In the first case, the consultant faces a serious dilemma on disclosure of information obtained from the company. The religious has contracted the consultant to look at their records and finances. The agreement is that the consultant would reveal the information obtained for the sake of rectifying, but on condition of anonymity. This means that the consultant indicated the kind of embezzlement observed but would not reveal the person or the department affected. However, with the employer insisting on disclosure, the consultant is in a dilemma whether to abide by the contract agreement and risk losing it or disclose, thus breaching the contract and remaining at the mercy of the employers to remain in job.

Faced with a similar situation, I would abide by the rules of the contract. This implies that I would give information, also on condition of anonymity. I agree with the author because, although I would be risking my current contract, the termination can be challenged legally, and my reputation will not be breached. Revealing the names may bring more problems such as lawsuits that will not be defendable in court since the contract agreements are violated.

In the second case, the consultant’s dilemma is related to the consultation charges. The consultant feels that the ability for the client to pay is a determinant of the charges imposed. He is however not sure of the ethical implication of this in practice.

Faced with a similar situation, I would have a standard and fixed charges based on the client’s type of work, location, and type of organization. My charging will not be based on the ability to pay since it is relatively not easy to assess this ability correctively. Considering that I support the author’s idea of having to provide pro bono services once in a while, gauging the client’s ability to pay for the service may be relatively misleading. It is always good to standardize charges as this besides reducing the ethical burden enhances transparency.