1. In your opinion, are ethical rules concerning "Conflicts of Interest" necessary to prevent attorneys from acting in their own self-interest? Explain. In my opinion the ethical rules concerning "Conflicts of Interest" necessary to prevent attorneys from acting in their own self-interest. The best reason is coming from the case Zimmerman vs MAHASKA, which says, "Second, the court ruled that the rules of professional conduct regulating confidentiality by attorneys applied similarly to non attorneys such as secretaries and paralegals.

Because Kan. R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(b) did not allow for the implementation of a screening device for lawyers in this situation, it likewise did not allow for the use of a screening device for non lawyers." [1] http://www.lexisnexis.com.postu.idm.oclc.org/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=42JN-NG40-0039-42GD&csi=6496&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true

Any person that works at a law firm and wants to help themselves get a head will ultimately do whatever they can to do so. So i believe that the rules that are in place are for a reason. As this case showed the fact that a secretary from the law firm new the information from the case that they were working on leaving the firm and acquiring the appellants firm could be used as self-interest. Even though attorney's have confidentiality agreements, does not mean that non lawyers do so. "Because of imputed conflicts, one person's conflict of interest is applied to the entire firm, all of its lawyers, and even paralegals conflicts may subject a firm to disqualification." [2]Lecture unit 4(not sure who to cite) Any person working for a firm can be the reason for a firm to be disqualified from a  case. So definitely want to be up to the rules and regulations of "Conflict of Interest".

2. Identify all parties or entities (a/k/a "stakeholders") who have an interest in assuring that "Conflicts of Interest" do not adversely effect the civil justice system. Describe the interest(s) of each "stakeholder. The stakeholder Jill Moffitt, a legal assistant and bookkeeper at Dickson & Pope, in my opinion it would be said that the conflict of interest would be that the case would be unresolved and it would have to be retried. James M.

Crowl, the attorney for Zimmerman, it would not be in the best interest of the attorney because what he would want is to get the case solved for his/her client. In this case they want it to think that Ms. French is the primary one that is of interest, since she did know that both of these law firms were working on case against each other and she still looked for a job with the opposing firm. Imagine if every non lawyer that has been hired by an opposing firm finds a way to take it to civil court to get the case retried its absurd. If there is evidence of foul play then yes take it to court because it could be mistrial but I don't think every case is to be pulled in front of a judge.

3. Read Zimmerman v. Mahaska Bottling Co. What alternatives, if any, exist to remedy the ethical dilemma(s) presented? Explain. After reading the case, I want to say that a remedy to this ethical dilemma would be that law firms should investigate the person who they are hiring. Maybe they could have postponed Ms. French from working at the firm until the litigation case was over. I want to think that even non lawyers have ethical rules, that obligate them to secrecy of the information they might have obtained while working there. There has never been any concrete laws on how to handle non lawyers with private information about clients who have hired previous law firms one has worked at. A law firm should have "advance waivers of conflicts of interest" I read in our lecture that some law firms acquire these so they can prevent these kinds of scandals.

4. Do you agree or disagree with the Zimmerman court's decision? Support your position. In reference to the Zimmerman case I agree with the decision the judge made" [HN9] Our holding today does not mean that qualification is mandatory whenever [***28] a nonlawyer moves from one private firm to another where the two firms are involved in pending litigation and represent adverse parties. A firm may avoid disqualification if (1) the nonlawyer employee has not acquired material and confidential information regarding the litigation or (2) if the client of the former firm waives disqualification and approves of the use of a screening device or Chinese wall. " So according to this case there are a few alternate decisions that can occur as long as the client agrees.

5. Have your "core" beliefs concerning "Conflicts of Interest" changed as a result of studying the materials outlined in this chapter? Explain. My beliefs have not changed, even though I do believe that there are more ways to handle a case like this, then automatically assume that the non lawyer would become a confidential informant.

Reference: file:///C:/Users/ezpawn1/Downloads/270_Kan._810,_19_P.3d_784,_2001_Kan._LEXI.PDF