Counsels

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 253(b) and 255(1), does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1 commentaries 2, 3 and 4, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that such conduct does not meet the standard of conduct required by the Code of Professional Conduct and expected by the public. Furthermore, the member was advised to avoid such conduct in the future.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to treat documents, which were prima facie privileged, in the appropriate manner did not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter VII, rule 7.2-10 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that the determination of whether or not the documents are privileged should be decided by the Court and not pre-determined by a lawyer. The Complaints Authorization Committee is of the opinion that any correspondence between a solicitor and client is privileged. Therefore the prudent solicitor, upon the receipt of such information, should seal the information and provide it to the Court for a determination on privilege.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the quantum of unassessed legal fees did not comply with the fair and reasonable standard contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.6-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The quality of service provided was such that it warranted a substantial reduction of fees as assessed by the Taxing Master. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that the standard prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct requires that legal fees be fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the member was counselled to consider the factors listed in the commentary 1 to rule 3.6-1 with respect to the fairness and reasonableness of legal fees.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to communicate with the client in a timely manner, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.2-1, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that the standard prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct requires that thorough and timely service be provided to all clients. Furthermore, the member was counselled to adhere to this standard in the future.

The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s failure to disclose a potential conflict and advise the client in a timely manner that the member could not act for him, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rules 3.2-2 and 3.4-1, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that the standard prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct requires that lawyers examine whether a conflict exists at the outset and inform the client in a timely manner.

Cautions

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s swearing and filing of Affidavits, including unsubstantiated information which may have misled the Court, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter V, rules 5.1-1 and 5.2-1, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that it is important to note there are circumstances in which a Solicitor’s Affidavit are inappropriate.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s management of the client file during a period of approximately 36 months and the failure to transfer file documentation do not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rules 3.2-1, 3.5-1, 3.5-2 and 3.7-9, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that the standard prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct requires that thorough and timely service be provided to all clients and that files should be transferred to the successor lawyer in a timely manner to ensure there is no prejudice to the client. Furthermore, the member was cautioned to adhere to these standards in the future.

The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s failure to communicate with the client in a timely manner and failure to transfer the client file to the successor lawyer for five (5) months without a reasonable explanation, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rules 3.2-1 and 3.7-9, of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that the standard prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct requires that thorough and timely service be provided to all clients and that files should be transferred to the successor lawyer in a timely manner to ensure there is no prejudice to the client. Furthermore, the member was cautioned to adhere to these standards in the future.