Guidelines And Ethical Standpoint : Richard And Bridget Essay
The recommended approach to be pursued will be contrary to Richard and Bridget, it shall be to argue a ‘no fault or negligence’ exception for Samantha and to adopt Natalie’s information as admissible evidence to present a relationship of trust between Natalie and her coach Elizabeth. During engagement as an officer of the court ASCR 4.1.5 provides the ASCR and relevant law must be adhered to. As a guideline to the mindset behind the approach adopted, the form of lawyer adopted shall be the ‘responsible lawyer’ as stated in Inside Lawyers’ Ethics as ‘focusing on the lawyers role as an officer of the court…….. has an overriding duty to maintain justice’
This provides a mindset of being an officer of the court. A lawyers duty to the court and he administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duties. The driving ethical duty in the adopted position is the paramount duty imposed on a lawyer, the duty to the court and the administration of justice. Reid LJ affirmed this at common law in Rondel .
The duty to the court, overrides the duty to client, acting as a ‘responsible lawyer’ would act in this manner as opposed to an ‘adversarial advocate’. R4 of the ASCR outlines other fundamental ethical duties owed by a lawyer. Hence in acting for the client, we shall raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question to help client’s case.
The stance of being a ‘responsible…