For the following argument: Select symbols and be sure to d…
Questions
Fоr the fоllоwing аrgument: Select symbols аnd be sure to define them аccurately. [2 points] Put the argument into standard form as a hypothetical or disjunctive syllogism. [4 points] Identify the form (e.g., "affirming the necessary condition," or "denying the disjunct"). [2 points] Determine whether it is valid or invalid. If the argument has a missing premise or conclusion, complete the argument to make it come out valid, putting the added proposition in square brackets. [2 points] If someone had been snooping around here last night, there’d be footprints, right? Well, those are clearly footprints. So someone must have been snooping around here last night.
Lаwyer wаs а law clerk fоr Judge when Lawyer was in law schооl. As a clerk, Lawyer prepared legal research for cases being heard in Judge’s courtroom, including for a products liability lawsuit brought by Plaintiff against Corporation (“Plaintiff v. Corporation”). After being admitted to practice in California, Lawyer became an associate for Big Law Firm in California. Big Law Firm represented Corporation in the Plaintiff v. Corporation lawsuit pending before Judge. Lawyer worked on the Plaintiff v. Corporation case and communicated with Corporation’s top management regarding the alleged defects in the space heater manufactured by Corporation at issue in the Plaintiff v. Corporation case. Although Big Law Firm represented Corporation in other products liability cases involving other products, Lawyer was not involved in any other Corporation matters handled by Big Law Firm. At Lawyer’s first court appearance before Judge in the Plaintiff v. Corporation case, while Lawyer was an associate at Big Law Firm, Judge disclosed to all parties to case that Lawyer was her former law clerk but “as far as I recall, he was not involved in anything to do with this case.” Not wanting to contradict or embarrass the Judge, Lawyer did not disclose that he performed legal research regarding the lawsuit. Judge asked if anyone had any objection to her continuing to preside over the case, and no one objected. Later, Plaintiff’s counsel learned that Lawyer had in fact performed legal research on the Plaintiff v. Corporation case and objected to Law Firm’s continued representation of Corporation. To avoid any issues, Lawyer then left Law Firm and joined Small Law Firm as a partner. Lawyer was thrilled to share in Small Law Firm’s profits as a partner. Small Law Firm represented Client who had a pending products liability case against Corporation regarding an allegedly defective toaster manufactured by Corporation. Lawyer did not work on Client’s matter. Corporation objected to Small Law Firm’s representation of Client asserting that Lawyer had a conflict of interest. Lawyer denied any involvement or knowledge regarding defective toaster cases handled by Big Law Firm for Corporation. Analyze whether or not the Lawyer, Judge and the law firms complied with the applicable rules of professional conduct.