Having critically evaluated the facts as per the case provided there before for analysis, we can proceed to point out that this specific task seek to majorly focus on the relationship that exists between the solicitors and clients altogether. In this case, Charlie, our legal practitioner has been entrusted with the duty of representing Lucy who’s being accused of committing murder. As an officer of the court, there might as well be instances when counsel can be called upon to act on behalf of their designated client as it is the case in for Charlie and Lucy. While moving forward to handle such a matter, the solicitor is primarily expected to handle such a client in a professional manner that’s bound by ethics. The legal domain remains to be one of the few career options that depict a noble standing and thus practitioners in such a field should try as much as they can to embrace sanity as well as unquestioned levels of discipline and high standards of professionalism.
Even as we proceed to look into the facts of this matter, we can tentatively applaud Lucy, who is being charged in this case scenario for being honest with the person who has been appointed to represent her. It should be noted that the first step towards establishing a concrete form of relationship between the counsel and accused lies with the trust which the two create as they interact and deliberate on the issues that seem to be impending in line with their case. While being guided by the provisions encompassed within the Solicitors Code of Conduct, legal practitioners are thus expected to exercise the duty of care towards their clients. In other words, this means that the solicitors are bound by the law to work towards ensuring that the interests of the client are well catered for and as addressed therewith. The practitioner will be in a position to identify some of the major issues that need to be addressed within the trial and thus try to engage his client in a manner that would see them sail through while always ensuring that his actions do not in any way conflict with the Code of Conduct or even defeat a cause that seeks to foster administration of justice. In other cases, we can progressively affirm that the solicitor should try to avoid any forms of situations that might thereafter trigger their conduct to influence the matter at hand in a manner that appeals to their self-interest as opposed to the clients’ interests.
It should also be noted that the solicitor doesn’t owe any duty to the client’s opponent. They should try as much as possible to focus on making a case that would as well be in favor of their client. While acting in the best interest of the client, one should be working in a manner that aligns with the legal and regulatory requirements that seek to foster the administration of justice. Not in any way should an advocate who acts as an officer of the court discharge his duties in a manner that frustrates the court processes. In fact, the legal practitioner is bound to act in a way that focuses on ensuring that we achieve a state of social justice altogether. Working within this competitive jurisdiction requires that professionals within the legal platform are either regulated or checked by the stipulations of the Legal Services Act as well as the Bar Code of Conduct.
To majorly highlight on how important a client can be within this profession, we can start by spotlighting the first Section of the Code of Conduct which entirely tries to focus on how the client should be handled by the legal practitioner(s). First and foremost, it should be affirmed that the services offered to the client are of great competence and exceptional quality as per se. On the other hand, in the matter of Medcalf v. Mardell, Weatherill and Another,the honorable court expressly pointed out the need for the solicitors to avoid instances where their conduct is said to take precedence over their client’s interests. Additionally, as noted from here above, the learned counsel is under no obligation to care about the other opponent’s client interests. Similarly, once the solicitor has taken up the matter and proceeded to act on behalf of the client, they are expected to act in a manner that protects the client from the court as well as the opponents. This will thus involve the process of the learned counsel making sure that their client is up to speed with the proceedings as well as the progress of the matter before the court of law. In the same case, the court highlighted on cases whereby the duty of the solicitor also encompasses cases of avoiding any probable cases that might as well result in situations that pose conflict of interest altogether.
While making reference to our specific matter, Charlie is therefore obligated under the prescriptions of the Cab Rank Rule to undertake any legal matter that falls within his scope of practice as long as one is said to be competent to handle such a matter. Such a rule was majorly elaborated within the rC29 and it connotes that a legal practitioner receiving instructions from a client based on the fact that you are said to be in a position to handle such based on your experience within the legal platform, the n you should proceed and take up such instructions irrespective of whether you have an issue with the client’s identity, the nature of the case, contradiction with your personal beliefs as well as the mode of remuneration being offered therewith. In other words, such a principle and rule of practice was adopted to ensure that the legal field fostered the issuance of services and justice for all citizens irrespective of their affiliation. A classic example with reference to the same is that of New Zealand and Australia whereby a Rule 1.02 of the Australian Law Society connotes that a defense lawyer cant proceed to refuse handling a matter on grounds that consider the case to be inappropriate, for if they do so, they may as well face a penalty that poses some limitation onto their practicing certificate.
Therefore, Charlie should tentatively proceed to handle the matter irrespective of his position and standing bearing in mind that he is fostering the administration of justice altogether while acting to the best of his abilities.
The other issue that we can as well shed some light in this case would be that of client-solicitor privilege which revolves around the information that the client shares with his legal representative. As an officer of the court, the Code of Conduct focuses on such a confidential relationship to limits whereby disclosure is permitted by the law. 
Such is said to be working in tandem with the position of the advocate exercising his duty to the court to uphold the law at all times possible. Chapter 5 of the Code of Conduct also insists that while exercising such prescribed duties, the solicitor shouldn't mislead the court and should also try to comply with all the available orders therewith. While working within the confines of these legislations and legal provisions, Charlie as an officer of the court will thus strive to ensure that the client is well catered for while justice is being administered and such will be primary to their interests. There are times when the solicitor may proceed to put the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime even when they do not have any evidence to tender in favor of their matter. Such should be the manner in which Charlie is expected to act while acting on behalf of Lucy.
ABA. (2018). Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope/
Brian Odongo. Introduction to Chapter 2 of Trial Advocacy A: The Cab Rank Rule. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/10898831/NTRODUCTION_TO_CHAPTER_2_OF_TRIAL_ADVOCACY_A_THE_CAB_RANK_RULE
McDermott, E. (2015). The Cab Rank Rule – Time for Reform? The Student Lawyer. Retrieved from http://thestudentlawyer.com/2015/02/16/the-cab-rank-rule-time-for-reform/
Medcalf v. Mardell, Weatherill and Another, (2002). Retrieved from https://swarb.co.uk/medcalf-v-mardell-weatherill-and-another-hl-27-jun-2002/
Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct 2011, Retrieved from https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page\
The Bar Standards Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/bsb-handbook/the-handbook-publication/
www.parliament.uk. Judgments - Medcalf v Weatherill and Another. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020627/medc-3.htm
 (2002), Para. 52
 The Bar Standards Board Handbook
 Brian Odongo, Introduction to Chapter 2 of Trial Advocacy A: The Cab Rank Rule. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/10898831/NTRODUCTION_TO_CHAPTER_2_OF_TRIAL_ADVOCACY_A_THE_CAB_RANK_RULE
Hire one of our experts to create a completely original paper even in 3 hours!