Quebec Bar Exam
Practice ExamsSharpened Mock Ethics Exam #2
We worked hard to make this mock exam resemble your actual Quebec Bar Ethics Exam as much as possible. Plan to do this exam in one siting of 5 hours and resist the urge to correct your answers as you go along.
Correct the exam like the Quebec Bar School does: have the right ethical lapse, but the wrong article. give yourself zero on that answer. Have a partially wrong short-answer question, you unfortunately also get zero.
Want to have more practice exams, commission us to prepare more mock exams for the benefit all of students.
Best of luck!
Alexander just purchased his first home around 6 months ago. Thinking he was getting a bargain, Alexander set his sights on an old 1940s property in a quiet Montreal neighborhood. Little did he know that this purchase would turn into tons of trouble and would cost him lots of time and money. In fact, Alexander quickly discovers that the windows all leak and the foundation is cracked.
Alexander contacts his insurance company, which promptly sends an adjustor to take Alexander’s statement and to inspect the property. Two weeks later, the insurance company advises him that it determined that the damage is not the result of an occurrence covered by his insurance policy, but rather is due to a latent defect.
Angry about the whole situation, Alexander searches on the internet and learns that he might be able to sue the people who sold him the property for the cost of the repairs. Jean Dumont, a work colleague of Alexander’s, refers him to Mtre. André Laroche, having used him previously to prepare and send a demand letter. Accordingly, Alexander contacts Mtre. Laroche to discuss his situation. Alexander is confident that Mtre. Laroche is a good choice for his case as the latter lists on his website that he is a “lawyer specialized in latent defects cases.”
After discussing the facts briefly over the phone, Mtre. Laroche invites Alexander to his office for an initial meeting to gather more information about the situation and to explore Alexander’s legal options. Alexander has no problem finding the entrance to Mtre. Laroche’s office thanks to a colourful sign on the outside of the commercial building. After passing through the main door, Alexander is pleasantly surprised by the receptionist’s warm welcome, who points him towards Mtre. Laroche’s office which is the second door on his right down the hallway. Mtre. Laroche greets him with a firm handshake upon entering his office, directs Alexander to take the seat in front of his desk and tells Alexander that he will be with him in a moment after finishing up a quick call with a client. Apparently, Tommy Pearson is getting a divorce and is looking for legal advice on how to maximize his share of the family’s assets, or at least, that’s what Alexander understood.
After carefully listening to Alexander’s story and taking notes, Mtre. Laroche asks his assistant to verify Alexander’s identity with his driver’s licence and then to write down his name, phone number, and address in the newly opened file.
Mtre. Laroche is puzzled by the insurance company’s refusal to cover the claim for the damages to the property. According to Mtre. Laroche, the insurance company has no reason not to cover the damages and thinks that Alexander should move forward with legal proceedings both against the insurance company and the people who sold him the property. Mtre. Laroche then mentions, “It’s possible to get an expert report in our favour. I’ll take care of that.”
Alexander mentions that he is worried about the potential costs of the litigation process and would like to know more about Mtre. Laroche’s fee structure. Mtre. Laroche replies that he is inclined to take the file on a contingency basis at a rate of 40% of the judgment award or settlement amount ultimately received. Alexander is happy to hear this, since he figures that Mtre. Laroche will be all the more motivated to represent him well as otherwise he won’t get paid.
Mtre. Laroche then asks Alexander to sign the mandate letter which sets out their agreement and contains a clause to the effect that Mtre. Laroche will not be able to use his trust account for the duration of the mandate as he is currently changing his law practise’s bank. Alexander understands and signs the letter.
After reviewing the communications exchanged between Alexander and his insurance company, Mtre. Laroche hires Solutions Conseils inc., a well-respected firm in the field of structural damages to property, to obtain an independent expert report to make sure they have a case against the insurance company. Mtre. Laroche decides it is wiser to advise Alexander of that report upon its reception.
Over the next few weeks, Mtre. Laroche contacts Alexander to obtain his approval to issue a demand letter, which is followed by the filing of a formal lawsuit against both the sellers and the insurance company. In addition to the $80,000 in damages for the cost to repair the property, the lawsuit seeks an additional $50,000 in punitive damages against the insurance company for its bad faith towards Alexander. In response to Alexander’s question about the legal basis of the punitive damages claim, Mtre. Laroche simply replies, “It’s common to sue companies for punitive damages to put pressure on them even when we know we have no chance of being awarded them by a Court.”
In the following weeks, Mtre. Laroche sends out five additional demand letters to the insurance company demanding that it pay the insurance claim. No response is received to any of those letters.
During the summer, as Alexander begins his vacation, he decides to phone Mtre. Laroche to get an update on his file. Alexander phones Mtre. Laroche on July 12, 24 as well as on August 6, 15, and on September 1. None of those call are answered, but the message on Mtre. Laroche’s voicemail mentions that he is on vacation and will be returning his calls upon his return.
During the second week of September, Mtre. Laroche finally calls Alexander back and apologizes for not returning his calls sooner saying that he was very busy after coming back from his vacation. Mtre. Laroche then explains that the next step in the proceedings will be to go to Court to get several orders to compel the opposing parties to communicate some “pre-undertaking” and “affidavits”. Mtre. Laroche set the hearing date for September 24 at the Montreal Courthouse. Alexander is not sure what Mtre. Laroche is referring to but nonetheless trusts his lawyer to be doing the right thing.
On September 24, Mtre. Laroche is unfortunately stuck in an urgent matter that requires his presence at the St. Jerome Courthouse. Mtre. Laroche decides to tell Alexander that the hearing went well and that he obtained all the orders he was seeking. This way, thinks Mtre. Laroche, Alexander won’t worry about his file and Mtre. Laroche will still be able to appear before the Court the following week to get his orders.
Coincidentally, Alexander goes to renew his home insurance policy and is told by his insurance agent that his lawyer failed to appear before the Court and the insurance company is confident that it is going to win the case.
Furious, Alexander calls Mtre. Laroche and tell him that he will be changing lawyers to one who is more competent and who won’t lie to him. Mtre. Laroche denies the charge, but nonetheless accepts to issue Alexander a final invoice before transferring the file.
Alexander receives an invoice for $52,000 representing 40% of $130,000 which he was seeking in his proceedings.
QUESTION 1
List 15 breaches of ethics and professional practice committed by Mtre. André Laroche. For each breach, justify your answer by referring to:
a) the precise and relevant facts contained in the factual framework;
b) to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provision(s).
After coming out of his in camera hearing on a number of disciplinary breaches of which he is accused, Mtre. Rousseau contacts a local newspaper to express his indignation at the treatment he is receiving from the Disciplinary Committee of the Barreau du Quebec.
The next day, a newspaper article appears explaining the disciplinary process to which Mtre. Rousseau has been subjected. The article also criticizes the work of the Assistant Syndic and paints a very negative picture of the Disciplinary Committee hearing. Mtre. Tétrault, the Assistant Syndic, wonders what to do with this case. A colleague mentions that Mtre. Rousseau should be held in contempt of court.
QUESTION 2
Can Mtre. Rousseau be held in contempt of court for his actions after the end of the disciplinary hearing?
Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
On January 7, the Disciplinary Committee rendered a decision in which it declared Mtre. Rousseau guilty of several violations of his professional obligations. Amongst the charges, Mtre. Rousseau was deemed to have overcharged clients in two separate files. The decision indicates the irrelevance of certain acts performed by Mtre. Rousseau and concludes that the related fees were excessive. Those files have been completed and were paid in full two years ago.
One of those files is that of Dominic Jones who was one of the people who filed a complaint against Mtre. Rousseau.
After learning that Mtre. Rousseau was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee, Dominic Jones consults you on January 28 to see if he can avail himself of conciliation regarding his billed fees.
QUESTION 3
Is Dominic Jones eligible for conciliation regarding the fees charged to him by Mtre. Rousseau?
Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.
ADDITIONAL FACTS
In addition to the disciplinary breaches, Mtre. Rousseau is ordered by the Disciplinary Committee to pay the sum of $5,000 in damages under 1458 C.C.Q. to the two complainants in his file.
Mtre. Rousseau intends to file a judicial review to contest the order to pay damages.
QUESTION 4
Can Mtre. Rousseau file a judicial review to contest the order to pay damages rendered by the Disciplinary Committee?
Specify the relevant facts contained in the factual framework and the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provision.
Henkel Law LLP is a litigation boutique firm in the city of Trois-Rivières. The firm periodically proceeds to a system cleaning during which the firm archives all files closed for more than 6 months and proceeds with the deletion of any file closed for 7 years or more. The files deleted include all file-related documents as well as all accounting information.
QUESTION 5
Does Henkel Law LLP’s system cleaning procedure comply with the law?
Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.
About a year ago, Robert Prince contacted Mtre. Bilodeau to assist him with potential litigation against his neighbours who weren’t respecting the building’s bylaws. The neighbours ended up moving out shortly afterwards, so Robert didn’t move forward with Mtre. Bilodeau’s services.
That being said, Robert Prince was disappointed in the manner in which Mtre. Bilodeau handled his file and wishes to file a complaint against him for several breaches of his professional obligations.
Before starting the process and four months after the end of his mandate with Mtre. Bilodeau, Robert Prince looks up Mtre. Bilodeau in the lawyers’ directory only to find out the latter has been retired for 2 months now. Robert Prince assumes it’s pointless to file a complaint as Mtre. Bilodeau is now retired.
QUESTION 6
Can Robert Prince still file a disciplinary complaint against Mtre. Bilodeau even though he is no longer a member of the Barreau du Quebec?
Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.
Thomas Leduc has been sentenced to nine years in prison following a three-week trial. The charges brought against him included aggravated assault, shoplifting and uttering threats. In the end, Thomas was found guilty of aggravated assault on the person of Jacqueline Rousseau, his ex-girlfriend.
After the sentencing hearing, Thomas meets with Mtre. Laurendeau at the prison where he is being housed to discuss the possibility of appealing his sentence. After discussing the matter thoroughly, they decide not to appeal the sentence. That being said, Mtre. Laurendeau was struck by something Thomas said during their meeting. During the meeting, Thomas mentioned that he wished, “Jacqueline should have shut her mouth because next time I see her, I’ll beat her up so bad that she will never be able to speak again.”
Mtre. Laurendeau is wondering whether he should report the contents of that last conversion to the police.
QUESTION 7
Can Mtre. Laurendeau disclose the threat made by Thomas Leduc against Jacqueline Rousseau to the police?
Justify your answer by referring to the specific and relevant legislative or regulatory provisions.
QUESTION 1 (50 points)
| 1 | Mtre. Laroche did not respect his professional secrecy obligation by talking about Tommy Pearson’s case |
Art. 60.4 C. Prof Art. 131 Loi sur le Barreau |
| 2 | Mtre. Laroche declared himself as a specialist in latent defects | Art. 58 C. Prof. |
| 3 | Mtre. Laroche asked his assistant to identify Alexander | Art. 13 R.c.n.e.p.a. |
| 4 | Mtre. Laroche failed to indicate the nature of the mandate | Art. 13 al. 1 R.c.n.e.p.a. |
| 5 | Mtre. Laroche failed to fully identify his client by not indicating his occupation | Art. 14 R.c.n.e.p.a. |
| 6 | Mtre. Laroche did not inform Alexander of the different means available to settle his file | Art. 42 C.D.A. |
| 7 | Mtre. Laroche gives a profit-seeking character to his profession by charging a contingency fee of 40% | Art 7 C.D.A. |
| 8 | Mtre. Laroche included an illegal disposition in the mandate letter by excluding the use of his trust account | Art. 50 R.c.n.e.p.a |
| 9 | Mtre. Laroche hired an expert without telling Alexander | Art. 30 C.D.A. |
| 10 | Mtre. Laroche claimed punitive damages without justification and in the sole purpose of harming the insurance company and its reputation | Art. 113 al. 2 C.D.A. |
| 11 | By issuing 6 demand letters, Mtre. Laroche multiplied professional acts without sufficient reason | Art. 35 C.D.A. |
| 12 | Mtre. Laroche did not take the necessary steps to have his calls redirected | Art. 6 R.c.n.e.p.a. |
| 13 | Mtre. Laroche was not reasonably available by not answering his phone calls for over two months | Art. 39 C.D.A. |
| 14 | Mtre. Laroche did not use language which his client understood when referring to pre-undertakings and affidavits. | Art. 26 or 38 C.D.A. |
| 15 | Mtre. Laroche failed to appear before the Court or to advise the opposing parties and the Court of his absence | Art. 114 C.D.A. |
| 16 | Mtre. Laroche failed in his obligation of honesty by denying the allegations to the effect that he missed the court appearance | Art. 37 C.D.A. |
| 17 | Mtre. Laroche charged fees that are neither reasonable nor fair | Art. 101 C.D.A. |
3 points per ethical breach correctly identified. (45 points)
5 points for not including any incorrect breaches
QUESTION 2 (8 points)
Yes, Mtre. Rousseau may be found in contempt of court since he violated the order to keep the contents of the disciplinary hearing confidential pursuant to the order to hold the hearing in camera. Art. 142 C. Prof.
QUESTION 3 (8 points)
Yes, Dominic Jones may apply for conciliation as it is less than 45 days from the date when a decision was rendered regarding Mtre. Rousseau’s services. Art 88 al. 6 C. Prof.
QUESTION 4 (10 points)
Yes, Mtre. Rousseau may file a judicial review to contest the order to pay damages rendered by the Disciplinary Committee. Judicial reviews are limited to questions of jurisdiction. Here, the Disciplinary Committee ordered damages under the Civil Code of Quebec, which falls outside of its jurisdiction, thereby permitting a judicial review to be filed. Art. 195 C. Prof.
QUESTION 5 (8 points)
No, Henkel Law LLP’s system cleaning procedure does not comply with the law. The monthly accounting reports need to be kept for 7 years after the end of a financial year, not the closing of a file. Art. 32 R.c.n.e.p.a.
QUESTION 6 (8 points)
Yes, Robert Prince may still file a disciplinary complaint against Mtre. Bilodeau since Mtre. Bilodeau was still a member of the Barreau du Quebec at the time that the alleged violations occurred. Art. 116 C. Prof.
QUESTION 7 (8 points)
No, Mtre. Laurendeau may not disclose the threat made by Thomas to the police. As the threat was part of a discussion between a lawyer and a client, it is covered by solicitor-client privilege. Art. 60.4 C. Prof or Art. 131 Loi sur le Barreau
(Also accepted: The public safety exception does not apply considering that the threat is not imminent, as Thomas is going to jail for 9 years.)
Unhappy with your result
Consider joining hundreds of other students who have taken advantage of our tutoring services to give yourself the tools you need to succeed and pass your Quebec Bar Exam.
SIGN UP FOR TUTORING
info@sharpened.ca