Citation issued: october 8, 2013
ronald wayne perrick
|Citations are issued by the Law Society of BC's Discipline Committee and list allegations against a lawyer which will be considered at a discipline hearing. Please note that allegations in a citation are unproven until a discipline hearing panel has determined their validity.|
Nature of conduct to be inquired into:
1. In the course of representing your client, SM, in matters arising from motor vehicle accidents on or about April 9, 2002 and December 2, 2004, you failed to serve her in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner so as to provide a quality of service at least equal to that which would be expected of a competent lawyer in a similar situation, contrary to Chapter 3, Rules 3 and 5 of the Professional Conduct Handbook then in force. In particular, you failed to do some or all of the following:
(a) keep your client reasonably informed by failing to provide her with copies of material correspondence sent to you about the accidents or inform her of the contents of that correspondence;
(b) disclose to your client the service of a Demand for Discovery of Documents dated December 14, 2004 and her obligations pursuant to that Demand;
(c) disclose to your client that opposing counsel had requested Examinations for Discovery be conducted;
(d) disclose to your client that a mediation had been scheduled for September 19, 2008 until after the date was cancelled;
(e) provide your client with a copy of the Formal Offer to Settle dated April 3, 2006 and discuss the Offer with your client and explain to her the consequences of rejecting the Offer;
(f) disclose promptly to your client that opposing counsel was seeking to have the claims dismissed and adequately explain to her the chances of that occurring;
(g) provide your client with copies of application materials provided by opposing counsel in February 2009 and July 2009 seeking to dismiss her claims;
(h) promptly file a Statement of Claim in respect of the April 9, 2002 accident as required by the Supreme Court Rules;
(i) promptly file a Statement of Claim in respect of the December 2, 2004 accident as required by the Supreme Court Rules; and
(j) take substantive steps, promptly or at all, to advance your client’s claims to settlement or trial.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to section 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
2. In the course of representing your client, SM, in matters arising from motor vehicle accidents on or about April 9, 2002 and December 2, 2004, you failed to reply reasonably promptly to some or all of the letters dated December 14, 2004; March 3, 2005; April 4, 2005; May 13, 2005; October 14, 2005; December 8, 2005; September 26, 2006; February 6, 2007; November 4, 2008 and April 27, 2009, from opposing counsel that required a response, contrary to Chapter 11, Rule 6 of the Professional Conduct Handbook then in force.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.