Law Society of Saskatchewan
Find Legal AssistanceMember ProfileMember ResourcesContact
  • 0
    Cart
  • My Account
  • About Us
      • slider_1Latest News
      • PPSA 1101 (Survey Course) – Free Enrolment for Articling Students in Saskatchewan
      • Family Law Help Sessions – Moose Jaw
      • Articulating a Framework for Cultural Competency in Law: Links between Education and Practice
      • News
        • Legal Sourcery
        • Podcast
        • Re:Source Mail
        • Videos
        • Benchers’ Digest
        • Case Mail
      • Mission and Values
      • Committees and Task Forces
      • Convocation
      • Benchers
        • Bencher Election 2018
        • Bencher Election 2021
      • Annual and Financial Reports
      • Contact Us
  • Initiatives
    • slider_1Initiatives
      The Law Society is seeking to identify legal service providers for new initiatives. This unique approach, the first of its kind in Canada, enables the Law Society to expand access to appropriately regulated legal services in a responsible and sustainable manner. The overall goal is to balance the need for enhanced access to legal services for underserved Saskatchewan citizens while ensuring public protection. For more information, click below. Consultation
      • Access to Justice
        • Future of Legal Services Initiative
        • Limited Scope Legal Services
      • Equity
      • Legal Information
        • Legal Information Guidelines
        • Saskatchewan Access to Legal Information
      • Innovating Regulation
      • Truth and Reconciliation
        • Additional Resources
        • Notice to Day School Survivors
      • Saskatchewan Justicia Project
  • Regulation
    • slider_1Remote Executing Of Certain Documents And Remote Witnessing Of Wills By Electronic Means Legislation Now Permanent
      We are happy to announce that today, the Government of Saskatchewan repealed the temporary emergency regulations related to remote execution of certain documents and wills and replaced those regulations with permanent regulations allowing for remote execution of documents via electronic means (i.e. video calls) to continue long-term beyond the end of the public emergency period. Practice Directives
      • Definition of the Practice of Law and Unauthorized Practice of Law
      • Firm Regulation
        • Designated Representative (DR) Hub
      • Act, Code and Rules
        • The Legal Profession Act, 1990
        • Code of Professional Conduct and Amendments
        • Law Society Rules, Amendments and Practice Directives
        • Rules Concordance – Read More
      • Hearings, Decisions and Rulings
        • Pending Discipline Matters
        • Discipline Decisions
        • Conduct Review Database
        • Ethics Rulings Database
        • Pending Admissions and Education Matters
        • Admissions and Education Decisions
        • Disqualification and Reinstatement
      • Lawyers with Practice Conditions/Restrictions
      • Lawyer Trusteeships and Successors
      • Potential Complaint Outcomes
        • Ethics Committee
        • Competency Committee
        • Conduct Investigation Committee
  • Public
    • slider_1New Law Society Complaint Form
      The goal is to assist and encourage complainants to provide clear and concise descriptions of their concerns, and reduce confusion by removing technical terms that may not be fully understood by members of the general public (i.e.: “conflict of interest”). Complaint Form
      • Finding Legal Assistance
      • Find Legal Assistance Search Guidance
      • What to Expect From Your Lawyer
      • Looking For Lost Wills
      • Making a Complaint
        • Complaints Process
      • Common Client Concerns
        • Understanding Lawyers’ Fees
        • Quality of Service
        • Conflict of Interest
        • Confidentiality
        • Withdrawal
        • File Transfers
      • Common Client Concerns
        • Role of an Estate’s Lawyer
        • Role of Opposing Lawyer
        • Breach of Trust Conditions/Undertakings
        • Lawyer’s Conduct in Court
        • Lawyer’s Outside Interests
  • Lawyers and Students
    • hiring sign resizedCareer and Volunteer Opportunities
      • Becoming a Lawyer in Saskatchewan
        • Students-at-law
        • Transfer Lawyers
        • International Applicants
      • Becoming a Principal
      • Career And Volunteer Opportunities
        • Students Seeking Articles
      • Membership Services
      • Awards, Bursaries, Scholarships
      • Consultation
      • Locum Registry
      • Practice Advisor Program
      • Forms and Fees
        • Law Society Forms
        • Trust Account Forms
      • Western Conveyancing Protocol
        • Protocol for Saskatchewan
      • Practice Resources
        • General Resources
        • Queen’s Bench Rules
      • Health and Wellness
  • Legal Resources
  • CPD
    • slider_1Continuing Professional Development
      • CPD Activities
        • CPD Calendar of Activities
        • CPD On Demand (Subscription)
        • Recorded Versions Shop
        • Study Group Resources
      • CPD Policy
        • Reporting CPD Hours
        • Eligible CPD Activities
        • Approved Providers
        • Remedial CPD Plan Information
        • FAQs
        • Transition to One-Year CPD Term
      • Contact Us
      • Volunteers
      • Presenter Section
  • Shop
Law Society of Saskatchewan Legal Ethics This Week in Legal Ethics – New Professional Conduct Ruling

This Week in Legal Ethics – New Professional Conduct Ruling

June 8, 2016

LegalEthicsBannerBy Melanie Hodges Neufeld

The Law Society’s Ethics Committee recently released the following Professional Conduct Ruling as guidance for the profession. For your convenience, I’ve listed the ruling below but it can also be found in our Professional Conduct Rulings Database.

Date: April 28, 2016
Cite as: 2016 SKLSPC 2
Code Chapter: 4.01(6); 6.02(11)
Code Heading: The Lawyer as Advocate; Responsibility to Lawyers and Others
Classification: Undertakings and Trust Conditions; Effect of Limitation Periods on Trust Conditions or Undertakings
Practice Area: Real Estate

Facts:

Lawyer X represents the builder of a residential property, Client B. Lawyer Z represents the purchaser of said property, Client P.

Around the time of closing, Lawyer Z advised that there was still landscaping and clean-up work to be done at the property and both lawyers negotiated and agreed that Lawyer X would hold $5,000 as a holdback, and that Client P would authorize the release of the holdback, when Client B completed the seasonal work that it was “contractually obligated to perform.”

A few months later, Lawyer X advised that the seasonal work was complete and asked for authorization to release the holdback.

Lawyer Z responded that Client P was having an inspection done and once informed of the result, Lawyer Z would advise.

Shortly after, Lawyer X again advised that the seasonal work was completed and requested authorization to release the holdback.

Lawyer Z responded that certain work was not done to Client P’s satisfaction and that Client P had hired someone else to do the work.

A few months later, Lawyer Z forwarded invoices for work that Client P had outside contractors perform, including moving an incorrectly placed sewer line and proposed Client P receive a certain amount from the $5,000 holdback. Lawyer Z received no response.

Lawyer X responded requesting authorization to release the holdback two more times. Lawyer X received no response.

Then, Lawyer X requests evidence that the sewer line was incorrectly place by Client B. She received no response.

Almost a year later, Lawyer Z suggests that Client B commence an action in Small Claims for the $5,000 and then Client P would counter claim for the amount spent to remedy the work. Lawyer Z received no response.

A few months later, Lawyer X advised of their position that if Client B were in breach of the purchase agreement, then Client P had a two-year limitation period within which to take legal action against Client B. They believe that the limitation period began to run at the earliest, when the holdback was agreed to and at the latest, when the third party contractor was hired. In either case, their position was that the two-year limitation period had expired and that unless Lawyer Z could provide a Statement of Claim issued on or before the date when the third party contractor was hired, the claim was statute barred and the holdback should be released.

Lawyer Z did not agree with Lawyer X’ position and believes that if lawyer X released the holdback, Lawyer X would be in breach of Lawyer X’ undertaking.

Decision:

The Ethics Committee considered whether Lawyer X would be in breach of the undertaking regarding the holdback, should Lawyer X release the holdback to Client B.

The Committee determined that:

The trust conditions and/or undertakings should have been better defined at the time they were accepted. Since a lawyer is bound by the conditions as they are written, Lawyer X is bound by the undertaking to hold the funds until Client P authorizes the release.

Lawyer X sought the authorization of Client P to release the holdback throughout the course of the transaction. This demonstrates acknowledgment of the undertaking obligations not to release the funds without prior consent of Client P. The potential limitation period, valid or not, does not release Lawyer X from those obligations.

Therefore, Lawyer X would be in breach of the undertaking, if Lawyer X were to release the funds.

Share this:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

Categories

Subscribe Now

Subscribe for the latest news from our blog "Legal Sourcery".

Submit News Post

Submission Guidelines

Online Tools

  • Search
  • Contact Us
  • Terms of Use

Quick Links

  • About Us
  • LSS Initiatives
  • For Lawyers & Students
  • For the Public
  • Regulation
  • CPD

Subscribe Now

Subscribe for the latest news from our blog "Legal Sourcery".

Stay Connected

Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin

© 2022 Law Society of Saskatchewan. Website & Hosting by OmniOnline