Kristen and her fellow paralegal experts’ licenses.
Regarding the disclosure of the client’s personal data and case details to a third party, one must mention the fact that one of the restaurant’s patrons, i.e., someone entirely unrelated to the case, has overheard the name of the client., the specified violation of ethical norms is particularly egregious since it implies sharing the customers’ personal and quite sensitive information with a stranger. In addition to the obvious unethical nature of the specified choice, it also invites a range of threats to the customer’s well-being and the further defense of the case in court.
Specifically, the outlined scenario involves the breach of the informed consent rule, according to which a lawyer must obtain the client’s informed consent before making specific information available to a third party for a specific legal reason. In addition, since the person overhearing the discussion was completely unrelated to the case, the situation at hand can also be represented as a violation of Rule 1.6 (a), according to which “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client” (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018, p. 38). Therefore, the specified situation breaks the foundational rule of legal ethics, which is why an appropriate punishment must be issued to Kristen and the paralegals involved in the outline situation. Namely, Kristen’s license should be suspended or revoked entirely. The latter is advised of the instance of her revealing customers’ data to a third party, unintentionally it might have any tangible effects on the client’s further court representation and the consideration of the case in court.
Another notable violation of the existing code of ethics for lawyers observed in the case concerns Kristy’s inability to separate her personal life from her professional one. Specifically, the fact that she is going out on a date with one of her fellow paralegal employees represents a tremendous breach of ethical principles. Indeed, a closer look at the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct shows that building personal relationships with other paralegal staff members, let alone engaging in romantic relationships with them, represents a major ethical concern (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018). Specifically, the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct states explicitly that “An in-house employee in an intimate personal relationship with outside counsel may not be able to assess and waive any conflict of interest for the organization” (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018, p. 51). Implying that the specified relationships will inevitably entail a threat to the integrity of the further management of the case, the specified legal requirement suggests that the license of a paralegal expert may be suspended or revoked in the specified case.
Finally, the fact that Kristen has been representing herself as a legal expert even though she has not been granted the full extent of responsibilities so far should also be called into question as a likely ethical violation. Though she has been marketing her legal services primarily to her family and friends via social networks, the specified conduct indicates that she has been neglecting the principles of honesty and integrity as per the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (Tennessee Bar Association, 2018). Specifically, the false promotion of legal services may be seen as a legitimate reason for revoking Kristen’s license and imposing an appropriate monetary fine.
Conclusion
By incorporating the measures that prevent the identified issues from affecting further data management and the consideration of the relevant case in court, one will be able to prevent further issues from taking place. Namely, the core stakeholders will not incur the same extent of damage to which they would be exposed otherwise. In the case under analysis, Kristen could face significant ethical and legal repercussions if the case of her failing to meet the Tennessee Bar Association’s ethical standards is taken to court. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that core ethical standards are followed and met, which calls for the introduction of tighter control over paralegal experts’ performance.
Reference
Tennessee Bar Association. (2018). The Tennessee rules of professional conduct. TBA.