Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conflict of interest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conflict of interest

    If you spoke with opposing counsels law office, I.e., assistant and shared information about your case but did not meet with the lawyer, but your ex hired that lawyer after The fact, is that a conflict of interest?

    One feedback I have got is that a lawyers assistant is ultimately the lawyer when it comes to any communications- they take notes and share that information with the lawyer.

    What is chance of success on motion to remove OC ? I do have cell records showing calls to and from the law office.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • #2
    I don't think so. Conflict of interest is all about financial (or personal) incentives. Lawyers should only be operating with incentives for the client's success, not for the success of other people. If you didn't hire this lawyer (pay them money to work for you), they don't have a financial interest in ensuring that you win your case, and so they don't have a conflict if your ex hires them. Just talking to people in their office doesn't count.

    My ex ended up using a lawyer that I had already spoken to (but ended up choosing a different lawyer to represent me) - no conflict.

    If you gave the office assistant lots of information about your case that you were hoping to keep confidential, you might have a problem, but I doubt you did that.

    Comment


    • #3
      If you spoke with opposing counsels law office, I.e., assistant and shared information about your case but did not meet with the lawyer, but your ex hired that lawyer after The fact, is that a conflict of interest?
      It would depend on:
      - What information did you give them? Would they have the information anyways?
      - Do you have a reasonable expectation that the lawyer would be loyal to you (ie, not act against you)?
      - When did the call occur, and how long has the lawyer acted? If you called them a year ago and they have acted for your ex for 11 months you would need to justify why it is only brought up now.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you have shared personal information about your case from your perspective to that lawyer, even if you don't hire them, then they cannot represent the other side.

        My lawyer told me it's a common dirty tactic for someone to go around to all the best lawyers in town, have a consultation in which they divulge privileged information, and then not retain them, thus preventing their ex from being able to get one of these good lawyers.

        And yet it's a good practice to consult with several lawyers to find a good fit.

        However, I do not know if speaking to the assistant and not the lawyer in question is sufficient to prevent your ex from hiring that lawyer. Do you have reason to believe the information you shared with the office is being used against you? Are you questioning your ex's choice of lawyer, or did you have previous opportunities to do so but didn't, and so tacitly approved?

        Comment


        • #5
          It has been to my understanding that the assistant is ultimately the lawyer when it comes to communications, especially for sole practitioners. .

          It was a long conversation by phone and I told them basically everything, my motives, etc.

          Did she take notes? Very likely. Did she discuss with the counsel? Very likely.

          It has been over 12 months since OP retained OC and it has been approx 2 years since I had this conversation with OC assistant

          Comment


          • #6
            Who in the hell discusses, in such great depth, their "motives" with lawyer's hired help/stranger over the telephone?

            I would never have a such a discussion with anyone other than the individual who would represent me in court.

            Don't you have a friend to talk to.... a bartender....rabbi/priest?

            If I were the lawyer in question I'd be wondering why my staff member was spending so much of his/her time on the telephone with non-clients.

            Lawyer is a member of the law association, not the secretary. Good luck making anything out of this.

            Comment


            • #7
              If its been a year it's a bit late to be crying conflict of interest now...?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by trinton View Post
                It has been over 12 months since OP retained OC and it has been approx 2 years since I had this conversation with OC assistant
                Unfortunately, the time to object would have been immediately after she notified you who her lawyer was. "You can't use that guy! I told him stuff!" Since a year has passed in which you had no comment, you have clearly acquiesced to her choice of lawyer. You can't turn around now and say you have issues with it.

                The exception would be if something arises that makes you believe the lawyer is using the information his assistant obtained from you against you. The lawyer would clearly be in violation of your expectation of confidentiality upon first consulting his office. This is the reason lawyers are so careful about not taking on a client when they have already had dealings with the other side - to avoid accidentally using information they should not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  okay so the conversation was 2 years ago and your ex has had the lawyer for a year now? I am thinking the same as Arabian, no one tells their entire case to the assistant when there are paying clients trying to call etc. The assistant would of asked you to set up an appointment with the lawyer. They wouldn't waste their time on the phone when there are paying clients calling or coming into the office.

                  I have a feeling that you are not liking the way your case is going and are trying all the angles .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                    okay so the conversation was 2 years ago and your ex has had the lawyer for a year now? I am thinking the same as Arabian, no one tells their entire case to the assistant when there are paying clients trying to call etc. The assistant would of asked you to set up an appointment with the lawyer. They wouldn't waste their time on the phone when there are paying clients calling or coming into the office.

                    I have a feeling that you are not liking the way your case is going and are trying all the angles .
                    At an average of 350.00/hr I suppose someone might think they can save some money by sucking up to a receptionist. Problem is, this person didn't go to law school. It would be like taking advice from a receptionist in a medicentre instead of seeing the doctor... yeah she/he can "talk the talk" but do you really think they are qualified to give out advice?

                    Anyhow, I digress. You are grasping at straws. Focus on the issues and put away the wacky-tobaccy for a while.... same goes for the conspiracy theories. Get a good lawyer... pay your lawyer... shut up and listen to your lawyer? LOL If you were my client I would direct my staff NOT to talk to you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
                      If its been a year it's a bit late to be crying conflict of interest now...?
                      Yes. 99% of the time the whole conflict of interest is a tactic to try and stall and/or gain an advantage. My recommendation to triton is to stop with the nonsense and settle the matter and to stop looking for "angles" to "win".

                      Something to consider:

                      Lawyer won?t be banned from McCain heiress annulment case because no evidence he?ll use her secrets | National Post

                      If someone with McCain money (french fries) can't get it done then you have no hope in hell.

                      McCain v Melanson, 2016 ONSC 6350 (CanLII)
                      Date: 2016-10-18
                      Docket: FS-16-00409757
                      Citation: McCain v Melanson, 2016 ONSC 6350 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gv6pf

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Did she take notes? Very likely. Did she discuss with the counsel? Very likely.

                        It has been over 12 months since OP retained OC and it has been approx 2 years since I had this conversation with OC assistant
                        A receptionist generally does not take comprehensive notes. A legal clerk would probably write a short memo if an appointment was made, listing the biographical information and the issue for the appointment. If no appointment was made, or if the appointment never happened, the information was probably shredded. The lawyer may not know you spoke to staff.

                        I agree with other posters above - if it has not been an issue for the past year then it is not an issue.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                          A receptionist generally does not take comprehensive notes. A legal clerk would probably write a short memo if an appointment was made, listing the biographical information and the issue for the appointment. If no appointment was made, or if the appointment never happened, the information was probably shredded. The lawyer may not know you spoke to staff.

                          I agree with other posters above - if it has not been an issue for the past year then it is not an issue.
                          It certainly had been an issue, i raised it with my counsel immediately when I became aware of it, counsel basically never responded to my initial response and when I asked about it at a later meeting she basically said it would have had to been done when opposing counsel came on record - being completely ignorant of the fact that she didn't read and/or ignored the reply.

                          There was more than 1 phone call, it was a through conversation, to arabian, lots of people have conversations with the clerks, the clerk advised the lawyer wasn't taking cases for another 6 months and wanted to know what the case was about and so I told her everything. I am more than sure she made notes, discussed with opposing counsel, and confirmed an appointment date.

                          I am bringing forward a motion anyhow for a Christmas schedule, travel rights, and additional disclosure and I don't think it will hurt to mention this as part of this motion. Any thoughts?

                          The legal advise I have got recently is that the courts may not order OP off record due to prejudice being caused on OP but it should be mentioned to the courts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Then take a "chill pill" - unless you were a paying customer they likely tossed notes in the trash. He said/she said stuff is not useful to a competent lawyer anyhow.

                            Sounds like you are over-analyzing your situation?

                            Focus on the important stuff. If you mention this you will hoop yourself IMO. No relevance... grasping at straws...

                            Learn to keep your cards closer to your chest now and in the future. If you are rattled by someone or something don't let on. Be Mr. Cool.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by arabian View Post
                              Then take a "chill pill" - unless you were a paying customer they likely tossed notes in the trash. He said/she said stuff is not useful to a competent lawyer anyhow.

                              Sounds like you are over-analyzing your situation?

                              Focus on the important stuff. If you mention this you will hoop yourself IMO. No relevance... grasping at straws...

                              Learn to keep your cards closer to your chest now and in the future. If you are rattled by someone or something don't let on. Be Mr. Cool.
                              so you're saying 2/3 lengthy phone calls to her law office (evidenced by cellphone bill) and a written note of a referral to a lawyer is not suffice to satisfy that I had discussed my particulars?

                              The assistants note may very well be in the trash or it may very well be on her calendar bookmark in outlook - we don't know.

                              I did sent OC a letter advising her of the conflict of interest, I don't think she'll respond, she may or she may not. TO bring the issue up in court, I'm not sure, the judge may or may not order her off. From the judges standpoint, there is probably cause that she has or has read information

                              Does a letter to the lawyer have any negative effects of a motion that some of you are warning against?

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X