Report on Conflicts of Interest from Standing Committee on the Model Code of Professional Conduct

Posted on by

RINTRODUCTION

1. The Standing Committee on the Model Code of Professional Conduct (the “Standing  Committee”)  was established by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in September 2010 in recognition of the fact that the Model Code of Professional Conduct (the  “Model  Code”)  must evolve over time in response to changes in the law and changes made by individual law societies as they implement the Model Code.

For the English version of the report, click Report to Council – Standing Committee – Conflicts – November 2011.

For the French version of the report, click Rapport sur les conflits d’intérêts novembre 2011

Plagiarizing B.C. judge prompts new trial

Posted on by

From the CBC news website

osted: Apr 14, 2011 5:05 PM PT Last Updated: Apr 14, 2011 5:25 PM PT

A B.C. woman who was awarded millions of dollars to help care for her brain-damaged son will have to go back to court to try to get the money because the judge in the lawsuit plagiarized most of his decision, a higher court has ruled.

For the full story, click HERE.

Wallace v Canadian Pacific Railway 2011 SKCA 108

Posted on by

From the judgment written by  Ottenbreit J.A.

I. Introduction

[1] On December 17, 2008, McKercher LLP (“McKercher”) commenced a class action on behalf of Gordon Wallace (“Wallace”), as representative plaintiff, against Canadian National Railway (“CN”), the Canadian Pacific Railway and several other defendants (“the Wallace claim”) alleging the railways had overcharged western farmers for grain transportation during the previous 25 years and claiming damages, including aggravated and punitive damages. This matter comes before us because, at the time it commenced the Wallace claim, McKercher was acting for CN on a number of other unrelated matters. Continue reading →

Annalise Acorn: Jumping Ship: R v Cunningham and the Lawyer’s Right to Withdraw

Posted on by

Annalise Acorn’s case comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Cunningham on the lawyer’s right to withdraw came out recently.  From the introduction:

1  It has never been in the best traditions of the criminal bar to quit a client over money. Having gone on the record as counsel for an accused, the lawyer is, as a matter of professional dignity, expected to have sorted out financial matters with the client in advance, and it is seen as unseemly for the lawyer to abandon the client over non-payment. Some Canadian codes of conduct clearly prohibit the criminal defence lawyer from withdrawing due to non-payment of fees where withdrawal would potentially prejudice the client.1 Other codes make it clear that such withdrawal is frowned upon.2 Continue reading →

CJC review of Justice Robert Dewar

Posted on by

From the Canadian Judicial Council website:

Canadian Judicial Council completes its review of complaints made against justice Robert Dewar

Ottawa, 9 November 2011 – The Canadian Judicial Council announced today the results of its review of complaints made against the Honourable Robert Dewar of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. The complaints focused on comments made by Justice Dewar after finding Mr Rhodes guilty of sexual assault and in the context of sentencing in the case of The Queen v. Rhodes.

The complaints against Justice Dewar were reviewed by the Honourable Neil C. Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and Vice-Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee of Council.

For the full comments on the CJC website, click HERE or continue reading.  Continue reading →

Lawyers Regulating Lawyers?

Posted on by

Lawyers regulating lawyers?

Written by: Alice Woolley and found at ABlawg.ca

Decision considered: Law Society of British Columbia v Laarakker Law Society of British Columbia Disciplinary Hearing Reports, September 21, 2011

Introduction

A disciplinary decision by the Law Society of British Columbia does not fall within the usual mandate of ABlawg. It is not an Alberta decision, nor even a judicial one, and has no direct precedential significance for Alberta lawyers or courts. The decision warrants comment, however, because the threat it creates to the legitimacy of lawyer self-regulation applies to all Canadian law societies. Specifically, the misdirection in regulatory energy reflected by the decision of the Law Society of British Columbia in this case is something to which all Canadian law societies have shown themselves to be susceptible.

For the full article, click HERE.