On February 27, 2020, Eager Paralegal arrives at Honest Law Firm, the law office who represents his opponent in the case of Smith v. Jones.Eager Paralegal works for the Aggressive Law Firm.The Aggressive Law Firm represents Plaintiff Smith; the Honest Law Firm represents Defendant Jones.Eager Paralegal is scheduled to pick up a voluminous production of documents from the Defendant's counsel in the Smith v. Jones lawsuit.Eager picks up two boxes of documents and hauls them back to his office approximately two blocks from the Honest Law Firm.

When he gets back to his office, Eager discovers a stack of documents inside one of the boxes with the label "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED."Eager reads the first page of these documents marked "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED" and discovers that the document is entitled "Trial Strategy for Defendant Jones."He isn't sure how to proceed, and walks down the hallway to speak to his supervising attorney, PUSH IT TO THE EDGE ATTORNEY.This attorney listens to Eager's concerns about looking at privileged documents that were inadvertently produced by the Honest Law Firm.The attorney smiles and says, "I can't look at them, but you can since you are a paralegal."He also says, "finders keepers, losers weepers."He concludes, "I think you now know what you should do and nothing more needs to be said."

Even more confused and conflicted, Eager Paralegal calls the California Bar Ethics Hotline.What advice do you believe that Eager Paralegal is given when he calls the California Bar Ethics Hotline?Can Eager Paralegal look at obviously privileged documents under California law?Does it make a difference whether Eager Paralegal is a paralegal, as opposed to an attorney?

Please discuss the decisions of Richards v. Jain, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (W.D., Wash. 2001); and Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., (2007) 42 Cal. 4^th 807 in your answer.

Part Two:

If you were asked to engage in an unethical act as a paralegal, how would you respond?