Law Assignment eth

Ann represents Officer Patty in an employment discrimination case against the City Police Department

("Department") in which Patty alleges that the Department refused to promote her and other female

police officers to positions that supervise male police officers. Bob represents the Department.

At Patty's request, Ann privately interviewed a male police captain, Carl, who had heard the Chief

of Police (Chief) make disparaging comments about women in the Department. Carl told Ann that the Chief

has repeatedly said that he disapproves of women becoming police officers, routinely assigns them

clerical work, and would personally see to it that no female officer would ever supervise any male

officer. Carl met with Ann voluntarily during his non-work hours at home. Ann did not seek Bob's

consent to meet with Carl or invite Bob to be present at Carl's interview.

When Bob saw Carl's name as a trial witness on the pretrial statement, he asked Chief to prepare a

memo to him summarizing Carl's personnel history and any information that could be used to

discredit him. Chief produced a lengthy memo containing details of Carl's youthful indiscretions. In

the memo, however, were several damaging statements by Chief reflecting his negative views about

female police officers. In the course of discovery, Bob's paralegal inadvertently delivered a copy of

Chief s memo to Ann. Immediately upon opening the envelope in which the memo was delivered, Ann

realized that it had been sent by mistake. At the same time, Bob's paralegal discovered and advised

Bob what had happened. Bob promptly demanded the memo's return , but Ann refused, intending to

use it at trial.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Did Ann commit any ethical violation by interviewing Carl? Discuss.

2. What are Ann's ethical obligations with respect to Chief s memo? Discuss.

3. At trial, how should the court rule on objections by Bob to the admission of Chief s

memo on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and hearsay? Discuss.

Please use the ABA model rules of professional conduct your knowledge of legal ethics rules to support your answers. There is no need to use or research case law in the completion of this assignment

Sample Solution

Ethical Analysis of the Scenario:

1. Interviewing Carl:

No clear ethical violation: Ann did not violate any explicit Rule of Professional Conduct by interviewing Carl without Bob's knowledge or presence. However, the situation raises ethical concerns:
- Duty of Candor (Model Rule 4.2): Arguably, Ann should have informed Bob about interviewing a witness, as it could impact his trial strategy.
- Duty of Fairness (Model Rule 4.4): Ex parte communication (without the opposing party) can raise fairness concerns. However, interviewing witnesses is generally allowed.
- Duty of Confidentiality (Model Rule 4.1): Ann must maintain Carl's confidentiality regarding non-public information.

Full Answer Section

Chief's Memo and Ann's Obligations:

Ethical obligations:
- Duty of Candor (Model Rule 4.2): Ann must disclose the inadvertently received memo to Bob to rectify the mistake.
- Duty of Fairness (Model Rule 4.4): Using the memo without disclosure could be unfair to Bob and the court.
- Duty of Confidentiality (Model Rule 4.1): Ann cannot use confidential information from the memo beyond disclosing it to Bob.

3. Objections to the Memo at Trial:

Attorney-Client Privilege:
- Likely inapplicable: The memo, addressed to Bob for trial prep, falls within the privilege. However, the Chief's statements revealing discriminatory intent might be considered an exception to the privilege if they further a crime or fraud (Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)).
- Court would likely decide based on the specific content of the memo and its relevance to the discrimination claim.
Hearsay:
- Likely applicable: Most of the memo's content would be hearsay (out-of-court statements offered for their truth).
- Exceptions might apply: Statements reflecting the Chief's discriminatory intent might be admissible under hearsay exceptions for state of mind or party admissions (Model Rule 803).
- Court would rule based on the specific content and applicable hearsay exceptions.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for specific legal issues.

We are here to help

We have crazy offers

It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.

We are here and ready to help

Order Now