# data[].attributes.body
This Accessibility and Protocol’s brick, will create measures in order to establish confidentiality for Johnson, Fishers & Sims firm. The brick will create security breaches to avoid unauthorized information being leaked. This brick will be towards electronic and physical security. The electronic barrier will be password protected to ensure that only authorized personnel can enter information and have access to material regarding the case of Bennett Construction. It will also use a password protected communication basis, regarding any emails involving classified information on the case. This means that only certain employees will obtain the passwords in order to prevent the material from being distributed to Robin. The physical security will be to place classified informational papers in locked file drawers. This should be found in the attorney or paralegal’s office who is working on the case, to assure it is not easily accessible.  By creating a protocol over access controls this not only benefits Johnson, Fishers & Sims firm in the case of Robin developing access to the Bennett Construction side, but it also creates preventative measures for future conflict of interests.

The paralegals and attorneys should acquire training to understand the consequences and preventive measures in establishing a safe environment of confidentiality. Under the KPA, (Kentucky Paralegal Association) Standard 5, a paralegal should not use information relating to a client learned in the course of employment to the disadvantage of a client unless they are granted permission from their supervising attorney and the attorney obtained client consent after consultation. Since Robin Pierce previously worked for Connelly & Associates, and was on the opposing side of the case; she would be a conflict of interest and should not have any involvement within the new firm. By implementing these protocol’s it creates a balance and structure that paralegals must understand in order to avoid conflicts of confidentiality.

# data[].attributes.body
The Physical Separation requirement will ensure that there is no room for potential overhearing or sharing of sensitive information to Robin at Johnson, Fisher, & Sims Firm. This can be done by putting Robin on a separate floor, office, or area of the firm so that she physically is not able to access any information about the case. This brick ensures that confidentiality is secure. The steps to go about this would be first to alert all personnel at the firm of the current case dilemma and that restrictions on where Robin is allowed to be while on the job is crucial. The firm can also put up signage to block off a certain area of the office space to only allow those on the case to have usage of. In order to keep these protocols, the firm can also perform regular checks on the areas anonymously to ensure that no one is violating the laid out restrictions on physical proximity to the confidential area.

The common areas would also need to be separated so that there is no room for accidental discussion between attorneys working on the case being overheard by Robin or anyone who is not working on the matter. Another suggestion for this would be to have staggered break times at the office and designated meeting areas for various matters. Overall, awareness and strict protocol is the key in ensuring that the physical separation is executed properly. If the separation is breached, it can put the firm in a dangerous spot where they possibly violated various confidentiality ethics. By doing this, the integrity of the ethical wall is maintained and no unethical activity will occur that could harm the Bennett/Matthew’s case.

# data[].attributes.body
The requirement that the client’s be regularly notified on the matter is crucial to keeping ethical practices in tack at the Johnson, Fisher, & Sims Firm. The firm needs to make the client on the Bennet/Matthew’s case feel that they are in good hands and assure them on both a professional and “human” level. First, the client needs to be notified via a formal letter of what is going on pertaining to Robin and then set up a personal meeting to discuss the procedures the firm will be taking to ensure confidentiality as well to answer any questions and concerns the client may have. Throughout the duration of the case, the firm should provide regular reports or updates periodically whether that be weekly, monthly, etc. This gives the client a piece of mind while also keeping the firm in check regarding what their responsibility will be on the case and its security. A set person of contact to handle any concerns and communications should also be assigned; of course, this would be someone knowledgeable of the case, ethics, and someone who is not Robin or closely affiliated with working with her on matters.

The firm should also ensure that detailed documentation and access logs for case materials are kept so that if an error does occur, this can be clearly shown and communicated to the client. This option can also incorporate technological advances such as Case Status, an app that provides regular messaging to clients about deadlines and notifications about the status of their case. Overall, the firm needs to ensure that the client is always up to date with any problems that can arise given the situation. They also need to ensure that the client always feels that they can ask questions, voice their concerns, and not stress about their case being handled by the firm.

# data[].attributes.body
Regular monitoring and audits are crucial for Johnston, Fisher & Sims to ensure compliance with the measures put in place to handle the conflict of interest involving Robin. Regular monitoring and audits help verify that all the ethical boundaries and protocols are being followed. This ensures that Robin is not accessing any restricted information related to the Bennett/Matthews case. By continuously monitoring activities, the firm can detect any potential breaches or unauthorized access early. This allows them to take immediate corrective actions before any significant harm occurs. Regular audits also create a record of compliance efforts by holding everyone accountable. This can include checking access logs, reviewing communications, and ensuring that physical and electronic barriers are intact. Audits can reveal weaknesses or gaps in the current system. This provides an opportunity for Johnston, Fisher & Sims to improve their conflict-of-interest policies and make necessary adjustments to their protocols. Legal and Ethical Standards: Regular monitoring and audits demonstrate the firm’s commitment to upholding legal and ethical standards. This can be crucial if the firm needs to defend its actions in a legal setting or maintain its reputation. By implementing these regular checks, Johnston, Fisher & Sims can ensure that the measures they have put in place to manage the conflict of interest are effective and that Robin remains compliant with all restrictions.

# data[].attributes.body
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legal contract that ensures sensitive information remains confidential. An NDA legally binds Robin to not disclose any information she acquired while working at Connelly & Associates. This creates clear legal boundaries and consequences if she breaches the agreement. It reassures Johnston, Fisher & Sims and their clients that Robin will not share any confidential information related to the Bennett/Matthews case. This is crucial for maintaining trust and integrity. The NDA will clearly define what information is considered confidential and the duration of the confidentiality obligation. This helps Robin understand exactly what she can and cannot discuss. It protects both the law firm and Robin by setting clear expectations and reducing the risk of inadvertent disclosures. If Robin accidentally shares information, the NDA provides a legal framework for addressing the breach. Knowing the legal implications of breaking the NDA can deter Robin from sharing any confidential information, ensuring she remains vigilant about maintaining confidentiality. By having Robin sign an NDA, Johnston, Fisher & Sims can better manage the conflict of interest and protect their clients' sensitive information.

# data[].attributes.body
In the event of a potential ethical dilemma that appears to be beyond the capabilities of both Robin and Johnston, Fisher & Sims to resolve, the firm may resort to consulting with an ethical counsel within the state of Kentucky or the Kentucky state bar's ethics hotline to review potential conflicts. This is done in order to help determine whether the conflict is resolvable or if the firm needs to take further action to avoid ethical violations. It provides timely, informal guidance that can help Johnston, Fisher & Sims avoid potential pitfalls and maintain compliance with their ethical obligations. However, the advice provided by the state of Kentucky’s ethical hotline should be used solely as a starting point, and additional measures such as client consultation, screening, or further legal consultation may still be necessary.

Before contacting the ethics hotline, either Robin and/or a representative of Johnston, Fisher & Sims should gather the necessary facts and documentation regarding the issue. This information often includes client names and relationships, case details, and a summation of the potential conflicts. In Kentucky, the ethics hotline is offered as a service through the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA). The ethics hotline is typically able to be contacted via telephone, email, or through an online submission form which shall be kept confidential and closely monitored. After receiving guidance from the hotline, it is then that Robin and/or Johnston, Fisher & Sims will need to determine how to proceed. Additionally, this process may be disclosed to the client through a Conflict-of-Interest Waiver Form.

# data[].attributes.body
While the waiver is not like the other brick in the ethical wall, it provides support, nonetheless. In any case it is used on, it is brought up as a possibility of closing the preceding ethical issues, meaning that it will occur after nearly every other step and brick has been discussed or completed. To be specific, as this is a “closer” in a way, all other issues such as documentation, agreements, audits, and previous case law rulings must be examined beforehand. In Robin’s case specifically, the use of a conflict-of-interest waiver would be the final brick in the ethical wall. This waiver would be signed by Frank Bennett, the owner of Bennett Construction Company and the client under representation previously recorded by Robin, as well as Fred Matthews, a client of the firm Johnston, Fisher & Sims, the firm Robin is planning on soon working for. This waiver would allow the two clients to be represented, in a way, by Robin by signing away their ability to claim conflict of interest. Of course, as Bennett stated he preferred Robin’s involvement be limited, the waiver may not be his ideal, and therefore, in accordance with the ethics counsels and regulations, they may choose to take a different path where Robin is excluded from the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Johnston, Fisher, & Sims should provide regular training explaining ways to avoid conflicts of interest. Not only will training prevent future incidents from happening, it will also maintain Robin’s conflict of interest. Training ensures client’s trust to maintain confidentiality, promote ethical behavior, and enhance workplace reputation. Training should include a presentation style learning, where Janet Johnston or another attorney will explain, demonstrate, and brainstorm new ideas to prevent conflict of interest. The presentation can include what constitutes as a conflict of interest, such as Ky. R. Sup. Ct. 3.130(1.8) a lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gifts from a client unless they are related to the client, or reminders of the ethical wall implaced. Attendance should be mandatory and presentations may need to be held multiple times within a week during every other month to ensure every employee has attended.

# data[].attributes.body
Robin should limit his communication with other lawyers in the firm working on the case. Not only should he not talk about the case, but personal matters as well until the case is over. It is important that no information is shared knowingly or accidentally. It is not unusual for people to accidentally reveal confidential information in the heat of the moment when complaining or venting out frustrations. Company held social events, online or in person meetings, and out of work meetups must be limited in communication. Workplace discussions about other cases Robin is working on with another lawyer is not included, but should be kept strictly business. Communications should also include preventing documents from being seen by Robin. Appropriately labeling them as “confidential” with “Fred Matthews v. Bennett Construction Company” on the label ensuring Robin knows to not touch the files. This should be done on paper documents and emails as well.