For the Public

Common Concerns

Quality of Service

 

Chapter II of the Code  of Professional Conduct confirms that the lawyer owes the client a duty to be competent to perform any legal services undertaken on the client's behalf.  The lawyer should be conscientious, diligent and efficient in the provision of services to the client. The client is entitled to assume that the lawyer has the ability and capacity to deal adequately with any legal matters undertaken on the client's behalf.

The Code sets out an illustrative but not exhaustive list of examples where the lawyer's conduct does not meet the quality of service required by the Rule:

(a) failure to keep the client reasonably informed;

(b) failure to answer reasonable requests from the client for information;

(c) unexplained failure to respond to the client's telephone calls;

(d) failure to keep appointments with clients without explanation or apology;

(e) informing the client that something will happen or that some step will be taken by a certain date, then letting the date pass without follow-up information or explanation;

(f) failure to answer within a reasonable time a communication that requires a reply;

(g) doing the work in hand but doing it so belatedly that its value to the client is diminished or lost;

(h) slipshod work, such as mistakes or omissions in statements or documents prepared on behalf of the client;

(i) failure to maintain office staff and facilities adequate to the lawyer's practice;

(j) failure to inform the client of proposals of settlement, or to explain them properly;

(k) withholding information from the client or misleading the client about the position of a matter in order to cover up the fact of neglect or mistakes;

(l) failure to make a prompt and complete report when the work is finished or, if a final report cannot be made, failure to make an interim report where one might reasonably be expected;

(m) self-induced disability, for example from the use of intoxicants or drugs, which interferes with or prejudices the lawyer's services to the client;

(n) failure to maintain an adequate limitation reminder or tickler system to ensure an effective follow-up procedure with respect to the lawyer's files.

 
 
A mistake, error or omission by a lawyer would not automatically constitute a failure to maintain the standard for 'quality of service' set by the Code of Professional Conduct and result in review of the lawyer's conduct. However, evidence of gross neglect in a particular matter or a pattern of dilatory practice, neglect and/or mistakes in several different matters may be evidence of such a failure. Evidence of dishonesty or bad faith may also escalate errors, omissions and/or negligence to misconduct. It is possible that damages may be awarded in a separate action for negligence and disciplinary sanctions may result from a pattern of incompetent or dilatory practice or bad faith and misconduct although this is not common.