Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the continued representation of one party in a matter related to an earlier matter in which the member had represented both parties constitutes a conflict of interest, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter V, rule and commentaries 1, 2 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee counselled the member that a prudent solicitor would have referred both parties to seek independent legal advice subsequent to the development of a contentious issue between the parties.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the failure to ascertain from the title search that the client did not have good title to the Access Road and the failure to obtain and register a Deed conveying any title or interest in or to the Access Road, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rules (a) and (b) and commentary 7(h) of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee counselled the member that the prudent solicitor must thoroughly review the Title Search report and all supporting documentation.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that his correspondence to another lawyer is inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter XV, commentary 3, and Chapter XVI, rule and commentaries 1 and 2, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee noted the member acknowledged the inappropriateness of the correspondence.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s conviction under sections 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, commentaries [2] and [3] of the Code of Professional Conduct (2013). The Committee noted that this is the member’s first offence and that he cooperated fully with the Law Society. However, in the opinion of the Committee such conduct does not meet the standard of conduct required by the Code of Professional Conduct and expected by the public.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s conviction under sections 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, commentaries [2] and [3] of the Code of Professional Conduct (2013). The Committee noted that this is the member’s first offence and that he cooperated fully with the Law Society. However, in the opinion of the Committee such conduct does not meet the standard of conduct required by the Code of Professional Conduct and expected by the public.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to remain knowledgeable about changes to issues related to family law, and the member’s failure to provide the client with advice related to those changes does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rules (a) & (b) and commentary 7, and Chapter III, rule (a) and commentary 1, of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the delay in responding to a client’s inquiries, failure to disclose information, and the delay in providing information does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule and commentaries 7 and 8 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s representation of both parties in a real estate transaction constitutes a breach of the Practice Restrictions imposed by the Complaints Authorization Committee and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1 and Chapter V, rule 5.1-6 of the Code of Professional Conduct (2013). The Complaints Authorization Committee is of the opinion that the prudent course of action would have been for the member to seek direction from the Law Society.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the breach of his implied Undertaking with respect to the use of documentation provided in the course of litigation for discovery purposes, and the failure to properly supervise a legal assistant which resulted in the document being inadvertently appended to a Deed and provided for registration, raises a concern about the adequacy of direction and supervision of a legal assistant, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Part XII, rule 12.06 of the Law Society Rules, and Chapter XVI, commentary 7 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee noted that it is the member who has ultimate responsibility for all documentation received and provided within the course of practice.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s second conviction under sections 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, commentaries [2] and [3] of the Code of Professional Conduct (2013). The Committee noted that although the member cooperated fully with the Law Society, this is the member’s second offence. In the opinion of the Committee such conduct does not meet the standard of conduct required by the Code of Professional Conduct and expected by the public.