The BC Supreme Court declined to disqualify a law firm representing a party opposite someone who had earlier shared confidential information in an informal consultation with a lawyer at the same firm. Despite finding the earlier consultation engaged confidentiality concerns, the court accepted a prompt documented ethical screen and the lack of evidence of actual disclosure, while recognizing the significant prejudice of removing chosen counsel.
Case card
De Cotiis v. De Cotiis, 2026 BCSC 2001
Source reviewed · Court holding
Held. The BC Supreme Court declined to disqualify a law firm representing a party opposite someone who had earlier shared confidential information in an informal consultation with a lawyer at the same firm.
Binder · The business behind your business
Reading about it is one thing. Managing your own business issue is another.
A legal development is useful context. Your contracts, responsibilities, correspondence and actual decisions determine what needs attention in your business. Binder organizes what you know and helps you recognize what still needs attention.
Across Binder Intelligence
One issue, different perspectives.
The same development can matter to managers, insurers, boards and institutions. Explore the related material each publication has independently verified.
The article is a starting point, not a legal strategy.
Binder brings the documents, correspondence and decisions surrounding a business issue into one Matter. When individual professional guidance is required, use an appropriately qualified lawyer.
See how Binder works →Source and further context Authorized CanLII metadata ↗
Intelligence Law publishes commentary and information, not individualized legal advice. Legal rules and court procedure vary by jurisdiction and circumstances.