Table of Contents
Introduction	2
Assignment 1	2
Assignment 2	4
Conclusion	7
Reference list	8
Legal ethics are a complex and intangible component of law, which cannot largely be put under a standardized set of practices. In this study, three distinct case studies are discussed from the perspective of the attorneys or the paralegal advisors. The study also encompasses the legal implications of the ethical decisions that the lawyers in the scenarios should adhere to. Moreover, the study takes into consideration the personal impact that the ethical decisions will have on the lives of the attorneys and the paralegals concerned in the scenarios. 
Assignment 1 
1. The attorney-client privilege of confidentiality and its clash with ethical integrity 
The concept of confidentiality in the relation between attorneys and their clients is a non-linear relationship, which has several ethical under layers. Based on the common laws of USA, the client-attorney privileges state that significant information shared between the client and attorneys should not be shared with other people. Sharing this information can lead to major issues with other groups involved within the court process learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the defendant.
Possible exceptions in the clause of confidentiality 
The attorney-client privilege of confidentiality is effective in all circumstances irrespective of the court’s demand of a specific piece of information.  However, there is an exception to this clause, which is known as the crime-fraud exception enacted by the Federal Rules of Evidence in USA. With respect to this clause, the attorney is not supposed to keep information confidential, which might lead to additional crimes or can even be stated as a cover-up of substantial evidences for a crime. This exception was first recognized in the United States in Alexander v. U.S., 201 U.S. 117, 121 (1906). The Alexander v. U.S., 201 U.S. 117, 121 (1906) case depicted violation of the Anti-Trust Law of 1890 which led to the development of decisions to include the crime-fraud exception in USA (Justia, 2019).
In regards to the case study, attorney Mcneill is in a dilemma between her ethical code of practice and the concept of confidentiality. As commented by Luban and Wendel (2017), in such situations, attorneys often choose to forgo their ethical call and go with the concept of confidentiality clause. However, as there is a clear clause of exception regarding a possible future crime, the attorney should have had a clear conscience about reporting the threat mentioned in Mary’s testimony. As the threat was a direct indication of a life harming situation, the attorney should have taken that into account while making an ethical call. One may argue that, Mary’s threat was out of anger and her involvement in Duncan’s assault is still a speculation. Even though, the guilt is not proven, with her experience in the field of crimes and frauds, the attorney should have deduced that Mary is a potential threat to Duncan’s life. Even if she kept her promise of confidentiality, she could have alerted the district judge that it would be unwise to put the two convicts in close proximity. In retrospect, this can also be argued that the attorney did not anticipate that Mary would be able to harm Duncan within the protected facility of a prison; however, she must be aware of the rate of prison crimes around the globe. 
It can be stated that Duncan faces a serious threat of being affected negatively due to Mary’s vengeful attitude. Therefore, it can be suggested that the attorney should immediately inform the district judge before a major increase in problems. However, the attorney herself faces high opportunities for facing major legal implications of not following the clause of exception during the first incident.
2. Sanctions for failing to disclose a threat 
The crime-fraud exception in the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality has often resulted in a situation, where the attorney’s have failed to reveal potential threats and life harming situations. As suggested by Mueller et al. (2018), the district and the high court judges have the liberty to evaluate the severity of the threat they chose to hide from the legal authorities and take disciplinary actions accordingly. In such scenarios, the attorneys also enjoy certain liberties such as they are not obligated to report a threat, instead they can choose to refrain from soliciting for that particular client further. However, if they choose to continue soliciting for the client causing or have the potential to cause harm to human wellbeing, they may be charged with impeachment or prison sentences based on the severity of the issue. 
In case a client is potentially causing danger to a large amount of population through putting chemical waste in a river used for drinking water, the attorney is liable to report this to the judiciary. This issue is a direc 

Enjoy big discounts

Get 35% discount on your first order

We have made it easy for you to place an order


WHATSAPP: +1 (209) 260-9257

TWITTER: Our Twitter Page

EMAIL:[email protected]