Hi there, could you help me by applying the ABA rules with the subsections of each rule or comments on the rules that apply to each question?

Focusing the answers on the following Rules Rule 5.2: Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Law Firms And Associations (a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

COMMENT. Law Firms And Associations [1] Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a violation by the fact that the lawyer acted at the direction of a supervisor, that fact may be relevant in determining whether a lawyer had the knowledge required to render conduct a violation of the Rules. For example, if a subordinate filed a frivolous pleading at the direction of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of a professional violation unless the subordinate knew of the document's frivolous character.

[2] When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship encounter a matter involving professional judgment as to ethical duty, the supervisor may assume responsibility for making the judgment. Otherwise a consistent course of action or position could not be taken. If the question can reasonably be answered only one way, the duty of both lawyers is clear and they are equally responsible for fulfilling it. However, if the question is reasonably arguable, someone has to decide upon the course of action. That authority ordinarily reposes in the supervisor, and a subordinate may be guided accordingly. For example, if a question arises whether the interests of two clients conflict under Rule 1.7, the supervisor's reasonable resolution of the question should protect the subordinate professionally if the resolution is subsequently challenged.

Rule 8.3: Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

(c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_

B. Problem I

Stephen Green is a senior associate at Swenson & DeLuca, a mid-sized firm that specializes in litigation and real estate law. Stephen has been at Swenson for only 18 months, but he first spent almost six years in the regional counsel's office of the Environmental Protection Agency. He has become his firm's resident expert on haz- ardous substances and toxic torts. Sheila Dern, one of the firm's real estate partners, asks Stephen to meet with one of her best clients, George Reynolds. George owns a building that had been leased for the last 10 years to a company whose business used extensive quantities of a chemical called Thorzac. The company recently went bankrupt, and now George is looking to sell the building.

At the meeting, George tells Stephen and Sheila that he has been approached by Doggy-Days, a company that boards and trains dogs, about purchasing George's building. But George knows that the prior lessee intentionally placed some Thorzac in a man-made cement pond because it seemed to help the growth of the pond's lily pads. Stephen and Sheila tell George that not disclosing to the buyer the presence of hazardous waste could make him liable for civil and even criminal penalties. "I know that," says George, "but what about this Thorzac? Is it hazardous or not? Look, I don't know anything about disposing of hazardous waste. If this stuff is considered hazardous, my once-valuable piece of property may not be worth spit. And I need to move quick; this dog guy is ready to buy." Sheila asks Stephen to research Thorzac and get back to her within three days. Stephen reviews the federal law and his state's laws. He knows that a waste is deemed hazardous if it either is specifically identified as such by the EPA, or if it is: toxic; corrosive; an irritant; a "strong sensitizer"; flammable; or generates pressure through decomposition. Stephen finds that Thorzac has not been specifically identi- fied by the EPA as hazardous. So Stephen knows he must determine whether it has any of the proscribed characteristics. Thorzac has only come into common usage in the last several years. After some initial investigation, Stephen doesn't think Thorzac fits the last four definitions for hazardous waste, but he is concerned about what appear to him to be its corrosive and toxic properties. Stephen uncovers three studies that examine Thorzac. The earliest, conducted under a grant from Thorzac's manufacturer, concluded that its toxicity could not be established. Two other studies, one at a Midwestern university and another more recent study by a public interest research group called SafeChem, show prelimi- nary results that indicate toxicity, and showed that prolonged exposure to Thorzac causes birth defects in rats. Neither study proved that the chemical had an effect on humans. Moreover, the SafeChem study also concluded that Thorzac has corrosive properties, and that it is capable of penetrating building materials so that the fumes may be present long after the chemical itself has been removed. Stephen meets with Sheila. Privately, he is convinced that a regulatory agency using the common definition of "toxic," would conclude that Thorzac fit the defini- tion: "having the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to humans through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the body surface." Stephen suggests they hire an expert, but Sheila reminds him that time is too short, and that George wants to move on the sale right away. "Besides," she says, "you're the expert." They then discuss Stephen's research. "What does all that mean, Stephen?" says Sheila when Stephen is finished. "Look, I just talked to George this morning, and he made it real clear that what he needs is an opinion letter from us saying Thorzac is not a hazardous substance, as that term is now defined. He's sitting on a 4.5 million dollar property that he may not be able to sell to anyone."

"I understand that, Sheila," says Stephen, "but I think Thorzac fits the definition of a hazardous substance. I don't see how I can write an opinion letter saying it's not." "Nonsense," Sheila replies. "We can't base our opinion on a study by SafeChem. They're not close to being neutral. Besides, their results are just preliminary, and other studies disagree. If that's all you've been able to find, I don't have any problem opinion letter that says that Thorzac is 'not a hazardous substance as that with an term is now defined.' What's wrong with that? And by the way, I want you to write this, not me. You're the guy who worked for the EPA. George is going to need your opinion, not mine."

Questions

1. Should Stephen write the opinion letter? May he? Can he refuse the assignment before he gets started? How?

2. If Stephen is considering refusing to write the letter, how sure would he have to be that he is right? What if although he believes Thorzac is hazardous, he cannot be certain that the EPA would reach the same conclusion, at least based on current evidence? Is this enough to warrant his refusal to write the letter?

3. In the end, what alternatives, if any, does Stephen have to writing the letter?

4. Would Stephen be in a different position if Swenson & DeLuca had been hired to defend George in a lawsuit filed by Doggy-Days for George's failure to disclose the Thorzac?

5. Suppose that, on Sheila's advice, George does not disclose the presence of Thorzac to Doggy-Days. Should Stephen tell Doggy-Days about the Thorzac and the dangers he believes it presents? Should he tell Doggy-Days to keep the dogs out of the pond?

II.

In reviewing his bills for submission at the end of the month, Stephen asked Shei- la's secretary for her "pre-bills" to make sure Stephen had the correct dates for client meetings and his conferences with Sheila. In reviewing her pre-bills, however, Ste- phen discovers that Sheila had billed for over 20 hours of meetings with him while he was out of the country on vacation. What should Stephen do with this informa- tion? And what is the likely cost to him if he takes action?