Ethics

This seems relevant given Rob's post. A recent Alberta case gave summary judgment dismissing a claim against two lawyers sued for a conflict allegedly arising from the fact that a) the lawyers were Jehovah's Witnesses; b) acted for Watch Tower, the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada; and c) at the same time represented a sixteen year old girl dying of cancer and attempting to resist the government imposition of blood transfusions on the basis of her own beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. The judgment is troubling in its relatively superficial analysis of the conflicts argument.

The judgment also raises some interesting questions about the ethical obligations of a judge when dealing with a pro se litigant, in this case the girl's father acting as administrator ad litem of her estate (she died despite being compelled to receive the transfusions). In granting summary judgment the judge did not refer to an earlier decision of the Court even though that judgment had relevant factual findings clearly contrary to those he uses to find the claim without merit. This is so even though the judgment and the nature of its findings were referenced in a decision to which he does refer.

I have posted a longer analysis of the judgment at www.ablawg.ca.

I would be very interested in hearing the American perspective on whether the original representation would constitute a conflict, and on the obligations of the judge in circumstances like this.