Ethics: Practical Applications for a Law Firm's Support Staff-part Ii
| Publication year | 1992 |
| Pages | 707 |
| Citation | Vol. 21 No. 4 Pg. 707 |
1992, April, Pg. 707. Ethics: Practical Applications for a Law Firm's Support Staff-Part II
In regard to ethics, everyone in a law firm---not just the attorneys---should be familiar with and follow the Code of Professional Responsibility(fn1) ("Code"). Part I of this article, which appeared in the March issue, discussed how the Preamble, Preliminary Statement and Canons 1 through 4 of the Code apply to legal support staff. This Part II examines Canons 5 through 9, which concern, respectively, exercising judgment, competent representation, zealous advocacy, improving the legal system and professional impropriety.
Canon 5 states that "[a] lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client." Protecting against conflict of interest is critical for law firms. Procedures for doing so are a key responsibility of managers and administrators. Such procedures must include at least a manual conflicts-checking system and may include an automated system which integrates with a master client file. It is common for malpractice insurance carriers to require that any automated system have a manual system back-up.
Logically, the magnitude of effort to comply with this Canon is directly proportional to the size of the firm. Nevertheless, small firms must not disregard the potential for liability. The most dangerous place to have a conflicts-checking system is also the most common: in a senior partner's memory.
Canon 6 says that "[a] lawyer should represent a client competently." While this Canon is brief, it is of considerable importance to the support staff. Therefore, it merits many practical considerations.
There is a vast amount of case law relating to conduct which does not meet the responsibility of competent representation. Liability for violation of the Code is strictly the attorney's. One author cites a case in which the defendant attorney
argued that information and deadlines were not brought to his attention and that employees had failed to carry out his directions. The court was not impressed with the attorney's assertions: "... [Even] if his employees had failed to carry on in his absence, no matter what the reason, it was his ultimate responsibility to see that his business went forward and if in any sense delayed by an inefficient office staff, then he had the duty to correct it."(fn2)
A further indication of the scope of this problem is the number of cases handled by the Supreme Court Grievance Committee that have been filed against lawyers for "neglect and delay in the performance of their duties." According to the authors of an article published in 1987 in The Colorado Lawyer,
[m]any of these complaints could be avoided by the prompt return of telephone calls, written status reports to clients and other commonsense measures that are designed to keep clients advised. Moreover, procrastination has no place in the practice of law.(fn3)
Job Descriptions and Performance. Job descriptions, job specifications, training and employee performance are not often discussed as ethical considerations. Instead, they are used as bases for such things as performance appraisal, merit increases and promotions. Personnel managers can promote compliance with
To continue reading
Request your trial