Law Ethics Assignment: Client Rights, Lawyer Duties, and Supervision

This assignment delves into key principles of law ethics, examining the rights of lawyers to deny clients, the duty to represent clients' best interests, and the duty of supervision for inexperienced lawyers. It explores the client's right to legal representation, the duty to act in the client's best interest, and the duty to act on the client's instructions. The assignment references both Australian and US legal systems, citing relevant cases and legislation to illustrate these ethical obligations. The student explores the ethical considerations of lawyers, including their responsibilities and obligations towards their clients, providing a comprehensive overview of the fundamental principles governing legal practice. The assignment uses case law and statutory provisions to illustrate the practical application of these ethical duties.

Running head: QUESTIONS 1
Law ethics
Student details:
4/22/2019

QUESTIONS 2
1. The right of Lawyers to deny the client
The Australian professional rule states the right to deny the matter most surely extends to the
ethical reasons. The lawyer should deny to represent the clients who insist to use unjust mean.
The lawyer should use personal judgment in these cases. Lawyer should not harm the image of
the parties on wrong ground at time of pleading. Additionally, in USA, the private attorneys can
accept or deny clients for any reason they wish that is not unlawfully biased in nature.
2. The duty to represent in the best interest of the client
As per Australian professional rule, in respect of the client, the lawyer should act in the best
interest of client. Hilton v Barker Booth and Eastwood: HL 3 Feb. 2005 is a good example.
Moreover, as per US legal system, the attorney has obligations to advocate for the clients, then
attorney should always admire and reschedule to the decisions (Davis v. State Bar1).
3. Duty of supervision for inexperienced lawyers
As per the Model Rules, experienced advocates bear the accountability to make sure that
inexperienced advocates get proper training and proper administration. The Model Rules
describe the supervising advocate as “the partner in the law firm” or “one with similar
administrative power,” and prescribe three key duties (Kelly v Jowett2). While considering US
Legal System, California Supreme Court identifies duty to make proper office processes and to
manage law office’s team and obligation to give proper supervision to junior lawyer. (Trousil v.
State Bar3 )
1 (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 188 Cal.Rptr. 441, 655 P.2d 1276)
2 [2009] NSWCA 278
3 (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 337, 342

QUESTIONS 3
4. Client has the right to legal representation
According to the Australian professional rules, the lawyers are held liable to the similar
professional conduct’s standards as like the all legal practitioners. These facts have been stated in
Halliwell v Kraft4; Milera v Korber5. In this case, judicial comment was made on duty solicitor
work. Further, as per 6th Amendment of American Constitution, everyone has the right to
attorney. Though, not only do they have legal representation’s right, but representation
also has to be just and fair, peaceful, effectual, and made payment for if they afford themselves.
5. Duty to act on the best interest of the client
The duty to act in a best interest of client is set out in section 961B(1) of the Corporations Act.
The section 961B(2) of the Corporations Act sets out the steps needed to be proved that the
providers to gratify the duties. Further, under the US legal system, the advisors owe the clients
duty of loyalty that means they are required to act in the client’s best interest. A case of the
violation of fiduciary duty is Banks v. Mario Indus6.
6. Duty to act on the client’s instructions
As per the Australian professional rules, the main function of lawyer is to help the clients in
achieving the aims. This is basic that the advocates follow the instructions of clients. In respect
of the client, the lawyers should follow the instructions of client. In Apatu v Peach Prescott &
Jamieson7, it was held by the court that so far as the lawyers are concerned, there may be small
doubt that if in course of payment they do an act in contrast of instruction causing losses to
4 [1990] SASC 2634
5 [1986] SASC 9474
6 274 Va. 438, 650 S.E.2d 687
7 [1985] 1 NZLR 50 at 64

QUESTIONS 4
client, they would be responsible: Butler v Knight8. Moreover, in U.S. legal system, lawyer may
not make a decision without the instruction. The lawyers should carry out instruction as quickly
and competently as possible.
8 (1867) LR 2 Exch 109, 112

QUESTIONS 5
Bibliography
A. Cases
Apatu v Peach Prescott & Jamieson [1985] 1 NZLR 50 at 64
Butler v Knight (1867) LR 2 Exch 109, 112
Davis v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 188 Cal.Rptr. 441, 655 P.2d 1276
Halliwell v Kraft [1990] SASC 2634; Milera v Korber [1986] SASC 9474
Kelly v Jowett [2009] NSWCA 278
Milera v Korber [1986] SASC 9474
Trousil v. State Bar (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 337, 342