Introduction
As a start to this paper, I would like to first address the issue that as paralegals, we will most likely never be asked to address the issue of a test case regarding euthanasia as it far exceeds our scope of practice. That being said, I found this topic to be one of interest to me as I am very much a pro-choice person and it is a goal to challenge myself to see things from a different vantage point. For the purposes of this paper, I will address this as if it were in our permitted scope of practice. With this in mind, I plan to discuss paralegal rule 3.04 and how it could be perceived in this matter. I hope to address the ambiguity between a moral dilemma of being pro-life with a client who is pro-choice and an ethical boundaries …show more content…
Blacks’ law dictionary defines it as a situation that can undermine a person due to self interest and public interest. It is further defined in Ethics and Professional Practice for Paralegals as an interest, financial or otherwise, that may negatively affect a paralegal’s ability to fulfill her professional and ethical obligations to a client. With these two definitions it is clear to see that there is a definitive conflict between your fiduciary duty and personal beliefs. This conflict between your personal opinions/beliefs and your duty to your client would make it virtually impossible to properly advocate for your client. Keeping the definition in mind, and setting aside your duty as a paralegal, a question one might ask is knowing your feelings, do you then have a moral obligation to disclose your feelings to your client. Because ethics and morals are inextricably linked even as a person of good moral character you should advise your client of this feeling and give them a chance to find someone who shares their …show more content…
The bright line rule is a general rule that a lawyer may not represent a client whose interest are directly averse to the immediate interest of an other client. One might argue that this rule would extend to representing a client and your own personal conflicts. In order to be certain that your client is getting fair and equal treatment they must be advised of this conflict so that they can make an informed decision. In paragraph 31 of this decision, the court found that a firm cannot act for a client whose interests are averse to those of an other client unless both clients’ consent whether their matters are related or not. They go further in paragraph 40 to state that if the bright line rule is not applicable, the firm must decide whether the new retainer will create a substantial risk of impaired representation, if no, then they can accept the retainer. Therefore, in deciding if this matter could be represented by you, you must look within your moral and ethical boundaries and decide just how substantial your belief is and if you feel that you will significantly impair your client’s case by taking on this matter when it is in direct contrast to your
As a start to this paper, I would like to first address the issue that as paralegals, we will most likely never be asked to address the issue of a test case regarding euthanasia as it far exceeds our scope of practice. That being said, I found this topic to be one of interest to me as I am very much a pro-choice person and it is a goal to challenge myself to see things from a different vantage point. For the purposes of this paper, I will address this as if it were in our permitted scope of practice. With this in mind, I plan to discuss paralegal rule 3.04 and how it could be perceived in this matter. I hope to address the ambiguity between a moral dilemma of being pro-life with a client who is pro-choice and an ethical boundaries …show more content…
Blacks’ law dictionary defines it as a situation that can undermine a person due to self interest and public interest. It is further defined in Ethics and Professional Practice for Paralegals as an interest, financial or otherwise, that may negatively affect a paralegal’s ability to fulfill her professional and ethical obligations to a client. With these two definitions it is clear to see that there is a definitive conflict between your fiduciary duty and personal beliefs. This conflict between your personal opinions/beliefs and your duty to your client would make it virtually impossible to properly advocate for your client. Keeping the definition in mind, and setting aside your duty as a paralegal, a question one might ask is knowing your feelings, do you then have a moral obligation to disclose your feelings to your client. Because ethics and morals are inextricably linked even as a person of good moral character you should advise your client of this feeling and give them a chance to find someone who shares their …show more content…
The bright line rule is a general rule that a lawyer may not represent a client whose interest are directly averse to the immediate interest of an other client. One might argue that this rule would extend to representing a client and your own personal conflicts. In order to be certain that your client is getting fair and equal treatment they must be advised of this conflict so that they can make an informed decision. In paragraph 31 of this decision, the court found that a firm cannot act for a client whose interests are averse to those of an other client unless both clients’ consent whether their matters are related or not. They go further in paragraph 40 to state that if the bright line rule is not applicable, the firm must decide whether the new retainer will create a substantial risk of impaired representation, if no, then they can accept the retainer. Therefore, in deciding if this matter could be represented by you, you must look within your moral and ethical boundaries and decide just how substantial your belief is and if you feel that you will significantly impair your client’s case by taking on this matter when it is in direct contrast to your