- “Direct in-person communication with a prospective client” may convince the client to make quick decisions without thinking straight and without making a proper reflection of the discussion (Orlik, 2014). The main purpose of this type of communication is for attorneys to provide benefits about their law firm in order to persuade the client to work with them (Orlik, 2014). “Truthful, restrained advertising concerning the availability and terms of routine legal services” is different because it is a public advertisement that provides information about a law firm and people have an opportunity to talk to the law firm if they are interested (Orlik, 2014).
Both activities are not protected by the First Amendment or the Bar because direct in-person solicitation and the advertising can both harm or wrongly persuade clients (Orlik, 2014).
- Based on the facts, Ohralik heard about Carol’s accident, he visited the hospital, and he offered to represent her (Orlik, 2014). Ohralik visited McClintocks’ house without being invited, he had a concealed recorder, he offered his services and benefits to the McClintocks’, and they agreed to the representation because they stated that they had spoken to Carol on the phone earlier and she agreed (Orlik, 2014).
Ohralik also visited Wanda Lou’s house and offered her services as well and she agreed to be represented by Ohralik, even though she didn’t understand everything clearly (Orlik, 2014). Carol and Wanda did not have a good opportunity for reflection before agreeing to the representations because their decisions were made quickly without taking sufficient time and thinking properly (Orlik, 2014).
- Ohralik violated ethical rules by providing Wanda with a “tip” about the uninsured-motorist clause because he went to Wanda’s house without her permission, he hid a recording device that he used to record most of the conversation, and the discussion was ineffective because Wanda did not understand most of the information (Orlik, 2014).
- I think that Ohralik’s behavior was not the same as Mrs. Primus’ behavior in In Re Primus (1978), 436 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 1893. The facts of the case are similar to Ohralik’s case, but the major difference is that Primus was working for a non-profit organization and she decided to give advice to two women who were being sterilized. Primus was not disciplined because she was not trying to represent the women in the case for her personal financial gain.
- Ohralik claimed that the Court needed to prove that his representation caused harm to Carol or Wanda, but providing this proof was unnecessary (Orlik, 2014). The Court’s position was that the only proof required to discipline Ohralik in this case was that his solicitation “exerted pressure” or demanded an immediate response without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection” (Orlik, 2014). The Court did not need to show that Ohralik’s representation caused harm to the clients (Orlik, 2014).
References
- Orlik, D. K. (2014). Ethics for the Legal Professional, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
