As defined in these rules, “consent” means fully informed and voluntary consent after disclosure. Disclosure may be made orally or in writing, and the consent should be confirmed in writing.
(Withdrawal from Representation 3.7-1A lawyer must not withdraw from representation of a client except for a good cause and on reasonable notice to the client.) In other situations, the governing principle is that the lawyer should protect the client’s interests to the best of the lawyer’s ability and should not desert the client at a critical stage of a matter or at a time when withdrawal would put the client in a position of disadvantage or peril. For instance, on the case I made against my ex-wife depriving me of the rights child visiting hours allocated by the court, Jane does not take the matter seriously, and she even agrees in court with opposing attorney.
The lawyer should not use the threat of withdrawal as a device to force a hasty decision by the client on a difficult question. Jane was threatening on various occasions to withdraw if I tell her that I do not see any changes, and at the same time, I am more restricted. She did not like it, and she started to become offensive, but all I told her was that I do not see results, and there is no need for her to be angry and insulting.
In page 9 of the transcript of File Action No: 2001-02244) 20Th line, Mr Miksha is admitting to a reviewer that they stopped representation when financial matters were starting to pick up. But they were falsely accusing me of rude behaviour as a reason to withdraw. In the code of conduct of lawyers of Alberta, I noticed that they should give me enough time to withdraw if that’s a financial matter. I am also including an email from the Hoffman Low staff saying that they were withdrawing because I am not paying them. But they unilaterally withdraw my case putting me in the middle of issues that had given my opposition an advantage of more restriction on child visit. I only raise concerns on the fact that I paid a lot of money so far for the case of getting flexibility to see my child, which rather got reduced. Instead, I ironically got accused of turning out to be rude with the same lawyers who ended up treating me rudely even though they had promised to help me. Jane Hoffman considered that there accusations, which were led by their incompetence, were a good enough reason to close my file forgetting her professional code of ethics. Nevertheless, this seriously affected my case and made things even worse by depriving me of the shared custody hours for my child and with no attorney to present my case in court.
3.7-3If, after reasonable notice, the client fails to provide a retainer or funds on account of disbursements or fees, a lawyer may withdraw unless serious prejudice to the client would result. Commentary [1] when the lawyer withdraws because the client has not paid the lawyer’s fee, the lawyer should ensure that there is sufficient time for the client to obtain the services of another lawyer and for that other lawyer to prepare adequately for trial. Also see the commentary to Rule 3.7-4- Jane Hoffman and David Miksha did not provide me enough time. Besides, I told them that I will pay the fees after clarifying the legitimacy of large number of emails send back and forth by Jane Hoffman without providing any invoice and just served with me a statement of account.
The client’s interests are paramount. Clients must be free to decide whom to retain as counsel, without undue influence or pressure by the lawyer or the firm. The client should be provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about whether to (a) continue with the departing lawyer, (b) remain with the firm, or (c) retain new counsel. Jane Hoffman unilaterally forwarded my file to David Miksha without getting my consent. An email is included for its proof
5.1-2 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not: knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime or illegal conduct; (David Miksha gives an offensive statement to the reviewer about me that actually does not reflect the truth. that I have “some criminal history involved and various proceedings over several years” to make things advantageous to his argument.) I have not had any proceedings over several years and David Miksha needed to explain what kind of criminal history instead of picturizing me. He allegedly speculates that I have a criminal history where I might be categorized under charges like murder, drug dealing and all sought of serious offences.
5.1-2 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not: knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal.
Disclosure of Error or Omission5.1-5(a)A lawyer must not mislead a tribunal nor assist a client or witness to do so.(b)Upon becoming aware that a tribunal is under a misapprehension as a result of submissions made by the lawyer or evidence given by the lawyer’s client or witness, a lawyer must, subject to Rule 3.3- David accusing me to Reviewer that 1) I have involved various proceedings and 2) some “criminal history” as well which was not mentioned specifically so that I will look like a drug dealer, murderer , sex offender or someone else involved in serious crime. He only does this for the benefit of his argument. (David Miksha gives an offensive and untruthful statement to the reviewer about me that actually does not reflect the truth. That I have “some criminal history involved and various proceedings over several years” to make things advantageous to his argument.) I have no various proceedings over several years and David Miksha needed to explain what kind of criminal history instead of picturizing me. He allegedly speculates that I have a criminal history where I might be categorized under charges like murder, drug dealing and all sought of serious offences.