Paralegal Case Study

BUS 206 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric Overview: Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, s ell services and products, and engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business worl d. Prompt: Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studies and compose a short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In e ach of the three reports, you will focus on areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study One: Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris directs Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a low-cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in newspapers, as we ll as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. After he uses it once, his face turns a permanent shade of blue. Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Empire Inc., file suit in the state of New York against Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt, and Ian, alleging negligence and seeking medical costs and compensation for the damage to his face and business reputation. It is discovered that PYR caused Margolin’s skin discoloration. The website for Funny Face states that anyone buying their product cannot take Chris, Matt, and Ian to court. Novelty Now’s contract with the three men states that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

A. Apply the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determine what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin ’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively. Consider federal court, state court, and long arm principles in your analysis.

B. Assume all parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case. Be sure to define the characteristics of each in your answer.

C. Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? D. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be hel d liable for criminal acts. E. Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now. F. Assume the use of the emulsifier PYR, at the direction of Chris, is a criminal offense. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss the potential criminal

liability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclusion. G. Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.

Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your submission should be a one- to two-page Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Citations should be formatted according to APA style. Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more in formation, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Case Study One: Rules of Jurisdiction

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s chol arly res earch to

s upport cl ai ms

Correctl y appl i es the rul es of juri s diction to the facts of thi s

cas e and determi nes what juri s diction(s ) woul d be appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t against Funny Face and

Novel ty Now

Appl i es the rul es of juri s dicti on and determi nes what

juri s diction(s ) woul d be appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t against Funny Face and Novel ty Now, but determi nati on

of juri s diction i s i ncorrect for thi s cas e

Does not appl y the rul es of juri s diction or determi ne what

juri s diction(s ) woul d be appropri ate for Margol i n’s l aws ui t

13

Case Study One: Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers i ns i ght, bas ed on s chol arly res earch, as to why the chos en

types of ADR woul d be appropri ate choi ces i n thi s s i tuati on

Anal yzes the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR and defi nes the

characteri sti cs of each

Anal yzes the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR, but anal ys is i s cursory or

does not defi ne the characteri sti cs of each

Does not anal yze the advantages and di s advantages of two types of ADR

13

Case Study One:

ADR Preference

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and

offers concrete exampl es to s ubs tanti ate and comprehens i vel y des cri be why the chos en types of ADR woul d

be preferred by the res pecti ve parti es

Appl i es knowl edge of ADR and

di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR each party (Funny Face, Novel ty Now, and Margol i n) mi ght prefer and l ogi cal ly defends choi ces

Appl i es knowl edge of ADR and

di s cus ses whi ch types of ADR each party mi ght prefer, but di s cus sion i s cursory and/or does not di s cus s reas ons for

preferences , or defens e i s i l l ogi cal

Does not appl y knowl edge of

ADR or di s cus s whi ch types of ADR each party mi ght prefer

13

Case Study One: Criminal Acts

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s peci fi c, appl icable rul es of l aw

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es whether or not corporati ons and/or corporate

offi cers may be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es whether or not corporati ons and/or corporate

offi cers may be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts, but di s cus si on i s curs ory or l acks detai l

Does not appl y concepts of cri mi nal l aw or di s cuss whether or not corporati ons and/or

corporate offi cers may be hel d l i abl e for cri mi nal acts

13

Case Study One: Potential Criminal

Acts

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a , and i deas are wel l s upported wi th annotati ons from the text

Correctl y i denti fi es , per the cl as s ification of cri mes i n the text, any potenti al cri mi nal acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty

Now

Identi fi es any potenti al cri mi nal acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty Now, but cri mi nal acts i denti fi ed are i ncorrect for thi s

cas e

Does not i denti fy any potenti al cri mi nal acts by Funny Face and/or Novel ty Now

13

Case Study One: Potential Criminal

Liability

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and ci tes s chol arly res earch to s upport anal ys is

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es the potenti al cri mi nal l iability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and Novel ty

Now and i ncl udes s upport for the concl us i on

Appl i es concepts of cri mi nal l aw and di s cus s es the potenti al cri mi nal l iability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and Novel ty

Now but does not i ncl ude s upport for the concl us i on, or s upport i s weak

Does not appl y concepts of cri mi nal l aw or di s cuss the potenti al cri mi nal l i ability of Funny Face, Chri s , Matt, Ian, and

Novel ty Now

13

Case Study One: Ethical Decision-

Making

Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a and offers i ns i ght i nto the

rel ati ons hip between ethi cs and l aw

Accuratel y appl i es at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-

maki ng to eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy

Appl i es at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-making to

eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy, but appl i cation of gui del i nes has

gaps i n accuracy or l ogi c

Does not appl y at l eas t three gui del i nes of ethi cal deci s i on-

maki ng to eval uate ethi cal i s s ues wi thi n the context of the cas e s tudy

13

Articulation of Response

Submi s s i on i s free of errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, and organi zati on and i s pres ented i n

a profes s i onal and eas y to read format

Submi s s i on has no major errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on

Submi s s i on has major errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that negati vel y i mpact

readabi l ity and arti culation of mai n i deas

Submi s s i on has criti cal errors rel ated to ci tati ons , grammar, s pel l i ng, s yntax, or organi zati on that prevent unders tandi ng of

i deas

9

Total 100%