From the get-go, we get to one of the more interesting ethical fact patterns in the season thus far: Harvey Specter represents McKernan Motors, and its new CEO, Robert Stensland, wants to ship the manufacturing of the company overseas. Harvey doesn't like that idea and wants to look through the bylaws to oust the CEO, because he believes its in the best interest of the company to stay in America. Let's start with the basics: the client here is not the CEO but the company, McKernan Motors. However, as CEO Stensland is a duly authorized constituent speaking on behalf of the company (MR 1.13(a)). While Harvey finds that the CEO's interests are adverse to the long term interests of the company, that's just his opinion, and the CEO is exercising his business judgment as CEO not as an individual. Therefore, the interests of the company are not adverse to the interests of the CEO, who is merely exercising his business judgment to ship labor abroad as CEO. As Jessica says to Harvey later in the episode, "That is not your call. You are an attorney. This is the internal business of McKernan Motors...I don't think you have any business telling that man how to run his company." And she is absolutely correct, as explained by comment [3] to Rule 1.13, "When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer's province." Harvey is acting in a way adverse to the company because he thinks its in their best interest to go another way, but in doing so, he is acting adverse to the client's wishes (because Stensland is speaking for the client) and so arguably, Harvey is violating Rule 1.2 where it says that "...a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued." Most likely Jessica would not be in violation of 8.3 here however, because Harvey's offense is probably not substantial enough to warrant punishing her for failing to report his offense.
Violation of 5.3(c)(1)
Near the end of the episode, Mike Ross says that because Dominic wasn't given three days notice, he wasn't actually fired, and can therefore petition the board of directors because he is an employee. This is a lie, that he tells Harvey he made up on the spot later. Mike, if he was a lawyer, would be violating 8.4(c) because by lying he has engaged in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." Furthermore, they are now representing the wealthy hedge fund investor who wants to buy the company, and so Mike is also more specifically violating 4.1(a), which states that in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly "(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person" (here, the board of directors). Harvey, as Mike's supervising attorney, now has knowledge of the specific fraudulent conduct but by doing nothing he is choosing to ratify the conduct, in violation of 5.3(c)(1).
123movies - After watching the pilot episode I was pleased from what I saw. The episode was long enough to give us a glimpse into some interesting characters. There seems to be a lot to go around with both leads social lives and how they impact the secondary characters. There Is no shortage of eye candy. I did find some of the time lines a bit of a stretch, but nothing major. I most enjoyed how the writers took the time to give good background material on just about the whole cast witch I think Is becoming so rare, knowing this info helps to get into these characters from the start. I recommend this show to viewers who like a lawyer type show with just a touch of softness.
ReplyDeleteSee more:
watch all the money in the world putlocker
the end of the f * ing world 123movies
young and hungry putlockers
annihilate synonym