Category: Homework Assignment Help

1. Expo 2021 Dubai-the most sustainable World Expos ever- case study .
• Minimum work requirements: • In the work, please refer to the most important concepts related to the topic: definitions, evolution/history of sustainable development, principles of sustainability, types of sustainability, explain why is sustainability so important, the leader’s role in developing in the sustainability in the organization, etc. • Please choose and describe tas many examples of solutions/behaviors/actions/strategy from Xxpo 2021 Dubai. Which can support the statement “ sustainability is ingrained in everything we’ve been doing – from buildings and construction to establishing a lasting legacy long after Expo is over”.
• Next, I am asking for a critical assessment of the examples described from the perspective of the author/authors of the work, in the context of sustainability philosophy implementation.

“Please see previous orders to complete this paper”. “Please see Final project White Paper”.
Compile your work to date into one cohesive white paper document
Add a Conclusions and Implications section
Add an abstract
Carefully edit your entire white paper for submission.
Carefully review the feedback I have given you and make any needed changes.
Add a title page.
Add a short abstract that informs the reader what will be addressed.
Write a short introduction (no more than 1-2 paragraphs) that introduces your topic.
Add headings. See the white paper resources for guidance, particularly the Purdue OWL resource.
Be sure that your References page includes all references you have accumulated over this project.

You are an independent paralegal. You have been approached by Pam Okker, who wants to sue her neighbour, Lew Hoad, in Small Claims Court, for building a fence that is inside her property line. She produces a recent survey that shows that the fence was, in fact, constructed five inches inside her property line. She wants it torn down.

You draft and issue a plaintiff’s claim, requesting an order that the fence be torn down. Hoad, who is unrepresented, states in his defence that the fence was built in accordance with local bylaws, and with Pam’s knowledge and consent.

While in court one day on another matter, you get into a conversation with another paralegal, Martha Kenison. You mention Pam Okker’s case in general terms. Martha laughs and says, “Small Claims Court has no equitable jurisdiction. You can’t get an order for that kind of relief in Small Claims.”

You go back to your office and look up equitable relief in a legal dictionary. You also check the Courts of Justice Act. Martha is right—in Small Claims Court, you cannot ask for an order that the fence be torn down.

You decide to advise Pam to settle her claim against Lew Hoad. If Pam will not take your advice, you will cease representing her.

What professional and ethical issues arise in this situation?

 

You are a paralegal whose practice is largely confined to Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal matters. You are representing a landlord who has been charged with a number of offences contrary to s. 206 of the Tenant Protection Act. The offences include altering the locking system without an eviction order, using harassment to force a tenant to vacate the rental premises, and failing to maintain the rental premises.

When you are preparing for the hearing, the landlord’s property manager tells you that she can herself give evidence to refute the charges of illegal changing of locks and harassment. She also claims to have a building inspector who can give evidence on the landlord’s behalf regarding the charge of failure to maintain. When you raise the issue of outstanding work orders against the building, many of which have only recently been corrected, she laughs and says, “You don’t have to worry about that. The building inspector has been working on our buildings for a long time. He’ll say whatever we need him to say.”

What should you do?

You are representing the plaintiff, Paul Ehrlich, in a Small Claims Court proceeding. During the 12-month period from January 2004 to December 2004, Paul advanced money from time to time to the defendant, Debbie Virk, with whom he was cohabiting. Debbie was out of work during that period, and Paul helped support her. When he began lending her the money, she agreed to pay it back. Paul claims that he loaned Debbie almost $12,000. He has waived the balance owing over $10,000 in order to bring his claim within the monetary jurisdiction of Small Claims Court.

Paul does not have receipts or cancelled cheques to prove the amount of the loan. All he can produce are his bank books for 2004. He claims that any amounts over $500 that were withdrawn were loans to Debbie. You have explained to him that there may be evidentiary problems with this allegation.

In February 2005, Debbie found a job. Her starting salary was $45,000 per year. In June 2005, Debbie broke up with Paul and moved in with a new partner. According to Paul, Debbie made no payments on the loan between the time she found work and the time she moved out. Paul is very bitter about the whole thing. “I gave her all that money because I loved her,” he told you during the initial interview. “What did it get me? I should have spent it going clubbing.”

In her defence, Debbie admits to owing $7,000 and proposes paying the amount owing in monthly installments of $350. You think this is a reasonable settlement, given Paul’s lack of proof of the loans. Paul is outraged. “I already gave up $2,000!” he shrieks. “I’m not going to lose another $3,000 on top of that!”

At the pre-trial conference, Debbie, who is unrepresented, shows up with her new partner. Paul spends his time eyeing the new partner and muttering insulting remarks about his appearance and intelligence to you.

Debbie offers to settle the matter for $7,500. She says she will pay Paul $500 up front and the rest in monthly installments of $350. The pre-trial judge remarks that she considers this a reasonable compromise, given Paul’s lack of evidence of the loans. Paul jumps to his feet and shouts, “She owes me $12,000! What do I have to do to get it back!” He slams out of the judge’s chambers.

You get up to follow him. As you are walking past Debbie’s chair, you roll your eyes and smile. Debbie smiles back at you.

You find an interview room and sit down with Paul, who is still upset, to discuss things. When you tell him you think it is a reasonable offer that he should accept, he blows up again. “But she owes me the money!” he shouts. “Whose side are you on? What do I have to do to get my money back?” At this point you lose your temper. “If you’re not going to take my advice, I’m quitting!” you shout. “Get yourself another agent to follow your goofy instructions!” You storm out of the courthouse.

When you get back to your office, you draft a reporting letter and final invoice on Paul’s file. You then move $500 that you have been holding as a money retainer out of your trust account into your general account. As far as you are concerned, that is the end of the matter. The trial is scheduled for a month’s time.

What professional and ethical issues arise in this situation?

You represent the plaintiff, Igor Herrera, in a Small Claims Court collection proceeding. The amount claimed by your client is $3,500. The defendant, Cicely McPhee, is represented by Sharon Harper, an agent with whom you have had dealings in the past and whom you happen to despise.

You attach copies of all documents on which Igor intends to rely to the plaintiff’s claim, as required by rule 7.01(2)2 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

When Harper faxes you a copy of McPhee’s defence and the defendant’s claim, there are no documents attached, although rules 9.02 and 10.02 require disclosure. The defence states the following: “The defendant denies any and all liability and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.” The defendant’s claim states that the Igor Herrera owes Cicely McPhee $5,000 for services rendered pursuant to a contract between the parties. There are no details as to the services provided.

You make repeated demands, both oral and written, for particulars of the defence and defendant’s claim and for copies of the defendant’s documents. There is no response from Harper.

At the pre-trial conference, you advise the pre-trial judge of your difficulties in obtaining particulars and copies of documents, and request an order for disclosure. The judge agrees, and sets a deadline of 15 days after the pre-trial date. Harper fails to comply with the court order.

A trial date is set. Two weeks before the trial, after numerous telephone calls and emails, Harper finally faxes you her client’s particulars and documents.

A couple of days before the date set for trial, you receive a call from Harper. “My personal assistant lost your plaintiff’s claim and the attachments,” she says casually. “Can you fax me a copy? It’s pretty urgent.”

You happen to know Harper can’t afford a personal assistant.

What should you do? Give reasons for your answer.

 

You are retained by Francie Alpert to represent her in a Small Claims Court debt collection. The defendant, John Bagnoli, owes your client $9,000. At the initial meeting, you explain to Francie Alpert that your fee will be contingent upon the amount that she recovers in the matter and the stage of the proceeding at which she recovers it. If the defendant admits owing the amount claimed after being served with the plaintiff’s claim, your fee, exclusive of disbursements, will be 15 percent of that amount. If the matter goes to pre-trial hearing, your fee will be 20 percent of any amount recovered. If the matter goes to trial, you will charge Francie 25 percent of any amount recovered at trial. If she is unsuccessful, you will charge her nothing.

After a brief discussion of these terms, Francie Alpert agrees to this arrangement. You draft the plaintiff’s claim and serve it on John Bagnoli, who delivers a defence in which he denies all liability and makes a counterclaim against Francie for $7,500.

When you receive the defence and counterclaim, you telephone Francie and tell her that you will have to change the payment terms to reflect the extra work involved in defending the counterclaim. At this stage, about a month after your initial meeting with Francie, you draft a formal contingency agreement and arrange for her to come to your office to go over it with you and sign it. The written agreement contains the original terms set out above. It also states that, in the event the defendant delivers a counterclaim, you will charge the client 30 percent of any amount recovered at the pre-trial stage, and 35 percent of any amount recovered at trial. Francie reads the agreement over. After some argument, she signs it. You give her a duplicate original.

After this meeting, Francie becomes very difficult to deal with. She phones and emails you constantly to find out how the action is progressing. She bombards you with irrelevant and scurrilous information about the defendant. When you try to reason with her, she shouts at you or hangs up the phone. She acts as if she owns your life.
At the pre-trial stage, John Bagnoli offers to withdraw the counterclaim and pay Francie $4,500 in full and final settlement of the matter. Both you and the pre-trial judge consider this a reasonable offer; but when you take your client aside to recommend that she accept it, she becomes extremely angry and abusive. She shouts at you and threatens to fire you, in front of several onlookers. The matter ends up going to trial.
After a three-hour hearing, the judge awards your client the full amount claimed, minus $3,000 owing to the defendant on account of the counterclaim, for a total award to Francie of $6,000. You are very relieved by this outcome.
When you send Francie your invoice for $2,100, being 35 percent of $6,000, she refuses to pay. After several demand letters, you end up commencing a claim against her for the amount owing. All that the claim states is that your client retained you to represent her in a certain matter, that there is a signed contingency agreement and that she was successful at trial. There is also a calculation of the fee owing.

Francie delivers a defence in which she denies all liability. In it, she alleges that you made serious misrepresentations about the terms of the retainer agreement and that you were incompetent in your handling of her claim. Numerous instances of your alleged incompetence are cited. Francie claims that you never returned her phone calls; that you constantly pressured her to settle so that you could collect your fee; and that you did not properly prepare for trial, with the result that she did not recover the full amount claimed.

Before answering the following questions, review the section on contingency fees in chapter 3.
a. What otherwise confidential information are you permitted to disclose (i) to support your claim and (ii) to defend yourself against the allegations of misrepresentation and incompetence?
b. Are there any weaknesses in your position? If yes, what are they, and what could or should you have done to avoid them? If no, why not?
c. Are there any weaknesses in Francie’s position? If yes, what are they, and what could or should Francie have done to avoid them? If no, why not?

You are a field placement student completing your work experience in a law firm. You have signed a confidentiality agreement. Your principal has been giving you a lot of interesting work, including meeting with clients and accompanying him on court appearances. He does a lot of family law work.

You are particularly troubled by one file. After a 15-year marriage and three children (two daughters and one son), the husband and wife separated. The children live with the mother. The daughters are 14 and 13, and the son is 10. Until recently, the father had regular access to the children. However, the oldest daughter has made allegations of sexual abuse by the father. All access by the father to his children has been terminated until the allegations can be investigated.

Your firm represents the wife.

You and your partner have been together for two years, and are planning to get married. One evening, you tell your partner a few details about the file. You mention the husband’s first name and the allegations of sexual abuse. The fact that the husband used to work as a shoe salesman also slips out. “Married for 15 years, three children together, then they separate and all of a sudden he’s a sexual monster. Would you ever do that to me if we separated?” you ask.

“I know that guy!” your partner exclaims. “You know Susan in Receiving at work? She’s the wife’s best friend. It’s all she talks about—this shoe salesman who’s trying to jerk her friend around. Wait till I tell her about this one. She told me he was a piece of scum, but I never knew he’d go this low!”

“You can’t tell anyone about this!” you exclaim. “I only mentioned it because it’s been bothering me! If anyone finds out, I could be in big trouble!”

Your partner, always practical, just shrugs. “Who’s gonna find out it came from you?” she says. “The way Susan and her pal go on about that guy, she’s probably already been told all the gruesome details.” However, after some discussion, she agrees not to tell anyone.

Discuss this situation, with specific reference to the ethical and professional issues involved in it. Support your analysis with details.

 

Joseph Kutar meets with you at your office to discuss a residential tenancies matter. Joseph’s landlord has just commenced an application to evict him on the grounds of substantial interference with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. You read over the allegations in the landlord’s application. While you are reading the application, Joseph reads the labels on some of the client files stacked on your desk. “I know that landlord,” he says, indicating one of the files. “I used to live in one of their buildings. A real slum.” You move the files to the floor behind your desk. Then you ask Joseph some questions, taking notes of his answers.

On the basis of what he tells you about his recent conduct, you think there is a good chance Joseph will be evicted if the matter goes to a hearing. He has steady employment, and can afford to move elsewhere. You advise him that the best course of action would be a mediated settlement that would give him some time to find another apartment and move out. When he hears this, Joseph’s behaviour becomes belligerent and threatening. “I pay my rent,” he says, “and I’m not moving anywhere. I’ll find someone else who knows what they’re doing!” He snatches the landlord application off your desk, and leaves your office.

The next day you have some hearings at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. While you are waiting outside the hearing room for your matters to be called, you get into a conversation with a couple of other paralegals who do a lot of residential tenancies work. One of them, Alice Fisher, says jokingly to you, “I’m doing some work for a former client of yours, Joseph Kutar. He told me he had to fire you because you kept giving him bad advice. What’s the real story?”

“Joseph Kutar!” exclaims Brad Adams, the other paralegal. “I know that creep! Big guy, red beard, grey hair down to his shoulders! I hope you got some money out of him, Alice. He stiffed me on a file a couple of years ago.”

Alice shrugs. “He gave me $1,000 up front. So I don’t care how crazy he is.” Turning to you, she says, “But I’m not sure I trust the guy. According to him, he’s a model tenant, but there’s got to be some reason the landlord wants him out so badly. What did he tell you? And, more importantly, what did you tell him to make him so angry?”

Several people are sitting or standing close by and can overhear your conversation.

Discuss this situation, with specific reference to any ethical and professional issues it presents. Support your analysis with specific details.

We have discussed previously the potential tension between assuring individual justice in the criminal justice process and achieving social justice outcomes at the state level. For years the argument has been made that drug-related arrests (in our case, drug arrests) are a major driver of disproportionate impacts on minority populations. In this paper, you are going to address how a policy regarding drug arrests could be used to achieve both individual- and group-level outcomes that achieve equality, equity, or both.

Your paper will require you to follow the eightfold path outlined in the Bardach & Patashnik text (I recommend you use the steps as headers in the narrative). The key policy issue is how to ensure individual justice and achieve equivalent group outcomes around drug arrests. To produce your policy statement, you will provide the following:

A- A brief discussion of population-based proportional differences in drug arrests in Florida (see resources below) and how these are hypothetically related to differential criminal justice outcomes among majority and minority populations.
B- Following the path, address each of the steps along the way to arrive at a brief policy statement. Use peer-reviewed research, not journalistic or advocacy-produced data, for any supporting documentation you want to include.
C- Summarize with a brief discussion of why your proposed policy solution will or will not achieve the desired outcome of ensuring individual justice and equivalent group outcomes in regard to drug arrests in Florida.

Eightfold Path (Use As Guideline In Organization of Essay)
1.Define The Problem
2. Assemble Some Evidence
3. Construct The Alternatives
4. Select The Criteria
5. Project The Outcomes
6. Confront The Trade-Offs
7. Stop, Focus, Narrow, Deepen, Decide!
8. Tell Your Story

This paper is to be no more than 10 double-spaced, 12-point font (Times Roman is the standard) pages in length (approximately 2500 words). The page length does not include cover page (please put your name on it!), references, or any attachments you may need to make your point. In the end, your grade will reflect the logic of your argument as you proceed from problem to policy solution using the eightfold path and empirical data.