The Closed File That Won't Stay Closed
You are a licensed paralegal in sole practice in Ottawa. Twenty months ago you acted for Northgate Landscaping Inc. in a Small Claims Court dispute and, during that retainer, reviewed its internal cost-estimating sheet, its liability insurance certificate, and a memo in which a crew leader admitted the company had run out of ice melter and skipped a walkway. That file is closed and the account was paid. Today a homeowner, Ms. Bhatt, pays you a $2,500 retainer to sue Northgate for $9,800 for a fractured wrist suffered on that walkway. She tells you the two-year limitation period expires in eleven days. The next morning Northgate's owner calls you and says he will report you to the Law Society if you file anything for Ms. Bhatt.
1. May you act for Ms. Bhatt? State the governing test and apply it to these facts.
Read the worked answer
No. You must decline the retainer.
The governing rule is the duty of loyalty owed to a former client: a licensee shall not act against a former client in any matter in which the licensee directly or indirectly has confidential information relevant to the matter, without the former client's informed consent.
Apply the two-part test:
- Is there confidential information? Yes. The estimating sheet, the insurance certificate, and especially the crew-leader memo were obtained in the course of the earlier retainer and are not in the public domain.
- Is it relevant? Yes, squarely. The memo goes to the very breach alleged (failure to clear ice), the estimating sheet goes to what the company knew about its winter-maintenance resources, and the certificate identifies the insurer with whom a claim would be pursued.
Note that relatedness is not the test. The two matters do not have to be the same or substantially related; it is enough that confidential information from the first retainer is relevant to the second. Unlike the current-client conflict rule, there is no "bright line" - but the answer here is clear because the information is directly probative.
Consent is theoretical only. You would need Northgate's informed consent, and the owner's phone call makes that impossible. The client's need and the limitation date do not create an exception.
2. Assuming you cannot act, what specific steps do you take in the next eleven days?
Read the worked answer
The duty of confidentiality survives the end of the retainer, and the duty of competence includes not prejudicing the client by delay. Work in this order:
- Decline in writing, immediately. Confirm that you are returning the $2,500 retainer, less any fee fairly earned for work actually done before the conflict was identified, and provide a brief account.
- Do not sit on the limitation issue. Explain in the same letter, in plain language, that the basic two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 expires on the stated date and that she must retain another licensee or lawyer before then. Give the date explicitly. That is advice about her position, not disclosure of your former client's confidences.
- Do not disclose her file. You may give her names of practitioners, but you may not pass her name, her injuries or her file to another licensee without her written authorization.
- Do not act on a limited-scope basis either. Drafting her claim or negotiating for her is still acting against a former client; a screen does not cure an individual licensee's own former-client conflict.
- Document everything in a contemporaneous memo: when you learned of the conflict, what you did, what you returned, and what you told her.
The Law Society complaint threat is irrelevant to the analysis but should not change your conduct in either direction; you take the same steps if no threat is made.
3. The insurance certificate was produced and filed in the earlier court proceeding and is therefore on a public file. Does that change your analysis?
Read the worked answer
No. One public document does not sanitise the retainer.
The concern is not whether a fact is knowable by the world; it is whether the licensee's knowledge and judgment were shaped by confidential information. Here:
- The certificate is only one of three categories of information, and the memo is far more damaging and is not public.
- Even for the certificate, what you learned was not merely the name of an insurer - it was the coverage position Northgate took in the earlier dispute.
- A court filing is public in the sense that it can be inspected; it is not public in the sense that a licensee may repurpose it as a sword against the party who produced it to that licensee.
The appearance matters too. A reasonably informed person would conclude that a licensee who knows the contents of the crew-leader memo could not fairly litigate against that company. If the only piece of information were a genuinely notorious public fact - say, a fact reported in the local newspaper - the answer might differ, but that is not this case.