Does paid intro consult with lawyer = conflict?

[jeesh4824]

I've read the LSO pages re: "lawyer conflicts" and can't get a straight answer from LSO when I called them, recognizing there are nuances. What do you think:

1. Can the lawyer below represent Spouse B (the opposing party)?

2. If yes or maybe, under what conditions? (e.g., does the lawyer need to notify Spouse A that Spouse B has approached the lawyer, and provide Spouse A with "right of first refusal" to engage the lawyer first?, etc. etc.)

Thanks

- On January 1, Spouse A pays an Ontario lawyer $300 for a one-hour introductory consultation meeting to discuss spouse's separation/divorce case. Spouse A provides lawyer with written documentation/commentary re: the situation and Spouse A's position. At end of one-hour consult, Spouse A says they need to think about whether they want to engage the lawyer in a retainer, and will get back to the lawyer if they wish to engage the lawyer.

- As of March 31, Spouse A has neither engaged the lawyer, nor has the lawyer sent Spouse A a "non-engagement letter" (https://lso.ca/lawyers/practice-supp...es/topics/the-
lawyer-client-relationship/retainer-or-non-engagement/sample-non-engagement-letter). As noted above, Spouse A *did* pay $300 for the initial consult and provide confidential info to the lawyer.

- On April 1, Spouse *B* (the opposing party in the divorce) approaches the above-noted lawyer seeking legal services.

[rockscan]

I believe that because you only met with the lawyer as an intro and didn't engage them on a retainer, they are able to represent to the other spouse.

[noteasy]

Let the lawyer here respond.

definitely sounds like a conflict to me. You discussed your case with them.


you didn’t say your ex hired that lawyer or paid them.


The law society has a referral service, ask for a referral for a malpractice lawyer and you will get. A free 30 minute consult.

[rockscan]

The law society has a referral service, ask for a referral for a malpractice lawyer and you will get. A free 30 minute consult.

Do not do this. It's not malpractice. The lawyer will have to determine if it is a conflict to represent the other party based on what you disclosed in your meeting.

The other complication is that if you live in an area with limited family law resources, there may be instances where a lawyer can reasonably represent a party where another lawyer may not.

[rockscan]

Do not do this. It's not malpractice. The lawyer will have to determine if it is a conflict to represent the other party based on what you disclosed in your meeting.

The other complication is that if you live in an area with limited family law resources, there may be instances where a lawyer can reasonably represent a party where another lawyer may not.

Also adding that you assume the lawyer will represent spouse B. Just because they call the lawyer doesn't mean they will represent them.

And you can find it on LSO if you google family lawyer & conflict.

[blinkandimgone]

This is covered in the rules of professional conduct:

[blinkandimgone]

The law society has a referral service, ask for a referral for a malpractice lawyer and you will get. A free 30 minute consult.

Don't do this.

Please don't direct people to do stuff like this. If you don't know, then it's better not to post at all than to give terrible advice.

[noteasy]

Don't do this.

Please don't direct people to do stuff like this. If you don't know, then it's better not to post at all than to give terrible advice.

I don’t know, and that is why I said they should ask a lawyer.
though I did point out that their ex may not have actually engaged them but if they are all fussed up about it…

Why is asking a lawyer a question worse than asking on an Internet forum?

If you are getting all upset about the “malpractice” thing it is just the type of lawyer that would know the answer and can justify the call. That is all. What is bad about it?

I also note that he did not get an answer here. He can look up the ethics code but while one thinks lawyers actually follow that code in a clear cut manner it is not true. I don’t want to offend the good lawyers, there are a lot of shifty ones out there that find there way around things. Come on you are a family law lawyer you know how things go!

[blinkandimgone]

1) why reply if you don't know?

2) the rules of professional conduct are clear

3) the rules of professional conduct are not optional to follow

4) I am not a lawyer.

[blinkandimgone]

I've read the LSO pages re: "lawyer conflicts" and can't get a straight answer from LSO when I called them, recognizing there are nuances. What do you think:

I entirely missed the very first part of your post, which makes my previous post unhelpful. /

So sorry about that!

[Challenger]

If this would've happen with the lawyer I had a consultation with, I'd without hesitation send a complain to the LSO for breach of the

Rule 3.4-10:

Lawyers also have a duty not to act against a former client in the same or a related matter even where the former client’s confidential information is not at risk.

I wouldn't risk hiring lawyer my ex consulted with too, for over the same risk of my lawyer being eventually removed by some judge.

Many lawyers ask you for your government issued ID to do the conflict check before even doing the initial 30 free minutes consultation likely because they don't want this headache. I am really wondering about those who don't.

[Kinso]

Lawyer here. In my view accepting a retainer from spouse B would 100% be a conflict. The receipt of payment with spouse A creates a lawyer-client relationship, even if it was for one hour. The review of confidential documents also creates a conflict.

What's a little more grey is if the consult was free, and the questions were higher level theoretical. In that situation I would not see a conflict, but it's still bad optics. I've moved away from free consults for this reason.

This is partly why higher demand family lawyers don't do free consults. It's too easy to be conflicted out.