Legal Communications and Ethics Assignment 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Legal Communications and Ethics Assignment. Great details and HD awarded...

Description

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

ROSE

ISSUE: Rose discussed the individual assignment with her friend who has almost finished the assignment in order to use this information in her own assignment. Rose and Ivy discuss the relevant issues and cases that should be used, and consequently, Rose writes her assignment based on their discussion which is structured upon Ivy’s submission. Moreover, Rose as a law student should be very aware that this is collusion as Ivy assisted her to substantiate the ideas and main arguments in her criminal law assignment. RULE AND RELEVANT LAW: Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy outlines the responsibilities that promote student academic integrity, whilst upholding academic standards which applies to all students of Deakin University. Students who have allegedly breached this policy are investigated according to the Student Academic Integrity procedure in a fair method which appropriately applies consequences for breaches of academic integrity. Rose has breached Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy under the following Sections: -

Section 4(10)(a)(ii)

-

Section 4(10)(a)(i)

-

Section 4(10)(b)

-

Section 4(12)(c)

Further, using relevant case law: ● Legal Services Commissioner v Keough (Legal Practice) [2010] VCAT 108

APPLICATION: Under Section 4(10)(a)(ii) of the Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy, it states that ‘Students will be familiar with and apply the principles of academic integrity including by: “submitting their original work”. Rose is clearly in

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

breach of this policy as she included the key issues and important cases that Ivy mentioned to include in her assignment, and therefore Rose did not submit “original work”. Furthermore, section 4(10)(a)(i) establishes that all students must comply “with instructions for assessment tasks”, which has been breached by Rose as she was aware that she is expected to complete the criminal law assignment individually and not in a group assignment, yet still discussed details of the assignment with Ivy. Section 4(10)(b) of Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy sets out that students must “ encourage other students to act with academic integrity”, nevertheless, Rose brought up the assignment with Ivy and instigated a discussion about its key arguments. Section 4(12)(c) outlines the breaches of academic integrity in relation to collusion, stating that its definition is “A student working with another person to submit some or all of the other person’s work as their own or vice versa”, confirming that Rose has breached Deakin University’s Academic Integrity Policy by colluding with Ivy and submitting unoriginal work. Legal Services Commissioner v Keough (Legal Practice) [2010] VCAT 108 remains a relevant case law for plagiarism and breach of academic integrity. This case records that the respondent ‘William James Keough’ is found guilty of professional misconduct in relation to plagiarism by Legal Profession Act 2004 s.4.4.17. The tribunal decided this by discovering the misconduct at common law for the deliberate plagiarism for publication whilst studying at the University of Melbourne. This case law is relevant to Rose’s scenario as she has breached her University's Academic Integrity Policy by infringing the policy set out in Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy which is an expectation upon all of the university's students. Using this as relevant jurisdiction, Rose would be found guilty of misconduct at common law and a breach of Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy. CONCLUSION: Based on the preceding analysis, Rose would be found guilty of misconduct and a breach of Deakin University’s Student Academic Integrity Policy by violating the policy terms and not adhering to the rules set out in the policy.

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

HOWARD

ISSUE: Howard is in the process of applying for admission to the legal profession. During his practice legal training course at the College of the Law, he copied multiple paragraphs from his friend to include in his own submissions. Howard’s disclosure as part of his application for admission to practice will not be considered ‘full and complete, as required by law’ if he does not disclose the plagiarism incident at the College of the Law six months ago. Howard is under the impression that it is acceptable to hide this information as he claims it was a one-off incident and he has no formal record on his student conduct report. The issue is whether his disclosure is considered ”full and complete” although no formal record was made on his student conduct report. RULE AND RELEVANT LAW: The ‘Uniform Law and the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015’ determines that in order to be admitted to the legal profession, you must be ‘fit and proper’. These rules made by the Legal Services Council under Part 9.2 of the Uniform Law establish the admissions procedure, including the Disclosure statement. The objective of these rules is to detail all aspects of admission to the legal profession in participating jurisdictions including: “(a) specifying the academic qualifications prerequisite and practical legal 

training prerequisite for admission; (b) accrediting and Re-accrediting law courses and providers of practical 

legal training; and 

(c) procedural requirements for admission to the legal profession.”

Section 10(f) specifies that in order to qualify for the admission the person must be “currently of good fame and character”. Section 17 details the requirements of an appropriate Disclosure statement which must be included in the admission to the legal profession. The rules of Uniform Law and the Legal Profession Uniform Admission include 7 clauses in relation to the

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

disclosure statement. Section (1) stipulates that an application must include a statutory declaration by the applicant which discloses “any matter to which a reasonable applicant would consider that the Board might regard as not being favourable to the applicant when considering whether the applicant is currently of good fame and character and a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Australian legal profession”. Section (2) establishes that every applicant must make a “ full and complete disclosure” as required by the law. Section (6) includes a requirement for any applicant who has made a statutory declaration must “read and understand those Disclosure Guidelines”. The Victorian Legal Admissions Board (VLAB) established the Victorian Legal Admissions Committee to judge applicants for admission in Victoria. The VLAB provides guidelines about the applicant's disclosure statements which include; a) When you do make a disclosure, you must do so honestly and candidly, and be full and frank in what you say b) To remind you that failure to do so, if subsequently discovered, can have catastrophic consequences. APPLICATION: Howard has not attained the appropriate requirements in his Disclosure statement as he has not disclosed an incident of plagiarism which breaches Section 17(1),(2),(6) of the ‘Uniform Law and the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015’. He has not shown that he is of “good fame and character” nor a “ proper person to be admitted to the Australian legal profession as his application portrays a false image of his character. Additionally, he did not make a “full and complete disclosure” which is required by the law. Therefore, he did not “understand those disclosure guidelines” which set out the requirements for an appropriate and acceptable application. Furthermore, Howard did not plan on disclosing his application honestly and candidly, which fails to follow the guidelines of the VLAB. CONCLUSION: Based on Howard’s intention to not disclose anything about the plagiarism incident,

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

Howard’s disclosure is not ‘full and complete’, as required by the law as he has not followed the requirements under ‘Uniform Law and the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015’. THOMAS: ISSUE: Issue of whether Thomas has breached any of the rules contained in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015. After completing his submissions in court, he interrupted the opposing counsel, being intervened by Justice Harrison so that Thomas would allow the opposing counsel to complete her submissions. Ignoring this request, Thomas continued to speak over Justice Harrison RELEVANT LAW: “The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules were made as the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 which commenced in Victoria and New South Wales on 1 July 2015.” ”The purpose of these rules is to help ‘solicitors to act ethically in accordance with principles of professional conduct established by the common law and these rules.” The following rules detail the role of a solicitor in relation to the relevant case: Under Section 4.1.3, it states that it is the responsibility of a solicitor to “deliver legal services competently, diligently and as promptly as reasonably possible” Section 3.1.4 sets out that solicitors must “avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence” Furthermore, a “solicitor must not allege any matter of fact in: (Section) 21.3.2 any submission during any hearing” Additionally, it is the solicitor's fundamental ethical duty to “act in the best interests of a client in any matter in which the solicitor represents the client” under Section 4.1.1.

Noa Biran 220271889 Word Count:

APPLICATION:

As a solicitor, Thomas must follow the rules contained in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015. Thomas is found in breach of multiple rules contained in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, as in this relevant case with Justice Harrison, he did not “ deliver legal services competently” as he interrupted the opposing counsel and was in breach of delivering his submissions reasonably. Section 3.1.4 states that solicitors “avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence”, and Thomas did not adhere to this rule as he acted unprofessionally and did not maintain his integrity whilst interrupting the opposing counsel and ignoring Justice Harrison's request to sit down. It is set out in these rules that a solicitor “must not allege any matter of fact in any submission during any hearing”, Thomas neglected to follow this as he interrupted the opposing counsel in the middle of her submission. Finally, it is the fundamental ethical duty of a solicitor to present the best interest of the client under S 4.1.1, and Thomas failed to do so as he ignored the requests of Justice Harrison and only sat down after a further three requests, which would not portray his client in the best possible light as Justice Harrison may have viewed this as a sign of lack of respect in their court.

CONCLUSION: Thomas is found to have breached several rules contained in the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 as he failed to follow the set out rules for solicitors....