Is this a conflict of interest?

[AtALoss]

I have my opinions and I am by no means a lawyer. I will cut this down to the basest of facts and I want to know what you think.

Proceeding is a default dispute. Reached resolution. Justice orders to meet at future date to adress costs. Tells our lawyer does not need to be in attendance. So isnt.
The future date comes. The other parties lawyer is there and we find out, another lawyer is there in place of our own. this new one was NOT hired by us or our lawyer to be there. As it turns out we were told both of these lawyers are from the same firm.
How screwed up is that?

[independentgal]

I just ran into this last week when I was at court. I think it is pretty common for lawyerswho could be perceived as having a conflict, to act or represent a party on short notice to "cover" for another lawyer if they are in a trial, or in court on another matter. If the matter has material filed and that is the only material the judge is basing their decision on for the most part, it could work.

But, having said that, most lawyers would inform their client in advance if this was going to happen. Did you attend this proceeding or not?

[AtALoss]

A couple of things here,

while it is true that another lawyer may have to step in, in our case told by the Justice that our lawyer did not need to be there. Why then did one step in? We dodnt know as of yet.

Now again the lawyer representing the other party and the one that steped in are from the same law firm. I know that two parties in a divorce cannot have the same firm represent them. Because of conflict of interest issues this is the rule and I think it applies to any legal case.

As we were not there we raised some questions on the endorsement that moved the date. We got our facts from a former Justice that was in attendance on our case several times. He questions this as well and told us he will be looking into exactly what happened. Just seems very fishy to all of us.

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

This is true; it is a conflict of interest.
When we were searching for a lawyer, we were given a lawyer's name, so basically by word of mouth we found what we thought was a great lawyer to represent us.

We contacted him told him of our situation without naming names or getting into minor details, and he said he would be willing to take the case.
So we go about the retainer, and sending past orders and info on our case. He calls a couple of days later and advises that he cannot take our case because another lawyer in the firm is representing the ex wife in a labour relations dispute and taking us on in a family law matter is conflict of interest even though the two cases are not related.

So if there are two lawyers from the same firm representing different parties in a FL claim it "is" a conflict of interest and I personally would not allow it.

[AtALoss]

My spouse has been trying to end his child support since 2002, and was held in a default hearing (1967days) by the bad practices of the EX's lawyer until dec08 where in a default dispute hearing he finally won. We have our lawyer retained, & brought in from Toronto. Along with it the Justice was to award repayment of they overpayment in support and costs to the lawyers. In dec the Justice tells our lawyer that he does not need to be present when costs are to be read on March 9th. We could not be present as spouse was in hospital emerg. Costs were not read that day. We requested the endorsements and this is how we found that this other lawyer was listed as being under our name. He was not hired by us or our lawyer. We were contacted yesterday by the court reporter regarding the requested transcripts (he is a former Justice) anyway he was the one that confirned that this "rogue" lawyer was from the same firm as the EX.

[AtALoss]

Well our lawyer is as much at a loss over this as we are, just as amazed and confirms that indeed it is a conflict.