Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to take further steps to resolve the issue of the alleged conflict and to move the file forward does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule and commentaries 7 (a), (b) and (f) of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the quality of service provided by the member’s firm and the member’s supervision of a legal assistant does not comply with Law Society rules 12.01, 12.02, 12.03 and 12.07(a) and with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule and commentary 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to disclose, upon being retained, that the firm represented both parties to a transaction, and continuing to advise the clients when it became apparent that a conflict existed, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter V, rule and commentaries 4 and 6, of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s continuing to advise the clients when it became apparent that a conflict existed does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter V, rule and commentary 6, of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s conviction under sections 253(b) of the Criminal Code does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter I, commentary 3 and Chapter XIX, commentaries 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s inquiries were intrusive and did not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter I, commentary 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee was of the opinion that the member’s questions were too personal in circumstances where the services requested were witnessing a signature and notarizing a copy of a driver’s licence.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s failure to disclose information to another lawyer does not comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court, rule 56A.39 and with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter IX, commentary 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s failure to maintain professional conduct in communications with the Court and the member’s failure to communicate with another member concerning the postponement of a Court date does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter IX, rule and commentary 1, and Chapter XVI, rule and commentaries 1 and 2, of the Code of Professional Conduct.