Doré V. Barrier Case Study

797 Words4 Pages
You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, 1 SCR 395 (Doré) and analyze how it affects the application of Rules 5.1-5, 7.2-1 and 7.2-4 of The Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) to the conduct of a lawyer who sent a harshly worded letter to another lawyer. Although legal professionals’ expressive rights must be respected, there is also a need to ensure civility within the profession. Thus, given the nature of the conduct in question, disciplinary action is warranted under the Rules. Case Summary A complaint was filed against Gilles Doré, a lawyer, alleging that he violated art. 2.03 of the Code of Ethics of Advocates, R.R.Q. 1981, c. B-1, r.1 (the Code) after the contents of a letter he wrote to a judge expressing his displeasure with the Justice’s conduct in court emerged. At the time, art. 2.03 of the Code required the…show more content…
Mr. Frank’s response described Mr. Drake’s letter as “stupid” , calling the method used within it to compel the recipient to compensate his client a sleazy, scare-tactic. Mr. Frank further referred to Mr. Drake as an extortionist and concluded by informing him that he had sent a Letter to the Editor of a newspaper warning the public of his scam. Rules 5.1-5, 7.2-1 and 7.2-4 of the Rules, like art 2.03 of the Code, exist to ensure civility within the legal profession. Though distinguishable from the facts surrounding Mr. Frank’s conduct because the recipient in Doré was a judge instead of a lawyer, Doré provides guidance for interpreting and applying the rules that govern Canadian legal professionals. Thus, should a complaint be filed against Mr. Frank, his behaviour will be measured by balancing the public’s reasonable expectation of a lawyer’s conduct in relation to the Rules, with his expressive

    More about Doré V. Barrier Case Study

      Open Document