“Holmes on Homes” is one of the most popular home renovation television programs on the cable channel “HGTV“. The series is based in Ontario, however its popularity is not restricted to Canada. The show has been doing very well in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. For those not familiar with this series, Mike Holmes is a highly respected construction and renovation contractor who “rescues” homeowners who have fallen victim to unscrupulous, sloppy or inept renovation contractors.
Mike’s motto is “Make it Right”, and his passion for his calling is clear from the moment every show begins, through to the when the credits roll. Watching the show, it becomes clear that Mike Holmes has little patience for contractors who take on work in which they have little knowledge or experience.
He has even less patience for those who have the requisite knowledge and/or experience, but do not care enough to do the job right. Mike Holmes’ philosophy is exemplified in this excerpt from his book, taken from the website:
…[T]he most important lesson I learned from my father wasn’t about wiring or plumbing…it was about doing things right…he cared about what he did…doing something right wasn’t just about business practice, it was about who you were as a person, and how you treated others…I have always tried to get it right the first time.
The parallel to legal ethics should be obvious.
Doing a job right in the legal profession is a matter of competence. Like the ethical codes for all of the Canadian provincial law societies, Chapter II of the Canadian Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct devotes several pages to professional competence, and the lawyer’s duty not to take on work in which he or she does not have sufficient knowledge, skill and experience.
The American Bar Association Model Rules devotes 2 sentences to the topics of “Competence” and “Diligence”, at Rules 1.1 and 1.3 respectively.
Nevertheless, it is all too common in the profession to take over a file from another lawyer and find, not that the lawyer simply didn’t know what he or she was doing, but that the lawyer simply could not be bothered to put forth the effort to do the job diligently and conscientiously.
I can recall a number of cases where I have taken over files from prior counsel where good defences have not been advanced, or where written argument was technical but provided in the form of a 2 page document, stapled together without any reference to legal authority.
This is simply not acceptable. It does a serious disservice to the client, whose life is potentially permanently altered because of the lawyer’s lack of diligence and competence. And it reflects poorly on the profession, when the client, who is apt to complain to all who will listen when asked to pay $250.00 an hour for this type of representation.
As Mike Holmes points out, doing it right is not just a matter of good business. I suggest that doing it right is not simply a matter of adhering to a set of rules, either. It is about who we are as a profession. It is about the way we relate to society as a whole – and ultimately, it is about whether the profession is deserving of the public’s trust.
