Réunions de règlementation

THE REGULATORY ISSUES

The Lawyer was alleged to have marketed his legal services using means which were not in the best interests of the public.

Between May of 2015 and March of 2016, he authorized advertisement in the print edition of Your Ward News, a monthly newsletter publication containing pro-Nazi, homophobic and anti-Semitic material, which published in print and online. The Lawyer paid under $50/month to have his advertisement included in the printed publication. The advertisement contained a disclaimer “Independent. I am not involved with the New Constitution Party of Canada.” The Lawyer represented that he was unaware of the content of the publication and denies that he shares any hateful views that may have been espoused by the publisher or editor. The Lawyer indicated that he is a person who hates no one or no group.

REGULATORY MEETING OUTCOME

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer advised that he was unaware that Your Ward News had a website at the time he placed the ads and had never visited it. He also advised that he did not ever read a copy of the print publication. The Lawyer advised he believed that the disclaimer in his advertisement distanced himself from the contents of the publication (which also included advertisement from other local businesses).

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer’s advertisement itself was not offensive. However, the Committee was of the view that despite the disclaimer, the placement of the advertisement in this particular publication was not in the public interest and was inconsistent with the high standards of professionalism required under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that having withdrawn the advertisement three years ago, the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(The Lawyer attended via videoconference with Duty Counsel, Nadia Liva)

Questions règlementaires

L’avocat n’a pas exercé sa pleine responsabilité professionnelle dans le cadre de sa pratique en permettant à une avocate débutante de son cabinet d’agir contre un ancien client, sans son consentement, dans une affaire connexe portant sur un litige concernant le décès d’un membre de sa famille. Un juge de la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario a par la suite déclaré que le cabinet de l’avocat avait agi en conflit d’intérêts dans le cadre d’une motion en vue d’obtenir le retour d’un certificat de fiduciaire de la succession, et que le cabinet aurait dû s’abstenir de continuer à agir contre l’ancien client dans le cadre de cette motion. L’avocat a alors pris des mesures immédiates pour engager un autre avocat à ses frais afin de continuer à agir pour les autres membres de la famille dans le cadre de la motion en vue d’obtenir le retour du certificat de fiduciaire de la succession.

Résultat de la réunion de règlementation

Conformément à la politique du Barreau en matière de réunions de règlementation, les membres du comité d’autorisation des instances (le « Comité ») ont discuté des questions règlementaires et des règles du Code de déontologie applicables avec l’avocat. Les membres du Comité ont noté que d’après la preuve, le cabinet de l’avocat avait agi en conflit d’intérêts et que le tribunal avait considéré que cette situation portait atteinte à l’administration de la justice.

Le comité d’autorisation des instances a rappelé à l’avocat sa responsabilité de veiller à ce que son cabinet évite les conflits d’intérêts. L’avocat a reconnu qu’il était professionnellement responsable des actions des avocats du cabinet. L’avocat a également reconnu que son cabinet avait agi en conflit d’intérêts. L’avocat s’est dit résolu à être attentif à l’avenir aux conflits potentiels et réels et à la nécessité de consentement, et qu’il veillera à ce que les avocats reçoivent des conseils sur les questions de conflit.
Les membres du comité d’autorisation des instances conviennent que la discussion a été utile et que l’avocat ne permettra probablement pas au cabinet de se retrouver dans une situation similaire à l’avenir. Le comité d’autorisation des instances a conclu qu’après avoir abordé la question règlementaire, aucune suite ne sera donnée à cette affaire.

(Conseiller pour le Barreau, Paul Pape/Conseiller pour l’avocat, William Trudell)

The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to directly supervise the non-lawyer staff of his office and the non-lawyer agents to whom tasks were assigned in relation to a client file.
The Lawyer was also alleged to have made ill-considered, uninformed, or inaccurate criticisms regarding the conduct of a paralegal agent to a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues arising from the Lawyer’s conduct and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  

The Lawyer acknowledged that he is professionally obligated to directly supervise all non-lawyer staff to whom he assigns permissible tasks in relation to clients who retain his services.  The Lawyer also acknowledged that he is professionally obligated to refrain from making criticisms of fellow licensees without an accurate and informed basis for doing so.

The presiding members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer of his duty to directly and effectively supervise his staff to the standard of a competent lawyer in accordance with Rule 6.1-1 and his duty to be courteous, civil and act in good faith with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in accordance with Rule 7.2-1.

The presiding members of the Committee were satisfied that the discussion was useful, and that the process resulted in the Lawyer clearly understanding the concerns of the Law Society regarding his conduct.  The presiding members of the Committee concluded that, having addressed with the Lawyer the conduct that gave rise to the regulatory issues, there would be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Natasha Giuffre /The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
 

The Regulatory Issues

The Lawyer was alleged to have practised while under suspension, failed to serve his clients, failed to return his client’s file in a timely manner and failed to respond to the communications of his clients and third parties.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations under the By-Laws and the Rules, and in particular to keep his clients advised of the status of their matters and report to them at all stages of a matter in a clear manner, ensure that any limited scope retainers he accepts conform with the Rules, that he clearly communicates the terms and conditions of his retainers and respond to the communications of his clients and third parties.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Deborah McPhadden /The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person) 

The Regulatory Issues

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicableRules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer fully cooperated with the Law Society investigation and advised the Proceedings Authorization Committee that the firm’s website now identifies the employee as a spokesperson and non-licensee. A similar disclaimer has been added to the firm’s television advertisements. The firm is in the process of editing videos to include a similar disclaimer, but this process has not yet been completed. He also advised that all TTC ads with the Blue Jays designation have been taken down and the references to the sponsorship in internet advertising (within their control) have been removed.

The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer of the prohibition against marketing that is misleading, confusing or deceptive or likely to mislead, confuse or deceive. They recognized that the Lawyer addressed the Law Society’s concerns immediately after being advised of the investigation, but reminded the Lawyer that the use of the employee and the sponsorship agreement with the Blue Jays might mislead, confuse or deceive.

The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the process made it unlikely that there would be marketing by the firm that might mislead, confuse or deceive in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

The Regulatory Issues   

The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer of her obligations to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with all persons with whom she has dealings in the course of her practice, and to not communicate in a manner inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer, and to avoid ill-considered criticisms of the competence and conduct of other lawyers, and to reply honestly, promptly and completely to any communication from the Law Society.

The Lawyer expressed embarrassment and regret and accepted responsibility for the communications and for misleading the Law Society. The Committee also received information indicating that the conduct was out of character and unlikely to be repeated. 

The Regulatory Issues

The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in improper advertising and public communications, the sole purpose of which were self-promotion or self-aggrandizement, and conduct which tends to bring discredit to the legal profession, with respect to content the Lawyer posted on his Instagram account and on his website.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  The Lawyer had posted content on his Instagram account and on his website that identified clients, promoted himself as having a qualitative superiority to other lawyers, raised expectations by referencing “winning” his cases, made uncritical reference to organized crime and various illegal drugs, included images of weapons of violence and ammunition, and included a photo of the Lawyer with a client which identified the location as the Superior Court of Justice with the caption “Cocaine_lawyer 2.5 kilos of cocaine charges dropped”.  The posted content attracted media attention.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee were concerned about the content which the Lawyer posted online.  The Lawyer acknowledged that the caption that accompanied the photo of him and his client was not appropriate.  The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his duty to comport himself with integrity and to ensure that his advertising complies with the standards set out in the Rules, and that in offering legal services he shall not use means that are false and misleading or otherwise bring the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute.  The Committee recognized that the Lawyer addressed the Law Society’s concerns shortly after being advised of the Investigation, but noted that the Lawyer, however, reasonably ought to have known that the content he posted to his Instagram account and website was improper.

The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Sarah E. Wolson / Counsel for the Lawyer, James W.I. Lockyer)

The Regulatory Issues

The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to comply with an Undertaking given to the Law Society and to have failed to maintain his books and records. 

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, the applicable By-Laws and the applicable sections of the Law Society Act.  Following an investigation in 2008, the Lawyer gave an Undertaking to the Law Society to maintain books and records current and in accordance with By-Law 9 of the Law Society Act, and to provide monthly trust reconciliations for a period of one year commencing October 2008, which he did.  In 2014, the the Law Society’s Spot Audit Department conducted a re-audit.  A subsequent investigation found that the Lawyer had failed to comply with the Undertaking as monthly trust reconciliations and comparisons were not prepared monthly.  The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations to fulfil every undertaking he gives and to maintain his books and records as required by the Rules, the By-Lawsand the Act.

The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter. 

Attending for the Law Society, Ken Doering, Team Manager, Enforcement / The Lawyer was unrepresented and attended in person)

The Regulatory Issue

The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a lawyer while holding public office. The Lawyer’s conduct while Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Harper was the subject of criticism in Justice Vaillancourt’s decision in R. v. Duffy, and was he was found by the federal Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner to have contravened the Conflict of Interest Act.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee were of the view that a Regulatory Meeting was required in light of the public comment about the Lawyer’s conduct in R. v. Duffy and the findings of the Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner.  The Committee noted that there had been no loss of public funds, that the RCMP had not laid charges against the Lawyer, and that he had paid a significant price for his actions already, including suffering public embarrassment and resigning from his position in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

The Regulatory Issues

While subject to a discipline suspension, the Lawyer was alleged to have failed to properly handle and divest himself of his trust account and failed to clearly inform his client that he was suspended and unable to provide legal services.  The Lawyer was also alleged to have failed to accurately disclose receiving trust funds from his client on his 2015 Lawyer’s Annual Report.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  While he had informed his client of his suspension and referred him to another lawyer, the Lawyer acknowledged that the client likely did not understand what he told him due to a language barrier.  The Lawyer acknowledged he should not have received money in trust while suspended, and the potential misleading statement regarding trust funds on his 2015 Annual Report, but indicated the statement was made in error.

The Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer that licensees who have been found to have engaged in professional misconduct and suspended must divest themselves of the trust funds they hold on behalf of clients in a timely fashion.  Suspended licences must also inform their clients or prospective clients that they are unable to continue with or accept a retainer due to the suspension, while ensuring that any barrier to communication such as language is overcome and that the client fully and completely understands.  The members of the Committee also noted that it is essential that licensees present accurate information in the Annual Report.

The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Attending for the Society, Christopher Wight, Forensic Auditor / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)

The Regulatory Issues

The Paralegal acted on two Small Claims Court collection actions.  An unrepresented person owned a property to which one of the actions related, but was not a party to the action.  The Paralegal was alleged to have improperly dissuaded the unrepresented person, who was a witness, from appearing in court, to have failed to make clear to the unrepresented party that he acted exclusively in the interests of his client, and that he failed to supervise his assistant and paralegal student who worked on the matter and who were not candid with the unrepresented person about settlement documents she was asked to sign.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Paralegal Rules of Conduct.  The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that it was improper in the circumstances for the Paralegal to have suggested that the unrepresented person did not have to appear in Court regarding one of the proceedings, because her evidence would have been necessary for the matter to proceed, and the opposing party had not removed her name from the witness list.  The Paralegal was also reminded of his obligation to advise the unrepresented person that he did not represent her, and of his obligation to directly supervise his staff to whom he delegates particular tasks.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Paralegal is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Margaret Drent / The Paralegal was unrepresented and appeared in person)

The Regulatory Issues 

The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to comply with her personal undertaking to pay out and discharge a private mortgage following the closing of a commercial real estate transaction, contrary to Rule 7.2-11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer gave the undertaking and it was not fulfilled, and reminded her of her obligation under the Rules not to give an undertaking that cannot be fulfilled and to fulfil every undertaking given.   They also directed the Lawyer to the Law Society’s Real Estate Practice Guide for Lawyers, which provides that lawyers should not give or accept personal undertakings respecting discharge after closing in the case of private mortgages, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Regulatory Issues

The Lawyer was alleged to have acted in a conflict of interest.  He represented two clients in separate matrimonial matters.  The two clients began a relationship with each other.  The Lawyer represented both of them in drafting a cohabitation agreement. 

The Lawyer was also alleged to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a lawyer, when, just prior to one of the clients making an assignment in bankruptcy, the Lawyer substantially increased the amount of the legal fees owed to him by the bankrupt client and allowed himself to be appointed an inspector in the bankruptcy in an attempt to maximize his own recovery in the bankruptcy, which would limit the recovery of the bankrupt client’s former spouse, who was also a creditor in the bankruptcy.  The Lawyer’s conduct attracted adverse comment from judges who made decisions in the bankruptcy litigation.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.  The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the evidence showed that the Lawyer acted in a conflict of interest, and that the Lawyer’s conduct had attracted judicial criticism. 

The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligation to be on guard against conflicts of interest.   The Committee also reminded him of his obligations to conduct himself appropriately when his own financial interests are intertwined with those of his clients.  The Lawyer acknowledged that he had not dealt with the conflict issues in the matrimonial matter as he should have, and expressed his resolve to be mindful in future of the need to balance his own financial interests with his professional obligations.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct himself similarly in the future.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

 (Counsel for the Society, Louise Christofolakos / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)

The Regulatory Issue

The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to treat the Court with candour as required by Sub-rule 4.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On a mandamus application to have a Justice of the Peace complete a trial after she had declared a mistrial, the Lawyer failed to advise the Judge hearing the application that he had filed a complaint against the Justice of the Peace with the Judicial Council. The application was granted. When the Justice of the Peace subsequently recused herself from the trial, the Judge hearing a second mandamus application found that if the Lawyer had disclosed his complaint to the Judge who heard the first application, that Judge would not have come the decision that he did.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Committee noted that the Lawyer had acknowledged that he failed to appreciate the difficult position his complaint created for the Justice of the Peace when he sought an order that she continue with the trial. The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations to be candid with the Court and not to ask the Court, whether by omission or otherwise, to make a order without putting all the relevant facts before the Court. The Lawyer indicated that he regrets the entire incident.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Damienne Lebrun-Reid / Counsel for the Lawyer, Nadia Liva)

The Regulatory Issue

During the spring and summer of 2004, the Lawyer was the lead Assistant Crown Attorney in the prosecution of several co-defendants.  The charges included substantive counts relating to drug trafficking, weapons and criminal organization/conspiracy offences.  During the Preliminary Inquiry, the Lawyer had two ex parte discussions with the presiding Judge which were relevant to the proceedings.  The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to disclose the fact of the meeting and the nature of the conversations to defence counsel, contrary to Rules 4.01(3) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  

At the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry, the presiding Judge discharged the defendants with respect to the charges of criminal organization/conspiracy.  Approximately four months later, the criminal organization/conspiracy charges were reinstituted against some, but not all, of the defendants.  The ex parte communications were not disclosed to defence counsel until approximately fourteen months after the communications took place and eleven months after the criminal organization/conspiracy charges were discharged.   

The Judge hearing a stay application brought by defence counsel dismissed it after finding that the circumstances surrounding the Lawyer’s conduct and disclosure issues did not amount to an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings.  However, the Judge made several negative comments about the conduct of the Lawyer.  The Law Society became aware of the matter in April, 2009. 

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Lawyer acknowledged that she took part in two ex parte meetings with the presiding Judge, which were not disclosed to the defence during the Preliminary Inquiry.  The Lawyer stated that it is now very clear to her that it was improper and a breach of her disclosure obligation as Crown Counsel not to have immediately disclosed the fact and content of the ex partecomments by presiding Judge to defence counsel.

The Members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer’s conduct had been the subject of an investigation by the Ministry of the Attorney General which found that it was improper and a breach of the Lawyer’s disclosure obligation as Crown Counsel not to have immediately disclosed the fact and content of the ex parte comments to defence counsel.  The Lawyer was disciplined in accordance with the Ministry of the Attorney General’s internal policies.  The Lawyer also advised the Committee that her conduct has fundamentally shaken her professional reputation, has impacted on her family life and has been a source of tremendous regret and angst.

The Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, that the Lawyer has not misconducted herself similarly since 2004, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct herself similarly in the future.  The Committee further noted that the Lawyer continues to be given responsibility commensurate with her experience as an Assistant Crown Attorney.  The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/ Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes.  The Hon. Sydney L. Robins, Q.C., LSM attended as a Bencher at the invitation of the Proceedings Authorization Committee.)

The Regulatory Issue

The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a lawyer licensee contrary to s.33(1) of the Law Society Actbecause he was convicted by Madam Justice Livingstone, in the Ontario Court of Justice for Ontario in London, Ontario on September 22, 2008 of twice breaching section 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act and twice breaching section 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome

Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Committee made reference to the fact that the Lawyer’s convictions under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole and tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Committee drew the Lawyer’s attention to sub-rules 6.11(3), 1.02 and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee reminded the Lawyer that he has a duty as a senior member of the Bar to conduct himself in his professional and personal capacity in a manner consistent with the legal profession’s traditions of honesty, integrity and high ethical standards.

The Lawyer acknowledged that he conducted himself in a manner that was inconsistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, he acknowledged that his convictions under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act reflect badly on the legal profession.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan/the Lawyer attended in person and was unrepresented)

The Regulatory Issues  

The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in sharp practice on or about July 20, 2007, when he instituted default proceeding in court file no. 07-CV-329949PD3, without notice to the defendant's lawyer.

The Lawyer was also alleged to have written letters dated July 6 and 12, 2007 to the defendant's lawyer and others regarding court file no. 07-CV-329949PD3, in July 2007, in a manner that was uncivil and inconsistent with the proper tone of the professional communication from a lawyer.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome  

Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue s and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee were of the view that it was improper for the Lawyer to institute default proceedings without notice to the defendant in the face of pending motions for orders:

1. to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction; and
2. to extend the time for the filing of the Statement of Defence

and contrary to the arrangement not to note the defendant in default, which the defendant's lawyer believed to be in place in mid-May 2007.

The Committee also noted that the Lawyer's conduct was aggravated by the two letters the Lawyer wrote to the defendant's lawyer and copied to other members of the bar.

The Committee made particular reference to the comments on the Lawyer's conduct that were made in two decisions in the underlying litigation by the Hon. Mr. Justice Newbould, who wrote that the Lawyer's actions were "misleading in the extreme" and that ".....the correspondence that I have discussed are actions that should not be condoned but rather censured. The Rules of Professional Conduct and the Principles of Civility adopted by the Advocates' Society are intended to prevent the kind of correspondence that was sent…."

The Committee drew the Lawyer's attention to sub-rules 4.01 (6), 6.01 (1), 6.03 (3) and 6.03 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct . The Committee reminded the Lawyer that even in acrimonious, high-profile litigation, a lawyer's obligation is to avoid sharp practice, to act in good faith and to treat opposing counsel and all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of litigation with courtesy and civility. The Committee noted that the Lawyer is a senior member of the bar with the ability to influence junior lawyers as they develop their practice styles.

The Lawyer acknowledged that he conducted himself in a manner that was inconsistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, he acknowledged that it was improper to institute default proceedings without notice to the defendant in the circumstances of this case, and that his letters to the defendant's lawyer were uncivil. In light of his discussions with the Committee, the Lawyer has committed himself to observing the principles of civility.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

(Counsel for the Society, Amanda Worley/the Lawyer attended in person and was represented by Sylvia Tint)  

The Regulatory Issues  

The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to treat the Ontario Racing Commission (the "ORC") with courtesy and respect, and failed to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, contrary to subrules 4.01(1), 4.01(6) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

While cross examining a witness in a hearing before the ORC's Hearing Panel, the Lawyer addressed the chairman of the panel in terms that were discourteous and disrespectful of the panel and the chairman.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome  

Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer conceded his conduct fell short of the standard expected of lawyers. He agreed his comments were very unfortunate and he regrets having made them. He indicated that the incident should never have happened, had never happened before and he hopes that it will never be repeated.

The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that at a meeting of the ORC held to review the Lawyers conduct before the ORC's Hearing Panel, the Lawyer had apologized three times for his remarks at the hearing.

The Committee reminded the Lawyer that while appearances in before tribunals can be stressful, and sometimes challenging, a lawyer's obligation is to maintain a civil and respectful demeanour at all times even if he or she feels provoked or that he or she has been treated unfairly. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.

The Regulatory Issue  

The Applicant was alleged to have, while a law student working for the defence during the criminal trial of R. v. Richard Wills, contacted a witness on August 30, 2007 and arranged a three-way conversation with the witness and the accused. During the conversation, the accused attempted to prompt the witness's memory. The witness denied making the utterances suggested by the accused and said that he would not repeat them in court.

The Background Issues  

The following incidents that were alleged to have occurred while the Applicant was a law student could have been the subject of a good character hearing, and are relevant as background to the regulatory issue considered:  

• On February 28, 2007, the Applicant disregarded courthouse security procedures and arranged for Mr. Wills' two teenage children to attend within a secured area of the courthouse to visit Mr. Wills, without the knowledge or permission of court staff.  
• On May 31, 2007, the Applicant, who was sitting next to Mr. Wills while court was in session, saw that Mr. Wills had typed a message on a laptop screen indicating that if the press had any questions, the defence lawyers could answer them. The message was visible to the public. The Applicant failed to alert counsel or the court to the incident.
• On June 4, 2007, defence counsel retained a friend of the Applicant as a photographer to reproduce autopsy photographs for defence presentation. On the instructions of counsel, the Applicant instructed the photographer to take confidential autopsy photographs of the murder victim for reproduction at Japan Camera Centre, and the photographer performed that task.

Regulatory Meeting Outcome  

Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Applicant has many letters of reference from upstanding members of the community, and that his conduct during the trial appeared to be a diversion from his usual character.

During the meeting, a discussion with the Applicant and his counsel took place. The Applicant stated that the process of the Law Society's investigation delayed the consideration of his admission to the bar, and he assured the Committee that he will never engage in similar conduct again. The Committee is satisfied that the Applicant now appreciates that he made errors in judgment during the course of the R. v. Wills trial.

The Committee is satisfied that the discussion was meaningful, and that the Applicant will never misconduct himself in the future. The Committee concluded that there will be no further action in this matter because it has now addressed the regulatory issue.

(Counsel for the Society, Elaine Strosberg/ Counsel for the Applicant, Stephen Traviss)