Memorandum of Fact and Law

Discuss about the Report for Memorandum of Fact and Law.

Introduction

In order to solve the legal problems the law firms as well as non-legal firm deploy lawyer along with the paralegal as an assistant for the lawyer, who help them prepare the legal case for the lawyers. Besides this, the paralegal employ by the non law firms in order to make the legal procedures in favor of the companies (Hall, Wiecek, & Finkelman, 1991). The paralegal serve the companies   by their legal knowledge and intelligence and in this way they play important role in the legal procedure of the court. According to the given case Lisa McMann is a paralegal and she was granted her license by the law society of Upper Canada in 2006.  However, when the paralegal fails to manage their responsibility due to negligence or performing any misconduct the Law society posses the authority to revoke the license of the paralegal, here in this specific case Lisa McMann has failed to perform the duties and responsibilities and there are several complaints of misconduct has come against her thus, the Law society is looking for revoke her license (Ingleby & Gibby, 2016). 

Facts

With the consideration of the case of the Lisa McMann, the facts that are covered in the case are the case of the Karzwell and the case of the B.Baker. The fact of the case of the Karzwell is notified by the launching of the case when the cease of the Annual Report took place for the Lisa McMann. This case provide the fact that the Lisa McMann owed to Karzwell a sum of $14,232.98 whose investigation was made by the Law Society Investigators and henceforth the legal obligation was made against for the Lisa McMann. This made the suspension of  Lisa McMann over the period of three months and thereby as per the rules of the administrative suspension, for the purpose of starting from the beginning, the payment of  $2000 must be made in return for the penalty (Isenberg, 2002).

The other fact of the B.Baker determines the detainment of the disability report which comes under the Social benefits Tribunal. It provides the information of the not accepting the case of the disability because of her dislikes. It henceforth leads to the cancellation of the legal authority from the side of the Social benefits Tribunal. This type of the attitude of the Lisa McMann made her to the terminated from the continuation of the legal authoritative terms and thereby leads to the cancellation of the licence ("Law Society of Upper Canada v. Leahy - - - 21.8.2014 - Cases.legal", 2016).          

Issues

The revocation of the paralegal’s license is the appropriate judgment for the Lisa McMann with the issues of the behavioral conduct that are covered in this case study. It thereby represents the violations of the legal rules, unethical conduct undertaken during the procession of the court and the unethical behaviour that is represents with the clients. According to the Law of the society Act s.27, determines the cancellation of the license for the inhuman and the unethical behaviour undertaken by the Lisa McMann. It also indicates the issue of the reconsideration of the licensing by the Law Society. This issues that are also depicted in this case is also seemed to be the refusal of the issue or renewing of the license, accepting the surrender procedure of the license in lieu of the revocation of the unethical behaviour and thereby the refund to the customer is also made with the order of refunding to the customers or the clients (Peart, 2011). The issue of the dishonesty is also created in the form of the misrepresentation or the commitment of the fraud and the violation of the provisions issued by the administrative regulations.  

Law

LSUC V. Gebremariam

In this particular case it can be seen that a similar type of incident occurred while a paralegal of Toronto Tadesse Gebremariam was suspended when a panel of Tribunal discover him involving in professional misconduct. The effect of the suspension takes place while he has satisfied the terms and conditions in 2012 July. He is forever suspended under the prior order. Gebremariam has given 2 years for paying $15,000 to the Law society as per the cost award. The hearing division of the Tribunal of the law society explored that the paralegal Tadesse Gebremariam has failed  to take care of the tribunal along with the other licensees with sincerity, fairness courtesy as well as respect at the time of performing many highway traffic Act subject. Besides this, he was unsuccessful in co-operating the law society investigations which are under his conduct as he failed to respond the correspondence of the law society ("Professional Misconduct – Paralegal Suspended", 2014). Apart from this, he was failed to make payment the cost ordered by the law society

LSUC V. Leahy

In this specific incident also a lawyer named Timothy Edward Leahy had been suspended by The Law Society of Upper Canada and the lawyer was the respondent and The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) is the applicant of the case. As per the case Leahy was unsuccessful to co-operate progressive discipline as he was not succeed to co-operate in the investigation of the Society in the year of 2002 (Staudohar, 2010). Beside this, the lawyer warned about for his several activities of incivility in the year of 2004. For this reason he was suspended for nine months and for his misconduct he was suspended for another 4 months and he had to pay penalty of $8,932.50.   

LSUC V. Kulidjian.

There is another important case, where similar types of incidents happened. In this specific case Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) is seeking to revoke the license of a lawyer named Ari Benjamin Kulidjian for the same misconduct with his profession. In this case the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) was again the applicant and the lawyer Ari Benjamin Kulidjian was the respondent. The case was dated 1^st June 2015. In this case also the lawyer was failed to co-operate with the Law society in two investigation cases however, the potential cause of his failure was the traumatic death of his wife. For the misconduct and negligence the lawyer was suspended for one month and he has to pay a penalty of $3,000 to the law society.

LSUC V. Andrea Lynn Roberston

In this particular case also of the similar types, where for the professional misconduct the lawyer has been suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). Here in this case also the applicant was Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) and the respondent was a lawyer named Andrea Lynn Roberston. Here in this case the lawyer was found guilty of misconduct with her former client from whom she received $120,000 while the client was ill as well as hospitalized.   

Discussion

1 a.

This discussion is dependent on the fact of the nature of the misconduct that the Lisa McMann repeatedly violated the rules of the Law Society is given on the basis of the case of  are as follows:-

Geb:- As per this law case, the Law society asked the panel to revoke the licence of the Paralegal and the penalty is issued in the form of the costs incurred by the administration society on the Lisa McMann on violating the rules of the Law Society. 

Leahy:- As per this case, the decision made on the misconduct is proven to be on the serious end of the scale and should not go on with further proceedings. It should lead to the investigation on the basis of the intransigent attitude of the Paralegal.

Kulidjian:- As per this case, the discussion proves the misconduct of the fully ad the prompt communications and thereby the investigation must be made with the creation of the appropriate penalty on the Paralegal.  

Geb:- As per this case, the professional misconduct is proved by the order represented on the July 13,2012.

Leahy:- As per this case, the professional misconduct is proved by the order given on the September 1, 2014. 

Kulidjian:- As per this case, the engagement of the professional misconduct is proved by the order of the misconduct made on July 21,2014.

1 b.

Geb:-  Yes the penalty is increased every time with the consideration of the new incidents of misconduct.

Leahy:- Yes the penalty is increased every time with the consideration of the new incidents of misconduct with the implication of the cancellation of license.

Kulidjian:- Yes the penalty is increased every time with the consideration of the new incidents of misconduct with the implementation of the harsh penalties for the misconduct that may lead to the imprisonment.

The mitigating factors that exist in the case of Lisa McMann are the immediate action must be taken with the cancellation of the license, and the suspension of the Paralegal for the cause of the misconduct. At the same time, the monitoring of the suspension must be made in order to keep the public safe from the Paralegal.

Geb:- As per this case, the submission of the paralegal’s prior discipline, his failure for the costs awarded to him and the failure in co-operating to investigate matters helps in the creation of the mitigating factors.

Leahy: - As per this case, the appropriate following of the guidance of the paralegal must be followed by the paralegal and thereby the misconduct allegation can be removed with the approval of the license.

Kulidjian:- The mitigating factors indicates the investigation made by the Law Society which is provided in this case study.

Conclusion

Professional misconduct among the lawyers are increasing and for this reason there are many lawyers and paralegals are becoming suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). Lack of concentration, deficiency of attachment and negligence are the factors that determine the professional misconduct of the lawyers and paralegals (Zavala & Roberston, 1953). Therefore, the lawyers have to perform their duties and responsibilities more sincerely and honestly so that they cannot be trapped   for any professional misconduct. 

Use of the Secondary source in the paper

LSUC V. Andrea Lynn Roberston case study provides the professional misconduct of the laws with relevance to the case study that I given in this memorandum. It thereby is related to the case provided for the memorandum and henceforth the use of this case is seemed to be fully satisfied.

Bonus question

The two strengths of mine as a legal writer are the accuracy and the conciseness. The accuracy helps me drafting the memorandum with preparing the prior proceedings before presenting in front of the court or the agency. The conciseness helps me to remove the unnecessary facts and the statements while reviewing the analysis made on the case.

The weakness that is present in me is the public speaking. It can be mitigated by the process of the reading books, taking classes and volunteering the projects. These steps help me to recover my weakness.

References

Hall, K., Wiecek, W., & Finkelman, P. (1991). American legal history. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ingleby, E. & Gibby, C. (2016). Law and ethics: problematising the role of the foundation degree and paralegal education in English post-compulsory education. Research In Post-Compulsory Education, 21(1-2), 151-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2015.1125671

Isenberg, D. (2002). The GigaLaw guide to Internet law. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Leahy - - - 21.8.2014 - Cases.legal. (2016). Cases.Legal. Retrieved 5 August 2016, from https://cases.legal/en/act-ca1-467409.html

Peart, N. (2011). Far and away. Toronto: ECW Press.

Professional Misconduct – Paralegal Suspended. (2014). Paralegal Scope Magazine. Retrieved 5 August 2016, from http://paralegalscope.com/professional-misconduct-paralegal-suspended/

Staudohar, P. (2010). Arbitration 2009. Arlington, VA: BNA Books.

Zavala, S. & Roberston, W. (1953). Iturbide of Mexico. The American Historical Review, 58(2), 405. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1842247