Issue: Why did the owner AMI and paralegal continue to work on the plaintiff's case? Reason: Mullen was unsure of what attorney she worked under after Jescavage left AMI. While being a paralegal she was aware that her duty is to work under an attorney. Mullen knowing that Baily wasn't the attorney that was over her. Mullen should have not continued to work on the plaintiff's case. McClellan was wrong for signing off on settlement checks, and forging signatures of the clients. While Mullen was on trail McClellan should have been on trial for forgery. Decision: The court ruled that Mullen was practicing as a attorney. Not once did she make the plaintiff's and McClellan aware of her duty as a paralegal. Willingly knowing that as a paralegal you must work under an attorney. The cases should have not been completed by Mullen. The plaintiffs should have been told that Mullen was a paralegal once they were introduced to the AMI agency. Referring the plaintiffs to another attorney within the agency would have saved Mullen for being on trial. Conclusion: Mullen was negligent in many ways, but the court considered her to be err negligent. Knowing what her duties as a paralegal. The court could have tried her for misrepresentation for completing attorney standards of care. The court didn't hold her accountable as a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The elements of negligence were established. Questions 1.How dose the court define "the practice of law"? The court define ' the practice of law" as not just appearing in court but it includes legal advise, counsel, preparation of the legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights is secured. 2.What is the standard or duty of care that this court imposes on a paralegal who does not have a supervising attorney? The standard or duty of care in this court is an attorney is th degree of care, skill, diligence, and knowledge commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable, careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in Washington. 3.What action does the court suggest that a paralegal take when it becomes clear that there is no supervising attorney? The court suggest that the any deficiency in the quality of the supervision or in the quality of the paralegal's work goes to the attorney's negligence not the paralegal. 4.Why should a paralegal contact the supervising attorney immediately upon being given a case? The supervising attorney should be contacted immediately because the attorney must review the case.
Why is this page out of focus?
Because this is a Premium document. Subscribe to unlock this document and more.