Annotations to Chapter 2 – Standards of the Legal Profession

Annotations to rule 2.1-2  To courts and tribunals

Where a plaintiff in a personal injury litigation dies intestate shortly after judgment is pronounced, where the order reflecting the judgment has not yet been entered and there are outstanding matters to be resolved, and where no administrator has been appointed, plaintiffs counsel is under an ethical obligation to notify forthwith both the court and opposing counsel of the death of his client.  [PCH]
EC April 1994, item 5

Where the issue of liability has been settled and where the issue of quantum is to be argued, and where the plaintiff in the matter dies, a lawyer acting for the plaintiff has a duty to inform both the clerk of the court and opposing counsel of the plaintiffs death.  [PCH]
EC March 1993, item 7

Lawyers have a right and, arguably, a duty to criticize tribunals in some circumstances but such criticism must be measured against the public’s reasonable expectations of the lawyer’s professionalism. [PCH]
Dore v. Barreau du Quebec, 2012 SCC 12
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Groia, 2012 ONLSHP 94:

Annotations to rule 2.1-3  To the client

It is improper for a lawyer to give anonymous advice for a fee.
EC June 2014, item 6

Subject to the caveat that a lawyer must not represent a client who is acting out of malice, a lawyer is entitled to take account of a client’s ability to pay in setting a reduced fee, or in acting without fee, and the lawyer is under no obligation to consider an opposing party’s circumstances in determining the fee.  [PCH] 
EC December 2007, item 6

Annotations to rule 2.1-4  To other lawyers

The opinion describes situations that the Ethics Committee believes do or do not fall within the rule.  [PCH]
EC May 2009, item 6  

When a caveat has been filed in one Supreme Court registry but not in others through inadvertence, it is sharp practice for a lawyer to apply for letters of administration without notifying the lawyer who filed the caveat of the proposed application.  [PCH]
EC March 1996, item 7

A lawyer was found guilty of professional misconduct for using profanity in circumstances where he was provoked. The majority was of the view such conduct would never be excusable. The minority, while agreeing that the use of profanity in these circumstances was inexcusable, left open the question whether it might excusable in different circumstances.
2014 LSBC 08

Annotation to section 2.2  Integrity

The combination of a lawyer's actions, specifically the consumption of a substantial amount of alcohol, just prior to driving a motor vehicle and then causing an accident by driving without due care and attention and then removing the can of beer from his car to dispose of it and using mouthwash to mask the smell of alcohol on his breath prior to the arrival of the police was tantamount to dishonest conduct and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.  [PCH]
2005 LSBC 28

Annotations to rule 2.2-1 Integrity

A lawyer stated to a social worker whom he did not know that he should “shoot her” because she “takes away too many kids.” The comment was made inside a courthouse (but outside a courtroom) with other persons present. The social worker felt threatened by the comment; the lawyer said it was a poor attempt at a joke. The Review Board upheld the decision of the hearing panel that the remarks constituted a marked departure from the conduct the Law Society expects of lawyers.
2015 LSBC 34 

The issue of a lawyer copying a transcript to provide to another lawyer or party in the same proceeding is a matter of contract between court reporters and lawyers, and is not ordinarily a matter of professional conduct.
EC April 2012 

[BC Code] refers to an annotation that was created during the time the BC Code was in effect (from January 1, 2013) and is not based on or does not refer to a provision of the Professional Conduct Handbook. 

[PCH] refers to an annotation to the former Professional Conduct Handbook, which was in effect from May 1, 1993 to December 31, 2012. Lawyers should consider the possible differences between the Handbook and the BC Code when determining the extent to which an annotation is still relevant.

EC refers to Ethics Committee minutes. For example, the reference "EC March 2005, item 6" refers to item 6 of the Ethics Committee minutes in March 2005.

DD refers to Discipline Digest. For example, the reference "DD 04-05" refers to discipline digest number five in 2004.

DCD refers to Discipline Case Digest. For example, the reference "DCD 01-27" refers to discipline case number 27 in 2001. (Note that in 2007 Discipline Case Digests were phased out and became Discipline Digests.)

LSBC refers to Law Society hearing reports. For example, the reference "2003 LSBC 20" refers to hearing report number 20 in 2003.

For more information on the annotated BC Code, see the Introduction to the Code of Professional Conduct for BC.