Its from Qbank and official ans is B, which I still find hard to believe. There is not enough explaination given in then answer too. topher- “having thoughts is not a violation. he may intend to take his employer’s clients, but not until he has completely left the company. At that point, you can contact your previous employer’s clients all you want as long as you’re contacting them using public records” But I have come across questions in which candidate has the thoughts about cheating in the exam, but eventually he doesn’t cheat due to XYZ reason. But, still he has been quoted as in violation of the VII(B).
"Because of his tenuous situation at Wickett, O’Donnell begins making preparations for independent practice. " Definately C…
thunder, those questions are not about just having thoughts about cheating. those questions usually refer to candidates who have already done something to violate the standards, such as receiving faxes, writing notes on the bottom of shoe, etc. it can’t be a violation to simply think about how to cheat and then never do anything about it.
May be: “Wickett & Co made an offer to O’Donnell…which he could not refuuuseee”
He can make plans, doesn’t necessarily mean he is collecting clients. He could just be sending out resumes. As far as the tenuous situation, it is controlled by organized crime but it doesn’t talk about illegal activity. Maybe he is just afraid of getting wacked if he finds out about some illegal practices. ------------- SConnery wrote: "Because of his tenuous situation at Wickett, O’Donnell begins making preparations for independent practice. " Definately C…
Wait, “terminated” means what? terminated terminated or just fired?
Wacked for sure, once you are in, you don’t get out… I don’t even know why he is even thinking about leaving. They will find him.
I can see why it is B but I dont’ agree with it from my personal ethical standards. The reason it is B can be argued as follows: C - Nick did not violate his fiduciary duty because he continued to do his job in the best interests of the clients of his firm. So what the employer itself is in violation. B- Nick definitely did not violate his duty to employer by preparing for starting his own practice. (Even though he thought it was in his interest to know the clients for 1 yr and the move on). The recognition by standard, that you are allowed to prepare for your own practise while employed encompasses the fact that you may in future when disassociated from the client, absent any non-compete agreement, will compete with your ex-employer. And that is acceptable, so if you prepare to become best buddies with clients while employed in anticipation of making them your clients in future is not a violation of your duty to employer. A - There is no conflict here with employer, refer to argument in B. D - Just because someone you work for is violating the code, doesn’t entitle you to violate whether you think your violations are less serious than the other party or more. Violation is a violation. Infact if you notice the violation the standard encourages you to bring the violation to the attention of institute, and compliance, and even disassociate from the activity. So this can’t be the answer.
Too much of The Sopranos on demand:))