Neither side has been able to locate any cases where a principal has been found to be in a fiduciary relationship with the principal’s articled student in relation to the student’s articles. I do not find that at all surprising. This is because a lawyer’s primary duty is to the lawyer’s clients, to whom, and without any doubt, the lawyer owes fiduciary obligations. The idea that, by taking on an articled student, a lawyer gives an undertaking (either express or implied) to act in the articled student’s best interests, is incompatible with the lawyer’s existing fiduciary obligations to the lawyer’s clients. To paraphrase McLachlin C.J. at para. 44 in Alberta v. Elder Advocates, imposing such a burden on a lawyer is inherently at odds with the lawyer’s duty to act in the best interests of the lawyer’s clients. [Emphasis in original.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.