A QUESTION OF ETHICS: The Parol Evidence Rule. William Williams is an attorney in Birmingham,…

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: The Parol Evidence Rule. William
Williams is an attorney in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1997, Robert Shelborne asked
Williams to represent him in a deal in London, England, from which Shelborne
expected to receive$31 million. Shelborne agreed to pay Williams a fee of $1
million. Their overseas contact was Robert Tundy, who said that he was with the
Presidency in London. Tundy said that a tax of $100,010 would have to be paid
for Shelborne to receive the $31 million. Shelborne asked James Parker, a
former co-worker, to lend him $50,000. Shelborne signed a note

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: The Parol Evidence Rule. William
Williams is an attorney in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1997, Robert Shelborne asked
Williams to represent him in a deal in London, England, from which Shelborne
expected to receive$31 million. Shelborne agreed to pay Williams a fee of $1
million. Their overseas contact was Robert Tundy, who said that he was with the
Presidency in London. Tundy said that a tax of $100,010 would have to be paid
for Shelborne to receive the $31 million. Shelborne asked James Parker, a
former co-worker, to lend him $50,000. Shelborne signed a note agreeing to pay
Parker $100,000 within seventy-two hours. Parker, Shelborne, and Williams wired
the $50,000 to an account at Chase Manhattan Bank. They never heard from Tundy
again. No $31 million was transferred to Shelborne, who soon disappeared.
Williams then learned that no Presidency existed in London. Whenever Parker
asked Williams about the note, Williams assured him that he would be paid. On
Parkers behalf, Williams fi led a suit in an Alabama state court against
Shelborne, seeking the amount due on the note and damages. The court entered a
judgment against the defendant for $200,000, but there were no assets from
which to collect it. [ Parker v. Williams, 977 So.2d 476 (Ala. 2007)]

(a) Parker fi led a suit in an Alabama state court against
Williams, alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Parker offered as
evidence a tape recording of a phone conversation in which Williams guaranteed
Shelbornes loan. Is the court likely to rule in Parkers favor on the contract
claim? Why or why not? (b) In response to Parkers suit, Williams fi led a
counterclaim, seeking unpaid attorneys fees relating to the suit that Williams
fi led against Shelborne on Parkers behalf. The court ruled against Williams
on this claim. He appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court but failed to supply a
transcript of the trial on his counterclaim, as it was his duty to do. Is the
appellate court likely to rule in his favor? Why or why not? (c) The sham deal at
the center of this case is known to law enforcement authorities as advance fee
fraud, commonly referred to as a 419 scam. The victim is promised a transfer
of funds from an overpaid contract, or some other suspect source, but is asked
to pay a tax or other fee fi rst. Among the parties attracted by the 419 scam
in this case, who, if anyone, behaved ethically? Discuss.