Sentences with phrase «unrelated matters acting»

However, the court also noted there can be exceptions, such as governments, banks, or other large organizations that regularly appear in the courts and likely have a more tolerant attitude towards law firms they retain on unrelated matters acting against them.

Not exact matches

On a completely unrelated matter, did anyone else notice that Roberts voted to strike down the federal Stolen Valor Act on the same day Michael Knox Beran thinks John Roberts taught us all a valuable lesson about how judicial review should only very, very rarely be used?

He says it relates to the top court's 2002 decision in R. v. Neil, which stated the general rule is that a lawyer or law firm shouldn't act directly contrary to the immediate interests of a current client, even on an unrelated matter.

When the class action was launched, McKercher, which has offices in Saskatoon and Regina, was also acting for CN Rail in a number of other unrelated matters.

In some cases, it is simply not reasonable for a client to claim that it expected a law firm to owe it exclusive loyalty and to refrain from acting against it in unrelated matters.

[37] Finally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

Is it reasonable for the existing client to expect that the law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

So a law firm can not accept a retainer to act against a current client on a matter unrelated to the client's existing files.

It also limited the rule so it only applies where the new representation is directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of the client and where it would not be «unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.»

Another element of the duty of loyalty is the duty not to act against the interests of a current client, even on an unrelated matter: R. v. Neil [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24 and Wallace v. Canadian National Railway, 2013 SCC 39.

[1] Can a law firm accept a retainer to act against a current client on a matter unrelated to the client's existing files?

I understand and acknowledge that any volunteer who does assist me is free to act for other clients against me on other unrelated matters in the future, without notice to me.

In A v B [2011] EWHC 2345 (Comm), shortly before issuing the award, a barrister acting as sole arbitrator disclosed that he had been instructed by the defendant's solicitors throughout the course of the arbitration in an unrelated matter.

The Court did identify three limitations on the scope of the bright line rule: it applies only where the immediate legal interests of the clients are directly adverse; it can not be used tactically; and it does not apply in situations in which it would be unreasonable for a client to expect that a law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

The «bright line» rule does not apply in unrelated matters where «it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it».

This case involved a large firm in Saskatchewan, McKercher LLP («McKercher»), that had accepted a retainer to act against the Canadian National Railway Company («CN») in a class action lawsuit notwithstanding the fact that it was acting for CN on a variety of unrelated matters.

The rule does not apply where it is «unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.»

But when McKercher accepted Wallace's retainer, it was also acting for CN on a few unrelated matters.