The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member for :
The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that:
The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member improperly withdrew from a file. The Committee determined that maintaining carriage of a file gives the impression that the member is capable and competent of representing the client. When the member determined that the matter was not in their practice area, the member should have notified the client that the member could not represent them or communicated that the member would not be able to offer representation beyond receiving the decision. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that they should have withdrawn from the file earlier than the member did or communicated the limitations of the member’s representation of the client.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s email correspondence to beneficiaries of an Estate was neither courteous nor professional in its tone, and does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, and Chapter VII, rules 7.2-4 and 7.3-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Committee found the following provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct relevant:
The Committee noted that it was difficult to decipher when the member ceased acting as both Executor and solicitor for the Estate and that the email communications were sent from the member’s law office email account. The Committee specifically cautions the member that the complainants, as beneficiaries, had the expectation that information would be provided in a courteous and professional manner.