Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to consider all of the circumstances concerning how the matters are related and the potential repercussions to both Client A and Client B, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.4-1, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee noted that it would be inappropriate for the member to cross-examine Client A, which may be required during the course of the representation of Client B. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the representation of Client B constitutes a conflict of interest and recommends that the member cease acting for Client B immediately.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to ensure that the member had a system in place to receive emails, or alternatively failed to communicate to clients that email was not a reasonable way to communicate instructions in the circumstances, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.2-1, commentary [5](g) of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that lawyers are required to have a system in place wherein they have the ability to receive email or other communications from their clients within a reasonable time.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s use of firm letterhead subsequent to the member’s election of non-practising status was misleading, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by s. 2 of the Law Society Act, 1999, rules 2.19(5) and 2.24 of the Law Society Rules, and Chapter II, rule 2.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that it is inappropriate to misrepresent the member’s standing with the Law Society in communication with others.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s comments in professional communications, with respect to the opposing party, do not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, Chapter V, rule 5.1-5, and Chapter VII, rules 7.2-1 and 7.2-4, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member to refrain from the use of inappropriate comments in the member’s professional practice and to ensure that the member’s future communications, both verbal and written, are consistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.