Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that failing to complete work and to communicate with the client regarding legal matters referred for action, as per the member’s admission, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that failing to respond to a client’s telephone calls and failing to proceed with a quieting application for a twenty-one month period, as per the member’s admission, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8 and Chapter III, rule (a) of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the failure to do any substantive work on a client file for a twenty-four month period, as per the member’s admission, 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 that the representations made to the client do not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule (a), commentary 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that direct contact with a potential witness, without the consent of opposing counsel, for the purpose of obtaining information which the member knew or ought to have known was personal information concerning the opposing party, and which the member knew or should have known the potential witness was prohibited by law from disclosing in the absence of consent or a Court order, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter I and Chapter XIII, commentary 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the failure to respond to telephone calls and correspondence from another solicitor for a three month period does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter XVI, commentary 6 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the timeliness of communications with the client was not in keeping with the agreed bi-weekly reporting and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the quality of service provided to the client and the member’s management of the Estate file, as per the member’s admission, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8, of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the manner in which the member acted during an argument with a member of the public, as per the member’s admission, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter I, commentary 3 and chapter XIX, commentary 10 the Code of Professional Conduct.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that proceeding with an exparte application when there was a solicitor representing the other party and failing to inform the Court that there was no confirmation that the solicitor for the other party had been served does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by the Code of Professional Conduct, Chapter IX, commentary 15 and Chapter XVI, commentary 4.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the failure, as per the member’s admission (in correspondence dated April 13, 2004), to transfer the client file for a four month period does not comply with the quality of service contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The member was also cautioned that notice of withdrawal to the client was not provided as contemplated by Chapter XII, commentaries 2 and 7 the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the quality of service provided, including the misplacement of the client’s family law file, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b) and Chapter VIII, commentaries 4 and 5 the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the quality of service provided and the representations made to the client do not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b), commentaries 7 and 8 and Chapter III, rule (a) of the Code of Professional Conduct.