• Is motivated to do tasks;
• Does not have language barriers;
• Has a capacity to self-represent and understand the limits of the retainer;
• Has an absence of drug or alcohol addiction; and • Is not in a situation involving domestic violence.
Limited scope representation is not for every client or for every file. A thorough first interview is crucial. We have found that it takes a relatively sophisticated client and uncomplicated issue for limited scope service contracts to work. Unfortunately, neither is the norm for our Legal Aid family clients.
Since we started our original pilot at LAA, the Alberta Rules have come into force. The rules allow for limited scope representation pursuant to Rule 2.27, provided the Court is advised orally or in writing of the limits of the retainer. At LAA, we have opted in the Queen’s Bench and in the Provincial Court (where permitted) to file Notices of Limited Scope Retainers to ensure the Court, opposing counsel, and opposing party are clear on the limits of our retainer. Our experience has been that the Court is happy to have a lawyer provide some services and advice to a client rather than be faced with an entirely selfrepresented party. We also make sure to file a Notice of Withdrawal at the end of the retainer so that the court and opposing party knows our involvement is at an end. It is a requirement of Rule 2.27 that the client attend all court appearances with the lawyer on a limited scope retainer. We take the position that the client remains on the record as a self-represented litigant throughout our involvement. Therefore, the normal Rules for getting off the record as counsel of record do not apply to us. We do not believe that we are bound by Rule 2.29, which requires a lawyer of record to remain on the file 10 days after service of the Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Withdrawal. It is our position that upon the filing and service of the Withdrawal we have no further obligations on the file, except perhaps to approve the terms of the written order. To our knowledge, there has been no case law which undermines our position on this issue.
We have a number of precedents to assist counsel with this type of work. They are:
• Notice of Limited Scope Retainer for Queen’s Bench; • Notice of Withdrawal for Queen’s Bench;
• Notice of Limited Scope for Provincial Court; • Notice of Withdrawal from Provincial Court; • FAQ sheet for clients;
• FAQ and best practices sheets for lawyers; and • Limited Scope Retainer Agreement.
These precedents are available on the Pro Bono Law Alberta (PBLA) website at www.pbla.ca. Lawyers may need to register on this website to get access to the materials, but registration is quite quick and easy. Sue Talia has also provided us a link to a free seminar that she did in 2012. This seminar is more focused on doing this work from a private practice perspective. The seminar can be viewed at http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Expanding_ Your_Practice_Using_Limited_Scope/_/N-4kZ1z 12uzg?Npp=1&ID=153405&t=MDN2_8ZEM3&u tm_source=8ZEM3&utm_medium=EMKTG&utm_ campaign=MDN2.
The number of referrals of our Legal Aid clients to limited scope service contracts has been lower than originally anticipated. The reality is that many of our clients are not good candidates for this type of representation. Nevertheless, we have had success on a number of files where we have had suitable candidates.
Circumstances often change in family law work and what may originally seem like a good case for the LSR may blossom into very time intensive litigation. In these circumstances, we may refer the matter back to the appointing Legal Aid officer and ask for a full coverage certificate. The biggest challenge for Legal Aid lawyers who have practiced in this area is to avoid getting drawn into doing more work than the limited scope retainer permits. It is normal for most of us, as lawyers, to believe that if we helped the client with their entire
Limited Scope Retainers | 39