Lawyer Howe violated Rule 1.3 of ABA's law not to act reasonably and quickly to represent clients because he did not exist. He also violated Rule 5.5 (b) of the Aba Act after Karl told him that he had a new case and did not appropriately respond to Karl's proceedings. Carl failed to present himself and his place as a quasi-legal who violates EC-1.7 (a). Carl accepted the case he agreed with the client on all fees and gave them legal advice, and this was not acceptable and unauthorized of the law violating EC-1.8 (a). Carl inadvertently revealed the other client's information by allowing Zeke to use the phone as the documents were in the scenery. That violates EC-1.5 (a) Because Karl knew about secret information. Karl violated Rule 1.6 of ABA when he said to Jane do not to forget the alimony in the reception area. He also learned that Jane has the company that the government does not realize and do not pay any taxes. This fraudulent activity was aware disclosed to Howe lawyer, who violates EC-1.3 (e), and Aba Rule 1.6 (b2) and 4.1 (b).
…show more content…
It also allows it to fill in interrogations with false statements and thus violate Rule 4.1 (a) of the ABA Act. Carl was talking on the phone and talking about client’s information, and Jane was still in which violation of EC-1.5 (a) and (f). Carl also recorded the meeting for two hours and was supposed to be only 20 minutes. He violated his trick in setting the time. EC-1.2
It also allows it to fill in interrogations with false statements and thus violate Rule 4.1 (a) of the ABA Act. Carl was talking on the phone and talking about client’s information, and Jane was still in which violation of EC-1.5 (a) and (f). Carl also recorded the meeting for two hours and was supposed to be only 20 minutes. He violated his trick in setting the time. EC-1.2