Counsels
The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter VII, rule 7.5-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that, in the future, when using social media, the member should be cognizant of tone and choice of words.
The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled a member that the member’s contact with a party who is represented by a lawyer, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter VII, rule 7.2-6. The Complaints Authorization Committee noted that while the Order of the Court allowed for service of the Order on the opposing party by way of email communication, the Code of Professional Conduct restricts contact with individuals that are represented by a lawyer. The Committee is of the opinion that the member’s email to the opposing party was more than service of the Order and amounted to communication with the opposing party. The Complaints Authorization Committee counselled the member that in the future, should the member serve a document on a party who is represented by a lawyer, the member should refrain from communicating further with that party, unless the member has the consent of their lawyer to do so.
Cautions
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.7-7 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that in the future, when withdrawing representation based on having been discharged by the client, the member should ensure that the intent of the client is clear.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, and Chapter VII, rule 7.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that lawyers have a duty to respond to all Law Society communications and to cooperate with all Law Society investigations.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, and Chapter VII, rule 7.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that lawyers have a duty to respond to all Law Society communications and to cooperate with all Law Society investigations.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s mismanagement of the file, which led to the clients being left without representation for the hearing, does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rules 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that in the future, the member must be mindful of the management of the member’s files and take all necessary steps to ensure that the member’s clients are informed of all known information that may affect their interests.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter III, rule 3.4-3. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that a lawyer cannot represent opposing parties in a dispute and clients cannot consent for a lawyer to act in this manner.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, and Chapter III, rule 3.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that lawyers have a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients honourably and with integrity, and misleading a client about the progress of their matter falls short of this duty. Further, that lawyers have a duty to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to clients. Failing to respond to client communications and failing to complete the work for which you are retained does not provide a client with a quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation.
The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned a member that the member’s conduct does not comply with the standard of conduct contemplated by Chapter II, rule 2.1-1, and Chapter VII, rule 7.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct. The Complaints Authorization Committee cautioned the member that lawyers have a duty to respond to all Law Society communications and to cooperate with all Law Society investigations.