Attorney Fink Violated Professionals Rules of Conduct

Attorney Fink Violated Professionals Rules of Conduct

Attorney Fink Violated Professional Rules of Conduct

In this case, we are looking at if Melvin Fink violated ethical standards based on the advice that he gave to his client Robin Busy. What was determined is that he did not act inappropriately. However, the ethical standards he used when working with his client are questionable at best (which created the conflict).

In the case study, Melvin Fink violated his basic responsibilities as an attorney. This is because his client Robin Bushy filed for divorce and engaged in fraud at his direction. What happened was he settled the case surrounding the assets that both her and her husband (Jeffrey) owned during the marriage. However, despite this fact there were issues surrounding a Subaru that was in both their names. Under a prenuptial agreement the assets that were in each person's name was considered to be their own with the decree saying, "Each of the parties is awarded the personal property in his or her possession free and clear of any and all marital right or claim of the other." This is significant, because under the basic divorce covenant there was the assumption that the automobile was in Robin Bushy's name.

A few months after the decree was issued, Bushy decided to trade in the automobile. The problem was that the vehicle was listed in her name and that of her husband. Unsure about what to do Bushy contacted Fink and asked him if she could sign her ex-husbands name to the title of the car. She subsequently signed her husband Jeffrey's name and represented this signature to the dealer as his own. Once this was discovered, is when the various legal problems began to surface. This is because, the act of her signing the title is considered to be fraud and a misrepresentation of the material facts. In defense of these actions, Fink claimed that he encouraged her to do these activities as the simplest way to resolve the situation. This is significant, because it is showing how there are ethical conflicts in the way this issue was originally handled and the advice Fink gave his client to resolve the issue. Once this occurred, is when he would face the possibility that he deliberately violated a host of ethical guidelines.

As a result, a motion was filed in court talking about how Fink had violated a number of different provisions of ethical standards. These include: DR 1-102(A) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 7-102(A)(7) (counseling client in conduct attorney knows to be illegal or fraudulent). This is considered to be an infringement of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a result, the court ruled that Fink had violated DR 1-102(A). However, Fink appealed the decision to the Special Conduct Board. They determined that Fink did not violate DR 1-102(A)(4) or 7-102(A)(7). This is when they dismissed the petition against Fink. Once this occurred is when Special Bar Counsel upheld the decision of the Special Conduct Board. As they found that Fink was not in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4).