Ethical Judgment STAR Example

Situation: I was a paralegal at a mid-sized commercial firm working on a corporate transaction. A junior associate asked me to review a set of due diligence emails and prepare a short summary for the partner. While reviewing, I noticed an email that suggested a senior member of the client's board had provided material non-public information to a connected third party. The email implied potential insider dealing and a risk that the client might be in breach of market abuse rules.

Task: My responsibility was to flag significant legal or compliance risks to the supervising lawyer while maintaining client confidentiality and following the firm's conflicts and escalation procedures. I needed to decide whether this was a matter to raise internally, how to document my concerns, and whether immediate action (such as pausing work or notifying regulators) was required.

Action: I took a three-step approach.

First, I verified the facts without copying or distributing the sensitive email. I re-read related documents and emails to confirm the context and whether the language truly indicated insider dealing rather than routine discussion. I noted the specific passages that caused concern and summarised them in objective terms, avoiding speculative language.

Second, I checked our internal guidance. I reviewed the firm's conflicts and escalation policy and the SRA Principles relevant to client confidentiality and the duty to act with integrity. I also spoke confidentially to the supervising associate, outlining the factual summary and my legal concern, and asked for their view on escalation.

Third, when the associate agreed the email was potentially serious, we escalated the issue to the partner and the firm's compliance officer following internal policy. We avoided copying the original email into broad internal communications; instead, we supplied a secure, factual summary and recommended that the partner consider whether disclosure to the client board, suspension of certain transaction steps, or external reporting (e.g. to the FCA) was necessary. We documented each step on the matter file and in the firm's confidential escalation log.

Result: The partner and compliance officer conducted a focused internal review and instructed the client that the firm needed to pause certain actions pending clarification. The client cooperated, and the board clarified the facts: no trading had taken place and the language in the email was misleading. The matter was resolved without regulatory reporting. Because I had followed firm procedures and kept records, the firm was able to demonstrate appropriate professional conduct and careful decision-making. The partner commended my careful fact-checking and respectful, timely escalation, and I was given formal recognition in my appraisal for demonstrating good ethical judgement.

Word count: Approximately 300 words.

Why this works

The example succeeds for several reasons.

• It Presents a clear ethical dilemma. The situation involves potential insider dealing, which raises real-world legal and regulatory consequences and requires balancing confidentiality with the duty to prevent illegality.

• It Shows concrete, proportionate actions. The candidate did not overreact (for example, by immediately notifying regulators) nor did they ignore the issue. They performed factual verification, consulted internal policies, sought supervisory input and escalated appropriately.

• It Demonstrates knowledge of professional rules. The narrative references the SRA Principles, conflicts and escalation procedures, and the need to document steps - all markers that the candidate understands how ethics operates in a commercial firm.

• It Uses measurable outcomes. The result describes an actual resolution (client clarification, no regulatory report) and a positive consequence for the candidate (recognition), which makes the story credible.

Annotations

• "Verified the facts without copying or distributing the sensitive email": This highlights respect for client confidentiality and reduces risk of improper disclosure.

• "Reviewed the firm's conflicts and escalation policy and the SRA Principles": Naming policies demonstrates procedural literacy and signals that the candidate bases decisions on professional rules.

• "Supplied a secure, factual summary and recommended that the partner consider...": Offering options rather than directives shows reasoned judgement and respect for senior decision-makers.

• "Documented each step on the matter file and in the firm's confidential escalation log": Clear record-keeping is crucial; it shows defensibility of decisions and adherence to good practice.

Why interviewers like it

Interviewers seek evidence that candidates can spot ethical issues early, act responsibly, and follow established processes. This example ticks those boxes, balances legal understanding with commercial sensitivity, and ends with a verifiable positive outcome.

Adapting this example for different contexts

• If your experience is non-commercial, substitute a relevant ethical issue: for example, a client confidentiality breach in litigation, a conflict of interest in family work, or a duty to the court in advocacy. Keep the same structure: verify facts, consult policies/seniors, escalate appropriately, and document.

• Make it personal but concise. Use first person for actions you took and avoid long-winded background. Focus on your decision-making and the concrete steps you followed.

• Reference applicable rules. Name the relevant regulatory or professional standards (SRA Principles, CPR, FCA rules) where appropriate; this shows technical awareness.

• Be careful with confidentiality. Do not disclose identifying client details. Describe facts in neutral terms and avoid quoting sensitive communications.

• Practise delivery. Whether for written applications or interviews, rehearse the STAR so timings and emphasis feel natural.

Further resources

• YourLegalLadder for application trackers, mentor feedback and tailored training contract guidance.

• LawCareers.Net and Chambers Student for interview and competency frameworks.

• Legal Cheek and the SRA website for current regulatory updates and guidance.

Use these resources to refine your example and ensure it aligns with current professional expectations.