Part One
There are two main ethical issues involves when lying to gather information for court purposes. These problems include arguably witness intimidation and respect for privacy. According to ABA (2016), such issues would diminish an informant’s right to autonomy. Affected persons would argue for evidence admissibility during a hearing. Here, the justice system has the power to discard the information as collected for the wrong reasons. Therefore, it is important that law firms follow the right procedure when gathering information (ABA, 2016).
Law firms may use information posted on social media to present and prepare for cases. However, they should not lose sight of the fact that owners of such platforms have the right to privacy. Therefore, it is vital that they adhere to similar principles used in the access of information from private places. For instance, they should have a valid reason for gathering, maintain, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The only time they enjoy immunity is when the information collected presents a real threat to public safety (ABA, 2016).
Part Two
Electronic filing does, to a significant extent, prevent missing deadlines. According to Geraghty and Michmerhuizen (2014), it offers a new, convenient, and cost-effective way for busy law firms. However, efficient filing requires companies to keep their official email addresses within arm’s reach in the systems used by the office. They should also keep their inboxes lean for automatic operations. Finally, it is important to keep an electronic reminder that allows for timely updates on deadlines (Geraghty & Michmerhuizen, 2014).
The following are some of the preliminary steps lawyers should consider before utilizing electronic filing systems. First, they should name the documents appropriately for easy identification and differentiation. Second, they should carefully review the information entered into the system as well as the document before uploading. Third, official court documents require an electronic signature from authorized individuals. Fourth, the filing fees would also require an electronic proof of transaction. Lastly, the assistant should check the confirmation upon filing completion (Geraghty & Michmerhuizen, 2014).
Geraghty and Michmerhuizen (2014) advice lawyers to documents files electronically. The authors reason that signatures act as an act of authenticating and affirming the document and its contents. Signatures would ensure that unauthorized persons do not gain ulterior motives on the lawyer’s behalf. However, lawyers may have paralegals sign unofficial documents on their behalf only under their supervision. Such situations should only happen when the individuals in question provide a clear statement of their position at the law firm.
The law allows a paralegal to sign routine and non-substantial correspondences on behalf of the attorney. Such documents include emails to clients, other lawyers, and courts. This signing should be under the supervision of a lawyer who has full knowledge of the document’s contents. However, the law disallows similar activities done on pleadings. It argues that Paralegals are not lawyers hence lack the authority to sign pleadings (Geraghty & Michmerhuizen, 2014).
References
ABA. (2016). Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations . Retrieved from American Bar Association : http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_pinvestigate.html
Geraghty, P., & Michmerhuizen, S. (2014, May). That signature moment. Retrieved from American Bar Association : http://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/2014/may-2014/that-signature-moment.html
