Kevin has evidence that Christine is taking advantage of an unsophisticated client by submitting invoices for work that was never done. Professionally, Kevin should initially:

Kevin has evidence that Christine is taking advantage of an unsophisticated client by submitting invoices for work that was never done. Professionally, Kevin should initially:

• A. Inform the client.
• B. Terminate Christine.
• C. Discuss the matter on an informal, friendly basis with Christine.
• D. Report the matter to the authorities.

Answer: (C)

Starting with a private, face-to-face (or confidential) conversation is the right move when you suspect a colleague is engaging in improper billing. This lets Kevin present his concerns, hear Christine’s side, and determine whether there’s a misunderstanding, an error, or deliberate misconduct. It also protects the client by ensuring facts are verified before taking stronger action, and it supports professional due process and remediation if needed. If Christine acknowledges the issue or the discussion reveals ongoing wrongdoing, then appropriate follow-up steps should be taken through the proper channels (ethics or regulatory processes, or formal reporting). Any action that escalates without first attempting an informal, direct discussion risks unfairly accusing someone, prematurely harming the client’s trust, or overlooking a solvable mistake. Informing the client directly could disrupt trust and confidentiality and may be inappropriate before the facts are confirmed. Immediate termination can be punitive and may not address the underlying problem. Reporting to authorities without attempting internal resolution and factual verification bypasses due process and may be unwarranted unless the misconduct is clear and unresolved.

Starting with a private, face-to-face (or confidential) conversation is the right move when you suspect a colleague is engaging in improper billing. This lets Kevin present his concerns, hear Christine’s side, and determine whether there’s a misunderstanding, an error, or deliberate misconduct. It also protects the client by ensuring facts are verified before taking stronger action, and it supports professional due process and remediation if needed.

If Christine acknowledges the issue or the discussion reveals ongoing wrongdoing, then appropriate follow-up steps should be taken through the proper channels (ethics or regulatory processes, or formal reporting). Any action that escalates without first attempting an informal, direct discussion risks unfairly accusing someone, prematurely harming the client’s trust, or overlooking a solvable mistake.

Informing the client directly could disrupt trust and confidentiality and may be inappropriate before the facts are confirmed. Immediate termination can be punitive and may not address the underlying problem. Reporting to authorities without attempting internal resolution and factual verification bypasses due process and may be unwarranted unless the misconduct is clear and unresolved.