DOCSLIB.ORG

Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility Principles and Practice of Legal, Ethical and Professional Responsibility [2016] DAVID C. DAY, Q.C. Lewis, Day St. John’s, NL EXPLANATORY NOTES [1] Each entry in the Detailed Table Of Contents of this annotated anthology—of principles and practices of legal, ethical and professional responsibility—is hyperlinked to the text of that entry included in the anthology. An annotation to the text of an entry, included in the anthology, is identified by “Editor’s Note”. [2] The text of each entry included in the anthology is, in turn—with few exceptions—hyper- linked, by the designation [Full Text], to the full document from which each text was excerpted. In some instances, the full document has been reproduced in the anthology. PROGRAM PRESENTATION Presenting at the 2016 National Family Law Program, based on this anthology, will be Trudi L. Brown, Q.C., Victoria Barrister and Life Bencher of the Law Society of British Columbia, and David C. Day, Q.C., St. John’s Barrister and Master of Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court. ACKNOWLEGEMENT Gratefully acknowledged, for transcribing, formatting, and hyperlinking of this annotated anthology; verifying the currency of all judicial decisions, and producing both appendices to Part 1.0 – INTRODUCTION, is Kelly A. Hall, the senior legal assistant of the anthology author and editor for 19 years. David C. Day, Q.C. 01 June 2016 PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF LEGAL, ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY [2016] ______________________________________________________________________________ DAVID C. DAY, Q.C. Newfoundland and Labrador Bar ______________________________________________________________________________ SYNOPSIS This anthology comprises a comprehensive introductory chapter followed by excerpts from, and summaries of, judicial and administrative decisions, transcripts, book and journal scholarship, legislation, reports, manuals, and media cuttings (usually omitting footnotes or endnotes) on principles and practice of legal, ethical and professional responsibility; most of which were published from June 2014 to 30 May 2016 Eleven comparable previous anthologies—cumulatively covering the period 03 September 1189 (the birth date of legal memory) to June 2014—are posted at: http://www.lewisday.ca/ethics.html. This anthology will, on 21 July 2016, be posted to the same Internet address. 01 June 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS (GENERAL) 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 SOURCES AND STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY ............................................32 2.1 Legal Responsibility .............................................................................................32 2.2 Ethical and Professional Responsibility ................................................................37 3.0 APPLICATION OF STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY ......................................52 3.1 Relationships with Clients—Retainer and Authority ............................................52 3.2 Relationships with Clients—Conflicts Of Duty ....................................................62 3.2.1 Generally ...................................................................................................62 3.2.2 Conflict found ...........................................................................................64 3.2.3 Conflict not found .....................................................................................67 3.3 Relationships with Clients—Rendering Services .................................................70 3.3.1 Generally ...................................................................................................70 3.3.2 Confidentiality and Privilege ....................................................................91 3.3.3 Negotiations ............................................................................................ 98 3.4 Relationships with Clients—Personal ................................................................118 3.5 Relationships with Clients—Special Cases ........................................................120 3.6 Relationships with Third Parties .........................................................................128 3.7 Relationships with Other Lawyers ......................................................................136 3.8 Relationships with Courts ...................................................................................147 3.9 Relationships with State ......................................................................................155 3.10 Relationships with Technology ...........................................................................157 National Family Law Program, 2016 i 01.06.16 4.0 PROCEEDINGS DERIVING FROM BREACHES OF STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................... 167 4.1 Administrative: Disciplinary ...............................................................................167 4.2 Judicial: Penal ...................................................................................................183 4.3 Judicial: Civil ...................................................................................................189 4.4 Judicial: Criminal ................................................................................................203 5.0 FEES AND COSTS ...................................................................................................208 5.1 Fees .....................................................................................................................208 5.2 Costs ....................................................................................................................221 APPENDIX A: Loss Prevention Bulletins (May 1991 to May 2016) A.1 .................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... APPENDIX B: Loss Prevention E-Bytes (December 2008 to May 2016) ............................. B.1 National Family Law Program, 2016 ii 01.06.16 TABLE OF CONTENTS (DETAILED) 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SOURCES AND STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY .......................................... 32 2.1 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................................ 32 Luft v. Zinkhofer .....................................................................................................32 “No Paralegal Licence For [Disbarred Former Lawyer]”......................................35 “Groia challenges [findings of misconduct and] LSUC penalty at appeal court” ..................................................................................................................36 “SCC Recognizes A Lawyer’s Duty Of Commitment To The Client’s Cause” .................................................................................................................36 2.2 ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 37 “Tips for dealing with difficult people” .................................................................37 “Lights, camera, legal ethics” ................................................................................37 “Are lawyers professionals?” .................................................................................38 “Is there a new view on defence ethics?” ..............................................................38 “Legal advertising under the microscope” .............................................................39 “Religious Lawyering” ..........................................................................................40 “Suspended bâtonnière calls for inquiry on leaked shoplifting allegations” .........40 “ ‘Unbalanced promotion of competition’ puts lawyers’ ethical standards at risk” .................................................................................................................41 “CBA course puts focus on mental health” ...........................................................41 “Confidentiality screens rise in importance with law firms[:] In some scenarios, screen is just not enough, …” ............................................................42 “Look left, look right, one of you drinks too much” .............................................43 “Sexual harassment lingers: LSUC counsel” .........................................................43 “The worldwide web can catch unsuspecting lawyers” .........................................44 “ ‘Good fences make good neighbours’ – Bad Neighbours and their Behaviours Examined” .......................................................................................45 “The Road Not Taken[:] Is it time to re-evaluate your choices?” .........................45 “Tripping Up Your Time Trolls[:] Take control of your time and productivity” .......................................................................................................46 “Confronting the problem[:] Lawyers suffer from depression more than any other profession so practitioners and regulators should be open about it”...............................................................................................................47 National Family Law Program, 2016 iii 01.06.16 “Ethics in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canadian Taxpayer Vol41 No10-1Stproof 1..8
    Editor: Arthur B.C. Drache, C.M., Q.C. Pages 73-80 May 17, 2019 Vol. xli No. 10 Minister come to the Island during the election would be P.E.I. Election Produces Minority ªcounter-productiveº. Government ThesurgeoftheGreenswasnosurpriseaspollsformonths had suggested that they were running ahead of the two For the first time since the 19th century, voters in Prince traditional parties and might actually form the govern- Edward Island have abandoned their traditional embrace ment. In the event, the Conservatives finished with 37 of the Island's two-party system, electing a Tory minority percent of the popular vote, followed by the Greens at 31 government and handing the upstart Green Party official and the Liberals at 29. The NDP received just 3 percent. opposition status for the first time. Voter turnout was 77 percent, a five-point drop from the With all polls reporting the Tories had won 12 seats, the 2015 election. Greens held eight, and the incumbent Liberals, led by The election campaign was in stark contrast to that in Premier Wade MacLauchlan, had won six. But MacLau- Alberta. Civility was the rule of the day and even in the chlan lost his own seat. He subsequently announced his leaders' debate, there was more consensus on issues than resignation as head of the party. real debate. The Liberals were seeking a fourth term in office, having Premier-designate Dennis King now faces a task that has repeatedly reminded Islanders that the province's econ- never before been faced by a P.E.I. premier. He needs to omy remains the strongest in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Towards a Fairer Fee Policy: Report on Responses to Consultation
    Moving towards a fairer fee policy Report on responses to consultation paper 19 Table of contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Responses to the questions................................................................................................. 4 Principles and objectives of any new fee structure....................................................... 4 Preferred Models .......................................................................................................... 8 Special Cases............................................................................................................. 11 Compensation Fund ................................................................................................... 13 Impacts of the new regime on private practice ........................................................... 15 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 16 30/10/2009 1 www.sra.org.uk Introduction 1. The consultation paper, Moving towards a Fairer Fee Policy, was part of the first phase of an engagement strategy designed to collate views of the profession, its representative bodies and other stakeholders on how the costs of regulation should be shared and what the best approach to establish a fairer fee charging structure should be. It also dealt with new ways of setting compensation fund contributions. 2. The consultation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training
    Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training Organisations (DRAFT 9.3, 3 October 2017) BSB Authorisation Framework CONTENTS Table of Contents PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 COMPONENTS AND PATHWAYS ........................................................................... 4 AUTHORISATION, RE-AUTHORISATION AND MONITORING............................... 8 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THEY MEAN .................................................... 10 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 10 ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................. 11 AFFORDABILITY ................................................................................................................ 12 HIGH STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 13 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THE BSB WANTS TO SEE - INDICATORS ... 14 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 14 Strategic Goals and Oversight ......................................................................................... 14 Education and Training ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the Bar Standards Board
    Meeting of the Bar Standards Board Thursday 27 November 2014, 4.30 pm Room 1, First Floor, Bar Standards Board Offices, 289-293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Agenda Part 1 – Public Page 1. Welcome and introductions Chair (4.30 pm) 2. Apologies Chair 3. Members’ interests and hospitality Chair 4. Approval of Part 1 (public) minutes: 23 October 2014 Annex A 3-10 5. Matters Arising Chair’s sign off of BTT Handbook; BPTC Handbook; General Guide to CPD; Pupillage Handbook. 6. a) Action points and progress Annex B Chair 11-16 b) Forward agendas Annex C Chair 17-18 Items for discussion 7. Performance Report for Q2 (Jul – Sept 2014) BSB 082 (14) Anne Wright 19-36 (4.40 pm) 8. BSB annual report on BTAS and the Browne BSB 083 (14) Vanessa Davies 37-53 recommendations (5.00 pm) 9. Chair’s Report on Visits and Meetings: BSB 084 (14) Chair 55-56 Oct 14 – Nov 14 10. Director General’s Report BSB 085 (14) Vanessa Davies 57-68 (5.20 pm) 11. Any other business (5.25 pm) 12. Date of next meetings Thursday 11 December 2014 (Board Away Day) Thursday 29 January 2015 (full Board meeting) 13. Private Session John Picken, Board & Committees Officer [email protected] 20 November 2014 BSB 271114 2 ANNEX A Part 1 - Public Part 1 - Public Minutes of the Bar Standards Board meeting Thursday 23 October 2014, Room 1.1, First Floor 289 – 293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Present: Ruth Deech QC (Hon) (Chair) Patricia Robertson QC (Vice Chair) Rolande Anderson Rob Behrens Sarah Clarke (items 7-17) Justine Davidge Tim Robinson Andrew Sanders Anne Wright
    [Show full text]
  • The Bsb Handbook Part Ii
    Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct THE BSB HANDBOOK PART II – THE CODE OF CONDUCT CONTENTS A. APPLICATION B. THE CORE DUTIES C. THE CONDUCT RULES C1 YOU AND THE COURT C2 BEHAVING ETHICALLY C3 YOU AND YOUR CLIENT C4 YOU AND YOUR REGULATOR C5 YOU AND YOUR PRACTICE C5.1 GENERAL C5.2 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS C5.3 CHAMBERS C.5.4 ENTITIES D. RULES APPLYING TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF REGULATED PERSONS D1 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS, CHAMBERS, BSB AUTHORISED BODIES AND THEIR MANAGERS D1.1 COMPLAINTS RULES D1.2 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY D1.3 PUPILLAGE FUNDING AND ADVERTISING D2 BARRISTERS UNDERTAKING PUBLIC ACCESS OR LICENSED ACCESS WORK D2.1 PUBLIC ACCESS RULES D2.2 LICENSED ACCESS RULES D3 PRACTISING BARRISTERS OR ENTITIES PROVIDING CRIMINAL ADVOCACY D4.1 QASA RULES1 1 To be added later 1 Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct D4 REGISTERED EUROPEAN LAWYERS D5 UNREGISTERED BARRISTERS D6 CROSS BORDER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA2 2 To be added later 2 Part II : The Code of Conduct Section A: Application A. APPLICATION II.A1. [Link to main introduction] II.A2. Who? II.A2.1 Section II.B (Core Duties): applies to all BSB regulated persons except where stated otherwise, and references to "you" and "your" in Section II.B shall be construed accordingly. II.A2.2 Section II.C (Conduct Rules): (a) Applies to all BSB regulated persons apart from unregistered barristers except where stated otherwise. (b) Rules II.C1.R2, II.C1.R3, II.C2.R1, II.C3.R2, II.C3.R5 and II.C4.R1 to II.C4.R7 (and associated guidance to those rules) and the guidance on Core Duties also apply to unregistered barristers.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2008
    canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2008) vol. 56, no 3, 661 - 707 The Dividing Line Between the Jurisdictions of the Tax Court of Canada and Other Superior Courts David Jacyk* P r é c i s Le droit fiscal est sans aucun doute l’une des branches du droit les plus exigeantes et les plus complexes au Canada. On pourrait penser qu’en matière de droit fiscal, la question de la juridiction des tribunaux se pose très simplement en ces termes : quel tribunal peut statuer sur les affaires qui concernent l’administration de la législation fiscale? Pourtant, cette question à elle seule a fait l’objet d’un grand nombre de litiges depuis des décennies, devant différents tribunaux de première instance et d’appel partout au Canada, ce qui montre bien la complexité de la question de la compétence des tribunaux dans un état fédéral, et ce, même dans un domaine de droit comme la fiscalité qui est pourtant bien circonscrit. L’abondance de jurisprudence sur la question de la juridiction est particulièrement importante depuis quelques années, et elle comporte plusieurs décisions des cours d’appel qui ont contribué à éclaircir davantage cette question. Ce nouvel éclairage a donné lieu à des développements très appréciés. En reconstituant l’évolution du droit dans ce domaine, le présent article brosse un portrait détaillé et complet du droit et propose une analyse qui s’appuie sur les étapes suivantes : n l’examen de la structure des tribunaux fédéraux et en fiscalité; n la reconstitution de l’évolution de la jurisprudence aussi bien avant qu’après la réorganisation au fédéral du réseau des cours d’appel en fiscalité de 1991; n la prise en compte des décisions des tribunaux provinciaux qui se sont penchés sur cette question de façon indépendante du réseau des tribunaux fédéraux; n la prise en compte de l’ensemble des décisions en matière de rectification, un domaine qui a donné lieu à mon avis à des anomalies, mais des résultats tout de même gérables et prévisibles; * Of the Department of Justice, Ottawa.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents
    Bristol Institute of Legal Practice www.uwe.ac.uk Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal 3 Practice (BILP)? Enhancing employability 4 Careers and student support 5 Graduate Diploma in Law/CPE (GDL/CPE) 9 (full-time and part-time) Legal Practice Course (LPC) 14 (full-time and part-time) Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) 25 (full-time and part-time) LLM Advanced Legal Practice 29 Visit us 30 Financial Information 30 2 www.uwe.ac.uk/bilp Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal Practice? The Bristol Institute of Legal Practice (BILP) is part of the wider Faculty of Business and Law at UWE (which comprises Bristol Law School and Bristol Business School). With more than forty years’ successful involvement in professional vocational legal education, a strong national and international reputation and established links with both legal professions and business, we are widely recognised as one of the leading providers of professional legal education in the UK. We have a reputation for excellence within the legal profession and for delivering courses of the very highest quality. BILP’s professional courses will provide you with a foundation for a career in Law that is hard to match. • We understand that students today face increasing competition to secure employment in a challenging and rapidly changing market place and we put great emphasis on the careers support and added business focus that we give our students. • Our LPC is one of a very few providers nationally to have continuously held the SRA’s highest possible grading of ‘excellent’.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Submitted in Conformity with the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws (LL.M) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto
    “The Life of a Reserve”: How Might We Improve the Structure, Content, Accessibility, Length & Timeliness of Judicial Decisions? by Jon Khan A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Jon Khan (2019) “The Life of a Reserve”: How Might We Improve the Structure, Content, Accessibility, Length & Timeliness of Judicial Decisions? Jon Khan Masters of Law Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2019 Abstract This thesis explains how judicial decisions may impact access to justice and how might we make decisions a better source of data while also making them more timely, concise, accessible, and consistent. It examines the historical and theoretical underpinnings of Canadian decisions and the relationship of decision-writing to decision-making. It then discusses the results of an original empirical study of the evolution of British Columbia trial decisions over the last forty years and a survey of Canadian courts. It argues that the current process for writing and issuing Canadian judicial decisions likely does not further the goals of access to justice and may even hinder them. To improve access to justice, it suggests that governments, academics, and judiciaries should rely on human-centered design to design standardized structures and templates for decisions, and it provides a design plan for such reforms and examines the ways judicial independence may impact such reforms. ii Acknowledgments To my advisor—Professor Andrew Green—I would have been rudderless without your direction. Thank you for motivating me to continually think about why judges do what they do and to persistently explore my intuitions about the law and what data can reveal.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Bar Training Consultation on The
    Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Future Bar Training Consultation on the Future of Training for the Bar: Academic, Vocational and Professional Stages of Training Summary of responses January 2016 BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Executive Summary Background to the consultation In summer 2013, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS; now called CILEX Regulation) published the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR). This was a large, independent review of the system of training legal professionals in England and Wales. The review recognised many good features in the system for training barristers. It also looked to the future and recommended reform so that training would be better matched for barristers and clients in 2020 and beyond. In February 2015, we published our vision for the future of training for the Bar. In that paper, we set out our proposal for a Professional Statement that describes the standards that should be expected of all authorised barristers upon entry to the profession. In addition, we explained why we were embarking on a review of how we are involved in setting education and training requirements for barristers. The Future Bar Training consultation, launched in the summer of 2015, built on that paper, exploring what changes might be made to the current system. It examined possible approaches to reform of the system and regulatory requirements, and considered the current three-stage formulation of training. Responses to the consultation There were 58 responses to the consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul J. Lawrence Fonds PF39
    FINDING AID FOR Paul J. Lawrence fonds PF39 User-Friendly Archival Software Tools provided by v1.1 Summary The "Paul J. Lawrence fonds" Fonds contains: 0 Subgroups or Sous-fonds 4 Series 0 Sub-series 0 Sub-sub-series 2289 Files 0 File parts 40 Items 0 Components Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................Biographical/Sketch/Administrative History .........................................................................................................................54 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................Scope and Content .........................................................................................................................54 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbria Research Link
    Northumbria Research Link Citation: Mckeown, Paul (2019) “We don’t need no thought control” What is the intent and impact of teaching values in clinical legal education? Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/43950/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol i cies.html “WE DON’T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL” WHAT IS THE INTENT AND IMPACT OF TEACHING VALUES IN CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION? Paul McKeown Northumbria Law School A written commentary submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work October 2019 For Fraser and Aoife Declaration I declare that no outputs submitted for this degree have been submitted for a research degree of any other institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes
    TAX DISPUTES & RESOLUTION CENTRE BENNETT JONES ON TAX DISPUTES TAXNET PRO MARCH 23, 2020 Table of Contents Participant Expert Evidence in Tax Litigation Proceedings……………………………………………………………….2 Judicial Review of CRA Decisions After Vavilov: A Less Taxing Task?..................................................7 Disclosure Discouraged - The New VDP Two Years On…………………………………………………………………..14 Tax Court of Canada – Practice Direction and Order…………………………………………………………………….. 17 Tax Court of Canada – Notice to the Public and the Profession .………………………………………………….. 18 Federal Court of Appeal – Notice to the Public and the Profession .……..…………………………………….. 20 Government of Canada – Corona disease (COVID-19) Collections, audits, and appeals………..……… 22 Cases of Note……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Appeals Table ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34 1 BENNETT JONES ON TAX DISPUTES Participant Expert Evidence in Tax Litigation Proceedings By Ed Kroft, QC and Marc Pelletier (Student-at-Law) When parties are engaged in acrimonious proceedings, jurisprudence about procedural issues is one product of the dispute. One or both of the parties force judges to decide procedural questions about which the parties cannot agree. For example, a court may need to decide, inter alia, whether a witness can testify as an expert, or whether any documents not previously disclosed through the discovery process can be admitted as evidence. These issues were recently discussed in Kaul v The Queen [Kaul].1 In Kaul v The Queen (the "Motion"),2 the Tax Court of Canada (the "Tax Court") commented on proposed expert opinion evidence with regard to the rules that apply under section 145 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules3 (the "Rules") and its accompanying Code of Conduct under Schedule III. The Tax Court had to reconcile common law with regard to independent expert evidence, participant expert evidence, and section 145 of the Rules to determine if the appellants' (Messrs.
    [Show full text]