I just unearthed a gem
While I was googling about another subject this morning, I unearthed a gem! This has made my day!
Remember when I said our Law Society's Director of Insurance had been in her position since 1992 (the longest in Canada by the way) and she has been the laziest in terms of "educating" the lawyers in our province pertaining to Loss Prevention and Risk Management techniques. Unlike other provinces' Law Societies larger and smaller than ours, she has posted absolutely NOTHING on our Law Society's website pertaining to Loss Prevention and Risk Management techniques. NOTHING at all. ZILCH.
The insurance defense lawyer she hires most of the time is a good buddy of hers and a fellow Law Society Committee member. In 2010, he was the Chairperson who coordinated the revisions to The Law Society's Code of Professional Conduct. Whereas other provinces large and small have included clauses/sections/wording pertaining to "limited scope retainer agreement" (please note that Full Legal Representation is the public's expectation from lawyers), our Chairperson didn't include any clauses/sections/wording whatsoever pertaining to "limited scope retainer agreement" presumably because the Director of Insurance was too lazy to give him the pertinent clauses, so again our province's lawyers aren't being educated on limited scope retainers. ZILCH.
Considering that the above two individuals who usually determine whether our province's lawyers should be covered for professional liability insurance when former clients sue their lawyers for legal malpractice, these two amigos of course will cover them since they haven't done anything to educate this province's lawyers. (By the way, part of the mandate of a law society is to educate its lawyers.) Lawyers who have been turned down for insurance coverage would sue the Law Society (and win) for not educating them. See what laziness has cost the Insurer so far?
The Director of Insurance chortled when she wrote to me, "Mr. JDD, in our province, it's not mandatory for lawyers to give their clients a "written" retainer agreement; an "oral" retainer is perfectly acceptable. As for what other provinces' law societies do to educate their lawyers, that's inapplicable to our province's lawyers". Your two former lawyers conformed to the standard of duty of our province and they're not liable for legal malpractice." She had all her bases covered, right??!! Dead wrong!!!!
This morning, I discovered that all provinces in Canada belong to an organization called the Federation of Law Societies and they have a Model Code of Professional Conduct that they expect ALL law societies to eventually adopt so that clients can expect the same ethics and practices no matter where in Canada they live. Some provinces have adopted about 90% of the Model Code which states "Reducing to writing the discussions and agreement with the client about the limited scope retainer assists the lawyer and client in understanding the limitations of the service to be provided and any risks of the retainer." The Model Code made this "written" requirement mandatory. Other provinces viewed the "limitations" requirement as having to CLEARLY state in the written retainer agreement what constitutes the scope of legal services to be provided by a lawyer AND more importantly, what legal services are EXCLUDED.
Finding the Model Code of Professional Conduct (for ALL of Canada) means that my two former lawyers will be judged on their conformance to the standard of duty of Canadian lawyers and NOT the lawyers of our province!
Last edited by Justice Delayed & Denied; 04-08-2013 at 07:07 AM.
That is great!!! Good googling on your end.!! That's gonna be pretty hard for them to dispute or twist into their own uneducated interpretation and wording!!
Babaloo123, thank you so much for your moral support and encouragement! I do appreciate it very much.
Originally Posted by babaloo123
Yes, I know that when a lawyer missed a crucial deadline, you don't need a legal expert to testify that your lawyer didn't meet the standard of care for a Canadian lawyer. That's just common sense just like when a basketball goes through the hoop and onto the floor. There's no grey area, i.e. if the basketball got caught in the webbing, is it 1 point, 2 points or 0 point?
The reason I needed the Model Code is so when the defendants' defense lawyer wastes the court's time with his numerous affirmative defenses, I need to shoot down every one of his defenses. (My silence won't look good for me.) He'll lie by arguing that there's no national Canadian standard of care and that each province establishes its own standard of care pertaining to the provision of limited legal services. I'll show the court that yes, there is a national Canadian standard of care contained in the Federation of Law Societies' Model Code that was established in 1979 and that other provinces have adopted!
What a MAJOR FIND. Now you really do have them by the *short hairs*. I don't know if this applies in Canada, but down here, *ignorance of the law* does NOT get you out of complying with the laws as they are written so even if a person goes in and says they didn't KNOW a law existed so it couldn't apply to them, that does NOT get you out of obeying that law and the courts will convict you anyway.
Ignorance of provincial (or state) laws certainly is no excuse for a lawyer. This Model Code will hang the unethical liars by their pubic hairs!!!
Originally Posted by littlelulu
The thing is: Of all provinces large and small, our province's Director of Insurance is the laziest of them all. She has not posted any loss prevention and risk management techniques and tips on The Law Society's website. She should have at least placed URL links to the other provinces' Law Societies' websites that do have such information. The end result is "Every lawyer in our province must surf the Internet to determine what is the standard of care for providing limited legal services. They're not being spoon fed the stuff." Can they argue in court "Well, we didn't know what the standard of care was because our Law Society didn't educate us?"
People won't take you seriously due to your name, right? Ronald MacDonald is the current President of the Federation of Law Societies.
That fits, right, a CLOWN called Ronald MacDonald?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I am so glad you keep digging JD......SHE apparently got so COZY with her so called " J O B " all these years, she didn't feel the need to update herself on ANYTHING....and I love your analogy about the basket ball and hoop............sadly, its just so frustrating you have have to bang your head against a wall at the madness of it all
It still boggles my mind how the best, most detailed, proficient employee's get fired, or weeded if they have a problem with ANY lack of moral standard, work related or otherwise!
I hope you rake them over the coals!
Recovermyself, thank you for your moral support. You have been a beacon of hope for me during my time here. That means much to me, sister.
Your own lawsuit against Dr. Pervert is more complex than mine which I can simply if I want to. You also have an attorney who has not advocated fully on your behalf. It' so difficult to fight your main foe when your own bodyguard is lackluster supporting your flank position.
Yes, this Director of Insurance ought to be fired for not educating the lawyers in her province! I cannot understand why she still has a job. Eight provinces belong to the Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association (CLIA) and of the medium size provinces, she has done absolutely nothing by way of posting loss prevention techniques/tips on The Law Society's website. She's been at her job since 1992. Didn't her CLIA boss conduct annual appraisal of her job performance for the past 5 years?
Ronald MacDonald - that made me laugh. JD - you so got this!!!