Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that her failure to ensure the accuracy of the facts prior to putting forward a statement to a witness, about a third party, who was not represented by counsel and did not have the opportunity to respond, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter V, rule 5.1-2(h), of the Code of Professional Conduct (2013). The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that there is a higher onus on the lawyer to ensure the accuracy of the statement, when making a statement of a serious nature about a third party, who does not have the opportunity to respond.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to adequately explain an Order and its implications so as to ensure a reasonable level of understanding by the client, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule (b) and commentaries 1, 4 and 5, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The member was counselled that effective communication with clients is paramount in achieving client satisfaction. Several options were available to the member including: obtaining the client’s acknowledgment that she was agreeing to the Order despite her lawyer’s advice; preparing a detailed memo to the file that the client acknowledged the improvidence of the agreement but wished to proceed; and withdrawal from the file.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s use of inflammatory language in documents filed with the Court, and pertaining 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 VII, rule 7.2-1 and commentary 3, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The member was counselled that future communications should be consistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conviction under sections 253(a) and (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.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that quality of service provided does not comply with the standard expected of a prudent solicitor and for failure to fulfill a solicitor’s obligations with respect to the conflict and communication issues. The Complaints Authorization Committee is of the opinion that the likelihood of the interests of the parties conflicting was so high that a prudent solicitor would have referred the clients for independent legal advice and obtained the clients’ consents to the Joint Retainer. Furthermore, when representing parties on a Joint Retainer, a solicitor should be alert to the duty to communicate with all parties. Effective communication with clients is paramount in achieving client satisfaction. What is effective communication for one client may not be sufficient for another depending on the needs and sophistication of the client.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the presentation of the Will for execution by the client was not sufficiently responsive under the circumstances, given that a family member was providing information that suggested urgency, and that a particular comment disclosed confidential information and was inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule (b) and commentaries 7(g) and 8, Chapter IV, rule and commentaries 1, 2 and 4, and Chapter XV, commentary 3, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The member was cautioned that given the circumstances in this particular file the prudent solicitor would have arranged to have the Will executed immediately. The Committee recommended that the member be alert to inadvertent disclosure of confidential information and the use of language otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication in future practice.