When is a subordinate not held responsible for an act?

The correct answer is based on the principles of professional responsibility and liability in legal contexts. A subordinate may not be held responsible for an act if it is arguable they should not or could not have known about the implications or legality of their actions. This indicates a standard where the individual's knowledge and awareness play a crucial role in determining their responsibility.

In contexts where a subordinate is acting under the direction of a superior or within the framework of their duties, the expectation is that they may not have the same level of insight or authority to question those actions. If it can be argued that a reasonable person in the same position would not have known or understood that their actions would lead to a breach of conduct or responsibility, liability may not be appropriately assigned to them.

This aligns with the overarching themes of agency and responsibility in legal ethics, where understanding and intent are vital components in assessing culpability. Therefore, if a subordinate's lack of knowledge can be convincingly argued, it provides a basis for them not being held responsible for an action that could otherwise be deemed inappropriate or unethical.