"AvoidAClaim" Blog

LAWPRO's blog helps you avoid legal malpractice claims
Subscribe

Archive for December, 2010

Bad cheque scam on real estate deal by Siam Rai

December 14, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds, Fraud prevention

This post contains the amazing back-and-forth email exchange between a lawyer and a fraudster that occurred over the course of four weeks. (See the post on the Melissa Andersen fraud for another amazing back-and-forth email exchange between a fraudster and a lawyer.)

This is an example of a bad cheque on a real estate deal deposit fraud (i.e., a bad cheque is given by the purchaser as a deposit on a real estate deal and the deal ends up being aborted, triggering a request to pay the deposit back to the purchaser or to a third party).

This exchange highlights the extent to which fraudsters are willing to engage a lawyer acting on a matter in a discussion and how much detail they will provide in an attempt to sound legitimate and dupe a lawyer.


9/30
Dear Lawyer First Name Last Name
The following content is from an individual who has discovered you through Lawyerahead.

Subject:Urgent Inquiry

Message: Dear Counsel My name is Siam Rai, Software Manager in TISCO BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED in Thailand. I want to use this medium to seek your assistance. I am retiring soon from office and I am planning to relocate to the Canada to establish a private Consulting office on security softwares, Oil & Gas, I want to buy a permanent home there in your locality or any other place within your jurisdiction, I need you to negotiate with a Realtor on a particular house, hence I want to retain your services to assist me in reviewing the contract andother paper works. I am contacting you because i saw that you also deal on real estate in your profile, kindly advise on how best to proceed. Regards, Siam Rai siamrai1155@yahoo.com

Click here to see the rest of the messages. (more…)

December 2010 bad cheque frauds update and warning: Don’t let your guard down

December 13, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds, Fraud prevention

LAWPRO continues to get daily calls and emails from lawyers that are being targeted by fraudsters attempting bad cheque frauds. Lawyers must not let their guard down.

Special caution is warranted as we approach the holidays. In the past, fraudsters have been more active in the days just before long weekends and other holidays. Presumably this is to take advantage of circumstances when lawyers and law firm staff will be busy or more distracted with other things.

At their simplest, these bad cheque frauds all work the same way. The fraudsters retain you to act on an otherwise legitimate-looking legal matter that creates circumstances to dupe you into quickly disbursing funds on a bad cheque or bank draft that you deposited into your trust account. The fraudster gets real money and you are left with a shortfall in your trust account.

The types of frauds LAWPRO is seeing

LAWPRO most commonly sees bad cheque frauds on these types of legal matters (in all these cases the person making the payment is the fraudster or someone that is in cahoots with the fraudster):

  • A payment from an ex-spouse on a spousal support collection, often further to the terms of a collaborative family law agreement (currently the most common);
  • A payment from the debtor on a business debt collection (currently the second most common);
  • A loan advance from a sham lender on a business loan or inventory purchase loan; and
  • A bad cheque given by the purchaser as a deposit on a real estate deal that ends up being aborted, triggering a request to pay the deposit back to the purchaser or to a third party.

Recently we have also seen two instances where it appears the fraudsters were both pretending to be a client and were also impersonating a real lawyer purportedly acting on the other side of a matter. On one of these matters it appears the fraudster was attempting to execute a financing of some type that was really a front for a fraud involving a bad cheque. The fraudster was dealing with one lawyer as a client, but was also impersonating a large firm lawyer who was allegedly involved in the transaction. The lawyer being impersonated was being blamed for a delay in the forwarding of funds and the completion of the transaction. The fraudster was pushing very hard to have it completed. The fraud was discovered when the lawyer the fraudster was dealing with called the lawyer that was being impersonated directly in response to an extremely demanding and somewhat impolite email. At that point the fraudster disappeared.

Some of the fraud attempts LAWPRO is seeing are very obvious due to poor spelling, bad grammar and/or completely untenable fact circumstances (e.g., multi-million dollar lottery wins or inheritances). However, some of the frauds we are seeing are extremely sophisticated and look like completely legitimate legal matters. The more sophisticated frauds have temporarily fooled new and experienced lawyers into working through file opening and initial stages of the matter before they recognized or determined they were the target of a fraud. Some lawyers are being successful duped by these frauds.

You can’t be complacent. The fraudsters go to great lengths to create scenarios that otherwise appear to be legitimate legal matters. They are prepared to engage in extensive and ongoing communications over weeks and even months, usually by email, but also by phone, and on occasion, even in person. See the AvoidAClaim posts on the Melissa Andersen and Siam Rai frauds for amazing examples of back-and-forth conversations that occurred over 3 weeks via email on two attempted frauds. Remember that caller ID information can be easily spoofed and telephone calls can be made at little or no cost across the Internet to landlines with tools like Skype.

What frauds look like

To help Ontario lawyers recognize attempted frauds, LAWPRO is posting examples of the initial contact messages and back-and-forth communications on the AvoidAClaim.com blog. As noted in more detail below, there are also images of the fake supporting documentation the fraudsters are supplying, including identification, bad cheques and bank drafts, and fabricated collaborative family law agreements and divorce decrees.

The initial contact is frequently by email, but may also be a typed or handwritten note delivered by regular mail. It can be a short message of only a few sentences with virtually no details about the matter or a detailed message with extensive background information. Initial contact messages are usually generically addressed (e.g., “Dear attorney” or “Attention counsel”) as they are sent to large numbers of people via BCC, but they can be personlized and include a lawyer’s first and/or last names.

To make an initial contact appear more legitimate, an occasion the fraudsters will send an initial message and follow it up with a “Did you get my message 2 days ago and when will you reply” message. Sometimes there is just a “did you get my message 2 days ago and when will you reply?” message.

We are seeing instances where the fraudsters are intentionally taking steps to appear to be coming from a trusted referral source you know personally. Most frequently this is another local lawyer or real estate agent. We have seen instances where the fraudsters have signed listing agreements or agreements of purchase and sale with a real estate agent before asking the agent to provide names of recommended local lawyers. The fraudsters then will explicitly mention the referral source in the initial contact with the lawyer. Some initial contact messages claim to have found contact information on bar association or other website listing.

The fraudsters will provide very legitimate-looking fake identification, including foreign passports, U.S. state or foreign country issued birth certificates or drivers’ licences. Here are copies of some of the fade ID provided to Ontario lawyers on fraud attempts (click to enlarge):

On several occasions we have seen notarized documents from a non-existent lawyer at a real U.K. firm verifying identity information. An example of one of these documents appears here (click to enlarge):

The fake cheques and bank drafts are of very high quality – even bank staff have been fooled by some of them. They are printed on high quality paper and can have watermarks, embossing and holographs. Images of some of some of the fake cheques and bank drafts we have seen appear here (click to enlarge):


There are clearly multiple people involved in some of these frauds, including people overseas that have real bank accounts for receiving wired funds. Some of the fake cheques appear to be sent from within Ontario or elsewhere in Canada. If you receive a cheque on one of these matters, remember to check the courier slip or envelope that the cheque arrives at your office in. It will often be from an address that doesn’t make sense given the people involved in the matter (e.g., the ex-spouse making the payment is allegedly in Toronto and the cheque came from Alberta) or an address that may not even exist. You can verify or cross-check addresses with Google Maps.

Red flags that can indicate a fraud

Red flags that you should watch out for include:

  • Generically addressed emails (e.g., “Dear attorney” or “Attention counsel);
  • Generically addressed emails that are BCC’d to you and sent to undisclosed recipients;
  • Emails where the sender’s email address and the displayed name for that address are different;
  • Emails that request a reply be sent to a person or email address that is different from the sender’s name or email address;
  • Use of the word “attorney” in the subject line or body of the message;
  • Emails that give a referral source that wouldn’t have your name (e.g., a website that does not list you or a bar association that you are not a member of);
  • Individuals using a personal email account from AOL, MSN, Gmail or similar free email service that contact you to do work on behalf of a major corporation or business (they may use the name of a real person that does actually work for that corporation – crosscheck name and contact info on websites or by phone);
  • Clients who insist that email is the only way to communicate due to time zone differences;
  • Clients who renege or delay on promised payment of a retainer (when the bad cheque payment from the ex-spouse or loan advance arrives they will ask you to take payment from it);
  • Clients who without question or hesitation are willing to pay hourly rates, flat fees or contingency fees that are far higher than normal;
  • Clients who insist on or who are not worried about shortcuts being taken;
  • One or more delays in the promised payment or advance of funds (this is usually an attempt to create a sense of urgency to quickly disburse the funds when they finally do arrive);
  • Debtors that seem over-anxious or who unexpectedly pay outstanding debts;
  • The cheque or bank draft arrives from an address that doesn’t make sense, is in an envelope with a handwritten address and/or is without a covering letter;
  • The payment or loan advance is not in the form you expected or requested (i.e. it is not a bank draft or it is not certified) and/or it is for an amount that is different than expected;
  • The payor on the cheque or bank draft you receive doesn’t make sense given the type of payment (e.g., a payment of spousal support arrears by a cheque from corporation, charity or travel agency);
  • Unexpected changed circumstances that give rise to reasons the client wants to wire funds off-shore to third party on urgent basis for reason not related to the legal matter you are handling (e.g., to pay medical expenses or buy furniture);

Check for the red flags listed above if you have any suspicions that the matter you are handling is a fraud. While there can be good explanations for some matters to have one or two of the above red flags, you should be extra cautious and careful on any matter that has any of the above red flags. Question your client if things don’t add up or don’t make sense – even the smallest things. Make sure the answers to any questions you ask address satisfactorily address any concerns that you have. Lastly, if you aren’t 100 per cent comfortable that a transaction or matter you are handling is legitimate, terminate the retainer. Don’t let the demands of an insistent client push you into something you are uncomfortable doing.

Most importantly, remember that a wire transfer via Large Value Transaction System (LVTS) is the only way to gets funds irrevocably into your account. Most other deposits to your account can be pulled back, days or even weeks later, including certified cheques and bank drafts. Notes that U.S. cheques and cashiers’ cheques (the U.S. equivalent of bank drafts) can take three or more weeks to clear.

Requirements for LAWPRO’s enhanced fraud coverage

LAWPRO’s enhanced coverage for counterfeit certified cheques and bank drafts came into force as of January 1, 2010. Provided certain requirements are met, some overdraft protection will effectively be provided to lawyers in relation to their trust accounts where liability for the overdraft results from the handling of a counterfeit certified cheque or counterfeit bank draft in the capacity of a practising lawyer. This enhancement to the protection already provided under your insurance program comes at no additional cost to you.

The enhanced protection for counterfeit certified cheques and counterfeit bank drafts is subject to the following conditions and limitations:

  • You must have waited at least eight business days following deposit of the instrument into your trust account before disbursing funds as instructed; or you must have received confirmation from either your financial institution or the drawee financial institution that the drawee financial institution has verified the validity of the instrument. As well, this confirmation must be documented in writing (whether by you or the financial institution) before payment instructions are given.
  • The drawee financial institution indicated on the counterfeit certified cheque or counterfeit bank draft must be a Canadian financial institution, and the instrument must have been inspected and deposited by you, or a partner or employee of yours.

The LAWPRO website has a series of FAQs that address the most common questions that arise with respect to the enhanced protection provided under the 2010 LAWPRO primary insurance program regarding counterfeit certified cheques and counterfeit bank drafts.

How to handle a real or suspected fraud

If you have been targeted by one of these bad cheque frauds, please forward any of the emails you have received to fraudinfo@lawpro.ca.

Call LAWPRO at 1-800-410-1013 (416-598-5899) if you suspect you are acting on a matter that appears like it might be a fraud. We will talk you through the common fraud scenarios we are seeing and help you spot red flags that may indicate you are being duped. This will help you ask appropriate questions of your client to determine if the matter is legitimate or not. In the event the matter you are acting is a fraud and there is a potential claim, we will work with you to prevent the fraud and minimize potential claims costs.

If you have been successfully duped, please immediately notify LAWPRO as there may be a claim against you. Instructions on how to report a claim are here.

Further fraud prevention information and resources are available on the practicePRO Fraud page (www.practicepro.ca/fraud), including the Fraud Fact Sheet, a handy reference for lawyers and law firm staff that describes the common frauds and the red flags that can help identify them.

For more immediate updates on fraud and claims prevention, subscribe to the email or RSS feed updates from LAWPRO’s AvoidAClaim blog.

Collaborative family law agreement collection scam by Stella Wang

December 10, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds

Over the last three weeks two Ontario lawyers reported receiving the message reproduced below from the purported Stella Wang.

This has to win the prize for the shortest ever message attempting a fraud. As short as it is, there are still two significant red flags: It is addressed to undisclosed recipients; and the email address that replies are requested to be sent to is different from the sender’s email address.


From: “stella wang”
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: lawyer assistance

I need a lawyer to handle my collaborative/family matter.

Your’s truly
stella wang
80 Stork Road
London, UK E7 9HR
Tel+44 79384226476
Email stellawang47@yahoo.com

If you have been targeted by this fraud, please forward any of the emails you have received to fraudinfo@lawpro.ca.

If you have been successfully duped, please immediately notify LAWPRO (instructions on how are here), as there may be a claim against you.

Further fraud prevention information and resources are available on the practicePRO Fraud page (www.practicepro.ca/fraud), including the Fraud Fact Sheet, a handy reference for lawyers and law firm staff that describes the common frauds and the red flags that can help identify them.

Collaborative family law agreement collection scam by Vera Ho

December 10, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds

Over the last four weeks several Ontario lawyers have reported receiving the message reproduced below from the purported Vera Ho.

The reply to address is different from the sender address (a red flag): verahonice@gmail.com

This message is identical (excepting the subject line) to the initial contact message other lawyers have received recently from the purported Peggy Higashi (ex-husband Landscott Higashi).


From: “MS. VERA HO”
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Subject: Dear Counsel

Dear Counsel,

My name is Ms.Vera Ho, I am contacting your firm in regards to a divorce settlement with my ex-husband (Mr.Vance Ho ) who resides in your jurisdiction. I recently got a teaching job with a 2 year teaching contract in ASIA/HONG KONG so I am out of the country for now. We had an out of court, Agreement (Collaborative Law Agreement) for him to pay $948,450.00 To his credit, he has paid me $204,000 but still owing $744,450. I have tried with several failed attempts to collect the balance from him and he seems not to be coming through.

I am hereby seeking your firm to assist me in collecting the balance from him. He has agreed already to pay me the balance but It is my belief that a Law firm like yours is needed to help me collect the payment from my ex-husband or litigate this matter if he fails to pay as promised.

Your immediate response towards this mail will be highly appreciated.

Regards
Ms.Vera Ho

If you have been targeted by this fraud, please forward any of the emails you have received to fraudinfo@lawpro.ca.

If you have been successfully duped, please immediately notify LAWPRO (instructions on how are here), as there may be a claim against you.

Further fraud prevention information and resources are available on the practicePRO Fraud page (www.practicepro.ca/fraud), including the Fraud Fact Sheet, a handy reference for lawyers and law firm staff that describes the common frauds and the red flags that can help identify them.

Bad cheque spousal support collection scam by Melissa Andersen [updated August 2011]

December 10, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds

This post contains the amazing back-and-forth email exchange between a lawyer and a fraudster purporting to be Melissa Cho Anderson that occurred over the course of three weeks. The lawyer involved knew it was a scam from the start but played along with the fraudster. After a story that was a long and winding road involving HIV, bad burns and other interesting twists and turns, a bad cheque was delivered to the lawyer’s office along with instructions to wire funds overseas.

This scam was first seen in December 2010, but has reappeared as of August 2011.

See the post on the Siam Rai fraud for another amazing back-and-forth email exchange between a fraudster and a lawyer.

The below email exchange highlights the extent to which fraudsters are willing to engage lawyers in a discussion and how much detail they will provide in an attempt to sound legitimate and dupe a lawyer.


Attn: Attorney XXXXXXXXXXX,

I would like to make a request for your assistance in a matter that had been settled out of court, as I am presently away from Canada.

Essentially, it is important to mention that I am HIV+ patient as a result of an unfaithfulness on the part of my ex husband, Mr Bill Langerak. Recalling my former relationship with Mr Bill Langerak, I could confirm to you that I was pregnant to him in June 2009.

Unfortunately, Mr Langerak did not disclose his HIV+ status to me. It was during my antenatal check up that it was revealed I had already been infected with sexually transmitted disease (STD). But considering my pregnancy status at the time, the treatment for the STD could not also be concluded as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, subsequent appointments of my antenatal check up indicated a complicated situation and it was further showed that the pregnancy has been affected. As a result, different tests {among which are the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) & Western Blot Test} were conducted on me with all tests confirmed that I am HIV+.

Regrettably, it was at this stage that Mr Langerak apologized to my family for infecting me with the virus disease, which he was aware of as far back as 2004. The sad news was that my pregnancy was later
aborted as it was confirmed that the unborn baby has also been infected with the virus.

However, considering the stigma of the disease and the position of my ex husband, this is why he pleaded with my family that we should ruled out litigation in the States to avoid conflict of interest towards an amicable settlement of the $380,500 in total damages, which he agreed with my family.

The latest development is that my ex husband has just informed me that he has made adequate arrangement with his paying bank in the States to make first payment to the value of US$250,000 out of the agreed $380,500 in damages to me.

Mention should be made here that I am still traumatized of an experience too strong in effect to be forgotten, similar to an offender on death row awaiting execution, which is why my family then recommend that I need to change environment. The result then explains my recent journey to Japan.

In a nutshell, I would be glad if you could kindly notify me of your interest to represent me on this matter. I would also be interested to know your professional fee towards the requested service.

Your kind response will be gladly appreciated.

Yours truly,
Ms Melissa Andersen
Tokyo, Japan.
Phone: +81-03-3342-651
Email: melissa@jp.popstarmail.org


Dear Ms. Andersen:

Thank you for your enquiry.

I’m very sorry to hear about your unfortunate turn of events.

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you and assist you with the completion of your settlement arrangements.

In this regard, there is quite a bit of information that I would need from you, and it may be more efficient if we had a conversation over the telephone.

In terms of my professional fees, it is a function of the amount of time spent on a matter. My hourly rate is $450 per hour and after we have an initial conversation, I would be able to better estimate how much time your representation may require.

I understand that you are in Tokyo at the moment and that you are 14 hours ahead of Toronto time.

My contact information is below; please let me know when you would like to arrange for a telephone call.

To read the subsequent messages between the lawyer and the fraudster click (more…)

Family law collection scam by Peggy Higashi [Updated January 2011]

December 07, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Confirmed frauds

From late November through January 2011 several Ontario firms have reported receiving the email reproduced below.

Note the fraud red flags: it is generically addressed; the sender’s email address and display names do not match; and the email address that replies are requested to be sent to is yet another different address.

Other firms received a version of the email that was identical to the message below except for having a subject line that was “Legal Assistance”; came from Castrén Hannele at the hannele.castren@edu.hel.fi address; and requested that replies go to:

phigashi64@yahoo.com.hk or peggyhigashi62@gmail.com

This message is identical (excepting the subject line) to the initial contact message other lawyers have received recently from the purported Kathy Cheung and Beverly Kawashima.

The message several firms received was as follows:


From: Peggy Higashi [mailto:sandrap@concordia.psi.br]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:53 AM
Subject: Dear Counsel

Dear Counsel,

My name is Peggy Higashi. I am contacting your firm in regards to a
divorce settlement with my ex husband Landscott Higashi who resides in
your jurisdiction.

I am currently on assignment in S.Korea. We had an out of court agreement
(Collaborative Law Agreement) for him to pay $648,450.00 plus legal fees.
He has only paid me $148,000 since.

I am hereby seeking your firm`s assistance in collecting the balance from
him. He has agreed already to pay me the balance but it is my belief that
a Law firm like yours is needed to help me collect/enforce payment from my
ex-husband or litigate this matter if he fails to pay as promised.
please email me through this email; mshigashi@mail.bg

Your’s truly,
Peggy Higashi

At least one firm received this message:


From: Peggy Higashi [mailto:peggyhigashi@gmail.com]
Dear [First Name] [Last Name]

Thanks for your email.

I need you to please intercede for me as I am Currently am living in South Korea for an assignment and Higashi live in Georgia.I tried calling a couple of times and with the time difference(+13hrs EST) it is a little bit difficult to reach you.

We agreed under this Collaborative Law Agreement for a one time cash settlement of $648,450.00 usd to his credit,he has paid me $148,000.00 usd but still owing $500,450.00 usd. He is aware of my intention to seek legal actions.

I expect this to be a non-litigation matter.I have already advised him I am planning on retaining your firm. If possible please send me a retainer agreement so that we can proceed. Also send me the payment information of your firm just in case my ex-husband wants to make the full payment he owes me without further delays or possible litigation.

Please find attached the documents covering this matter and do proceed and send me your retainer agreement to preview and execute.

Regards,
Peggy Higashi

Copies of the documents provided in support of this fraud included a copy of a Peggy Higashi Agreement, Decree of Divorce – Higashi, and an Settlement Agreement. Lawyers Dykes and Arcadier are named as representing the parties in both agreements. See the AvoidAClaim blog post on Provincial, Territorial and US State Lawyer Licensing Databases to crosscheck if a real lawyer that was in good standing was involved in a matter you are dealing with.

If you have been targeted by this fraud, please forward any of the emails you have received to fraudinfo@lawpro.ca.

Call LAWPRO at 1-800-410-1013 (416-598-5899) if you suspect you are acting on a matter that appears like it might be a fraud. We will talk you through the common fraud scenarios we are seeing and help you spot red flags that may indicate you are being duped. This will help you ask appropriate questions of your client to determine if the matter is legitimate or not. In the event the matter you are acting is a fraud and there is a potential claim, we will work with you to prevent the fraud and minimize potential claims costs.

If you have been successfully duped, please immediately notify LAWPRO as there may be a claim against you. Instructions on how to report a claim are here.

Further fraud prevention information and resources are available on the practicePRO Fraud page (www.practicepro.ca/fraud), including the Fraud Fact Sheet, a handy reference for lawyers and law firm staff that describes the common frauds and the red flags that can help identify them.

For more immediate updates on fraud and claims prevention, subscribe to the email or RSS feed updates from LAWPRO’s AvoidAClaim blog.

LAWPRO concerned that unbundled legal services will mean more claims

December 06, 2010 By: DanPinnington Category: Biggest claims risks

The Law Society of Upper Canada is currently reviewing the ethical and procedural issues relating to the “unbundling” of legal services, otherwise known as “limited scope representations” or “limited scope retainers.”

Unbundling is the concept of taking a legal matter apart into discrete tasks and having a lawyer or paralegal provide limited legal services or limited legal representation, that is, legal services for part, but not all, of a client’s legal matter by agreement with the client. Otherwise, the client is self-represented. While the Law Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct and the Paralegal Rules of Conduct do not prohibit such retainers, there is nothing that expressly addresses limited retainers or unbundling of services.

For more information, see the Law Society’s background report which includes the proposed amendments to the rules.

The Law Society’s unbundling working group has recently concluded a consultation with the profession on proposed rule amendments and is reviewing the submissions it received.

LAWPRO made a submission as it is concerned that the more widespread provision of “unbundled” legal services in Ontario will increase malpractice claims. The source of this concern is that the root causes of the most common malpractice errors that LAWPRO sees are at least equally, if not more likely, to occur during the provision of unbundled legal services.

Unbundled legal services are one of the solutions to the complex issue of access to justice, and LAWPRO recognizes that the provision of unbundled legal services is occurring in Ontario at the present time and that they are likely to become more common.

However, LAWPRO feels it should be recognized that unbundled legal services are not appropriate for all lawyers, all clients, or all legal problems. LAWPRO feels that any effort to encourage or facilitate the broader use of unbundled legal services should include the consideration of all relevant issues with the goal of ensuring that clients get competent representation on all matters, including those provided on a limited scope basis.

In a nutshell, LAWPRO’s position is that all the rules that apply to full representation should also apply to unbundling or limited scope representation. Limited scope representation should not mean less competent or lower quality legal services. Lawyers providing unbundled legal services owe the same duties of competence, diligence, loyalty and confidentiality to limited-scope clients that they owe to full-service clients. As compared to a full scope representation, there may be fewer tasks performed by the lawyer on a limited scope matter, but the competency and quality of the work done on those tasks must not be less than it would be on a full service matter. It is critical that lawyers identify the discrete collection of tasks they can undertake on a competent basis when handling an unbundled matter, and it is clear to the lawyer and the client what tasks the lawyer is responsible for, and those for which the lawyer is not responsible. Ideally this should be done in a written retainer as post-matter disputes over the scope of work to be done are far more likely if the retainer is ambiguous and/or not in writing.

LAWPRO believes three fundamental requirements must be met before a lawyer may properly limit the scope of services to be provided to a client. First, the lawyer must consult with the client about the limited representation that will be provided. Second, the client must provide informed consent, and ideally, this consent should be evidenced by something in writing (to prevent post-matter disputes as to the scope of the retainer). Most importantly, the limitation must be reasonable in the circumstances and the engagement must not be so limited as to prevent competent representation.

If the greater provision of unbundled legal services is to be encouraged and facilitated through changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Civil Procedure,
LAWPRO suggests that the goal of ensuring more satisfied clients and reduced malpractice claims can be attained by highlighting how the basic principles behind the ethics and court rules apply equally in the context of unbundled services. Some issues, such as the ghostwriting of pleadings, limited court appearances and the termination of an unbundled retainer will likely require Rules changes.

See LAWPRO’s Submission on Unbundling for more information on LAWPRO’s concerns.