by Tim Lemieux

No matter what the area of practice, the number one source of claims at LAWPRO is a breakdown in communication between the lawyer and client.

Between 2008 and 2013, nearly 4,600 communications claims – an average of 762 a year – have been reported to LAWPRO. The total cost of these claims to date is about $158 million – and likely to rise as more recent years’ claims are resolved.

In the Fall 2011 issue of LAWPRO Magazine we asked LAWPRO claims counsel with expertise in the various areas of law to provide insights into the communications mistakes they see in their daily handling of claims files. We hope this approach makes it easier for you to implement risk management steps in your own practice.

Anna Reggio, claims counsel (PPL), says corporate communication claims often arise from confusion over the breadth of the insured’s retainer and who is representing the interest of whom in an environment of fast paced, and sometimes large-dollar, transactions where the niceties of communicating may get overlooked.

Know who your client is – and communicate this clearly

A question which frequently arises is the question of who the lawyer is acting for and whether it is the corporation or one or more of the shareholders. The interest of the corporate entity may be different from that of one or more of the shareholders and therefore, the corporate entity should be separately represented.

Certainly, in any given proposed transaction or agreement, each shareholder’s interest may vary from that of one or more of the other shareholders. Therefore, in fact, the corporate entity and each of the shareholders should really be represented by a separate lawyer.

Often, in closely held corporations, the lawyer will meet with all of the directors, officers and shareholders to discuss the terms of a transaction to be entered into by the corporation or the terms of a transaction or agreement amongst the shareholders. A shareholders’ agreement, for example, is one of the more common agreements under discussion.

In many cases, the parties are of the view that it is not financially expedient for the corporate entity and each of the shareholders to be separately represented. In other cases, the transaction may be clipping along and the parties are too focused on their negotiations to care about the lawyer’s oral caution that they should obtain independent legal advice or independent representation.

Later, a disgruntled party may allege that he or she relied on the lawyer and may accuse the lawyer of having been in a conflict of interest, preferring the interest of one party over another (particularly where the lawyer has represented the other party or parties in the past) or failing to consider and advise that party of the implications arising from the particular transaction or agreement. The lawyer may well respond by saying that he or she was not acting for the complaining party, but rather acting for the corporate entity or, possibly, for another shareholder. But if this was never clearly communicated, in writing, the lawyer is faced with a credibility dispute.

The lawyer should write to all principals to clarify and confirm whom he or she is acting for. The lawyer should confirm that the other parties will not be provided with any advice and that they should not be relying on the lawyer for that purpose.

Further, the lawyer should tell the other parties or entities to retain independent counsel or obtain independent legal advice, preferably as evidenced by way of a Certificate of ILA, depending upon the circumstances. Otherwise, the lawyer must obtain a signed, written acknowledgement of this advice together with a waiver of independent counsel or ILA.

“There is no shortcut for this,” says Reggio. “The lawyer needs to get written, signed acknowledgements to protect him or herself.” If the lawyer chooses to proceed to act for more than one party, the lawyer faces the inherent risks of failing to meet the onerous burden of providing the best possible advice to all of the clients in the circumstances. Also, depending on the deductible chosen, the lawyer may also face the obligation of a double deductible under the LAWPRO policy if he or she is subsequently sued, even if a written acknowledgement and waiver was obtained.

Be clear about the services you are providing

Lawyers should also communicate clearly and in writing to confirm that they are not providing business advice and they are not reviewing financial statements or providing any tax advice, where applicable. Lawyers should specifically advise the client in writing to get advice from tax specialists, accountants or other experts where necessary and applicable.