Category: Harassment – Sexual Harassment
-
Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct
Under Rule 6.1-1, a lawyer is responsible for directly supervising non-lawyers assigned tasks and functions. This rule imputes a requirement for the non-lawyer to be competent, though there are no competency requirements for non-lawyers. Non-lawyers are to have their work reviewed by the lawyer frequently. There must be a close contact relationship, and the lawyer…
-
Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, Code of Professional Conduct
Under rule 6.1-1, a lawyer must directly supervise staff and assistants to whom the lawyer delegates tasks and functions. The burden rests on the lawyer to educate a non-lawyer concerning the duties that the lawyer assigns to the non-lawyer and to supervise the manner in which duties are carried out, and the work should be…
-
Law Society of British Columbia, Rules of Professional Conduct for British Columbia
Rule 6.1-2 of the BC Rules of Professional Conduct indicates that lawyers supervising students are responsible for providing students with meaningful training and exposure to and involvement in work that will provide students with valuable knowledge and experience of the law. Supervising lawyers are responsible for students acting under the supervising lawyer’s direction. Rule 6.3-1…
-
Law Society of Alberta, Code of Conduct
Rule 6.1-1 indicates that a lawyer has complete professional responsibility for all business entrusted to him or her and must directly supervise staff and assistants to whom the lawyer delegates particular tasks and functions. The lawyer may permit a non-lawyer to act under their supervision as long as the lawyer maintains a direct relationship with…
-
Nancy M Maurer & Robert F Seibel, “Addressing Problems of Power and Supervision in Field Placements”
This article examines the power dynamics that exist in the supervision of law students in legal clinics. The authors explore the potential consequences of failing to address the issues arising from those dynamics, including ethical ramifications, termination of the program, or possible worksite sexual harassment. This paper suggests that supervision is the primary vehicle for…
-
Michael Ellis, “Harmful Supervision, a Cause for Alarm: Comment on Gray et al (2001) and Nelson and Friedlander”
Ellis comments on the supervision literature as of 2001, noting that “bad” supervision (e.g., not meeting with the supervisee) was lumped in with “harmful” supervision (e.g., sexual harassment). Ellis tries to differentiate between the two, noting that “bad” supervision “does not result in any psychological or emotional trauma or harm to the supervisees or to…