Casey is morally qualified to accept the case, as stated by Rule 19-301.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct on competence. The Maryland courts can manage Jones Act cases, which is the first justification. Although it can be tried at the state level, the case involves a federal law. Second, the rules stipulate that any lawyer, despite of experience, may take on a case. The competence is usually the problem. The lawyer should thoroughly research the case before filing it to determine its viability. (Baum 2). Casey is permitted to speak with any additional counsel or colleagues. The rules clearly state that an attorney needs not to have special training or prior experience to handle any legal case. It is however imperative that Casey thoroughly prepares for the case. A case such as Jones Act case needs major litigation and complex transactions which mean that Casey needs to be adequately prepared.
Case 2
The case being discussed can be answered through Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 19-301.4 on communication. According to the rule, an attorney should promptly communicate with the client regarding any decision or circumstances that require a client’s consent. Moreover, the rules also state that an attorney is required to consult with and secure consent from a client before making any decision regarding the case. In such case, Windsor failed to abide by these rules or the general clause on communication hence making it an ethical case of negligence. Because of the previous, the client is allowed to sue Windsor and his firm. According to Mallen et al (2017), the client can present a complaint to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. The office will then help the client to establish the appropriate course of action.
Works Cited
Baum, David B. Art of Advocacy Series: Preparation of the Case. LexisNexis, 2017.
Mallen, Ronald E., and Jeffrey M. Smith. Legal Malpractice. Vol. 2. Thomson West, 2007.
