Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member for improper management of a real estate file and for failure to respond to a client=s request for information. The Committee counselled member A that failure to review the other solicitor’s closing letter to ensure that it agreed ad idem with member A’s requirements, failure to report information to the client as promised, and failure to respond to the client’s telephone communication does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member for failure to respond to repeated requests over an extended period of time for documentation by a financial institution. The Committee counselled the member that failure to respond for a 17 month period in that instance, did not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by commentaries 6 (supra.) and 10 of Chapter XVI of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member for failing, without reasonable excuse, to respond to correspondence from the Legal Director of Law Society. The correspondence was issued by the Legal Director in the course of the investigation of a separate allegation which was ultimately dismissed. The Committee referred the member to Law Society rule 9.04 (5) and commentary 2 of Chapter XV of the Code of Professional Conduct.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member for improper management of a family law file and for failure to communicate directly with the client. The committee cautioned a member that such conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member for being discourteous toward an individual who was self-represented. The committee cautioned the member that such conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapters XVI and XIX of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member for failure to respond to communications from successor solicitors. The committee cautioned the member that failure to respond for a three year period in that instance, does not comply with the standard contemplated by Chapter XVI of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member for improper management of a real estate file and for failure to respond with reasonable promptness to communications from another solicitor. The committee cautioned member A, for failure to follow-up for a 12 month period, a number of closing requirements and despite several requests for compliance by member B; and for failure to review member B’s closing correspondence to ensure that it agreed ad idem with member A’s requirements. The committee cautioned member A that such conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapters II and XVI of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member for failure to respond to a client’s requests for information and for failure to fulfill the member’s duty upon withdrawal of services. The Committee cautioned the member that failure to respond for an eight month period in that instance and the breach of duty upon withdrawal of services, did not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by rule b in Chapter II, commentaries 7(a), (b), (c) and (f) and Chapter XII, commentaries 2, 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct.