Lawyers Prof Responsibility & Ethics Assignment

Question 1
Indeed, the brother to the accused thinks that he is ethically oblige to provide privilege to
her sister with the same level of protection given to other defendants . However she ought to
understand that , according to the access to information act no. 31 of 2016 204(4) , just as other
criminal defenders are presumed innocent until they are proven Guilty , the Clients’ brother
should have treated the case and the information confidential until the party that sought
disclosure through legal means to prove that it is true1. From such a standpoint , the clients
brother claims can be considered as frivolous than a plea of “not guilty ” even if the records in
question were never examined nor the necessary laws of privilege researched by the court . This
is often known as the “knee-jerk” claims of attorney -client privilege.
According to Rule 502 of Attorney-Client Privilege , neither the law of privilege nor any
other systematic privilege litigations often support the posture of the client’s brother to claim
privilege. In such criminal cases , the court can take the legal assumption of innocence , offering
strong foundation for the ethical perspectives of the presumptively pleading client not guilty2 .
Therefore , in this case , the legal burden of offering privilege are in direct opposition to the
practice of law of presumptively claiming privilege. In terms of the evidence they shared , the
presumption of the court is in favor of compulsion for the revelation of such information on the
Brother’s side and the burden now fall to the party that claimed privilege to prove that the
information they shared met the legal test for privilege3.Therefore , in terms of law, , it is very
possible for the client’s brother to make a frivolous claim of privilege , and in such a case the
court ought to impose a wide range of sanctions on the brother together with the client . This is
1 Birkinshaw, P. (2010). Freedom of Information: the Law, the Practice and the Ideal.
Cambridge University Press.
2 See; American Bar Association, 2015. KF8959.A7 T6 2015 and Law Casebook.
3 Pozen, D. E. (2016). Freedom of information beyond the Freedom of Information Act. U. Pa.
L. Rev., 165, 1097.

on the grounds that , such frivolous claims of privilege , irrespective of whether they are
successful revealed , it is necessary to impose further litigation costs on both the brother and the
client and apply scarce judicial resources . Indeed, the court does not have such much time to go
through all such claims . As a result , the punitive measures taken by the courts on some
egregiously frivolous claims of privilege might not be satisfactory to offset the strategic value of
successful , yet unwarranted non-disclosure in the vast majority of such cases4.
Question 2
While attorneys love the job as lawyers , most don’t like the business side of the law .
Collection of client fee begins with the original client intake . According to the American Bar ,
attorneys should have a retainer as upfront payment . In this case , However , the lawyer made a
promise to the defendant . According to the client protection law under the American Bar, any
promise made by the attorney to a client will be implemented .
According to WOLFRAM, MODERN LEGAL ETHICS 250 (1986) , While the
defendant’s promises to the lawyer might be reviewed by the court , the promises he made to the
defendant earlier will be prioritized 5. This is due to the fact that a lawyer is bound by their terms
of practice as lawyers and therefore they he is not entitled to any additional fee from the
defendant6. It is often normal for such lawyers to negotiate such fees in the middle of such an
engagement. It will be the obligation of courts and bars association to review such claims for
4 See generally CHARLES W. WOLFRAM, MODERN LEGAL ETHICs 243 (1986) (discussing the
policy behind the confidentiality privilege).
5 The attorney-client privilege exists in some form in every United States jurisdiction. C.
WOLFRAM, MODERN LEGAL ETHICS 250 (1986). For a discussion of the attorney-client
privilege and its limitations, see Zacharias, supra note 6, at 355 n.18; see generally C.
WOLFRAM,
supra, at 250-301; Subin, The Lawyer as Superego. Disclosure of Client Confidences to
Prevent
Harm, 70 IowA L. REV. 1091, 1106-19 (1985).
6 Sisk, G. C., & Abbate, P. J. (2010). The Dynamic Attorney-Client Privilege. Geo. J. Legal
Ethics, 23, 201.

clear evidence that the lawyer applied improper leverage. You ought to feel compelled to pay
your lawyer to pay more than what you might have agreed initially .
In this case, the attorney did not provide clear fee arrangements in great detail during
their initial meetings . This should have been confirmed in writing before the case commenced
and the defendant signing it .And since that was never the case , the attorney , under the
American Bar association should wait for at least a year after their relation ended . This will
provide him time to pursue any claims and evaluate its worth . In addition , by initiating such as
claim, the attorney can be countersued on the grounds of malpractice . According to the
American bar Association , a majority of all malpractice cases are often about counterclaims for
suits for fees. The case is not about how much time the attorney spent on this case . Instead the
action of tv royalties should be placed under a new review and dissected properly for any ethical
malpractices.7
Question 3
Loyalty to Frackers restrict the lawyers from carrying out directly adverse to the
company without informed consent from the client .Therefore , lack of consent in this case , the
law is not supposed to act as an advocate in one matter against the company in some other
matters , even when such matters are related. This is due to the fact that the resulting damage to
the relationship is likely to destroy the ability of the lawyer to represent her case effectively . In
addition, the lawyer might have challenging moment undertaking reasonable position on the case
out of defense from the company. This implies that , the representation of the case might be
limited by the company’s interest in the case8 . In addition , a direct adverse conflict may arise
7 See; CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, Canon 37 (1908); MODEL CODE, supra
note 3, at DR 4-101; MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 1.6 (1983)
8 Sokol, D. D. (2010). Explaining the importance of public choice for law. Mich. L. Rev., 109,
1029.