banner banner

Discipline Decision – 2007

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2007/2007canlii15461/2007canlii15461.html

Summary

An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found Michael J.M. Drover of St. John’s, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999.

The Complaint alleged that Mr. Drover failed to comply with the Trust Account Rules, failed to avoid a conflict of interest between lawyer and client, and failed in his duties respecting preservation of clients’ property

Mr. Drover entered a not guilty plea.

The Adjudication Panel found:

  1. ) Mr. Drover violated rule 5.11 by permitting his client to use his personal account at Kent Building Supplies;
  2. ) Mr. Drover violated rule 5.04(2)(c) by transferring funds from trust to pay his legal fees without giving a copy of the invoice or other written notification to his clients;
  3. ) Mr. Drover violated rule 5.11 by advancing funds to personal injury clients prior to receipt of settlement proceeds.

By Order of the Adjudication Panel dated March 6, 2007, Mr. Drover was reprimanded and ordered to pay 50% of the expenses incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint.  The Adjudication Panel also ordered that the decision and order be subject to publication in accordance with the Law Society Rules.

Discipline Decision – 2013

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2013/2013canlii77583/2013canlii77583.html

Summary

TAKE NOTICE THAT an Adjudication Tribunal of the Disciplinary Panel of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, having conducted a hearing pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, found Michael J.M. Drover of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction.  Mr. Drover entered a guilty plea to allegations concerning his failure to fulfill his Undertaking and his failure to respond to communications from the Law Society in a timely fashion.  The Adjudication Tribunal noted that members of the Law Society must be able to rely upon Undertakings given by other members, and that undue delay in performing Undertakings, and unduly delayed responses to inquiries regarding the performance of Undertakings, undermines such reliance.  The Adjudication Tribunal also noted that public confidence in self-governance of the legal profession is reliant, in a large measure, upon the expectation that members of the Law Society will promptly and fully respond to the Law Society regarding allegations of conduct deserving of sanction.

The Adjudication Tribunal ordered, pursuant to subsection 49(2) of the Law Society Act, 1999 that:

  1. ) Michael J.M. Drover is reprimanded;
  2. ) there is imposed on Michael J.M. Drover a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to be paid to the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador;
  3. ) Michael J.M. Drover pay the costs incurred by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint up to the final conclusion of all matters related to the hearing of the Complaint, in the amount determined by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that the Respondent have ninety (90) days following the effective date of this Decision and Order to pay those costs;
  4. ) the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador publish a summary of this Decision and Order including the information set out in subsection 51(4) of the Law Society Act, 1999, in accordance with the Law Society Rules, by electronically sending notice of the Decision and Order to the members of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Courts and by placing the Complaint and the Adjudication Tribunal’s decision on the CanLII website;
  5. ) this Order shall take effect upon service in accordance with Law Society rule 9.14.

Discipline Decision – 2017

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2017/2017canlii35024/2017canlii35024.html

Summary

An Adjudication Tribunal of the Disciplinary Panel of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, found Michael J.M. Drover of Michael Drover PLC Inc. guilty of conduct deserving of sanction and ordered that he be disbarred.

An excerpt from the Decision on Sanction dated April 19, 2017 follows.

The Adjudication Tribunal in this matter found the Respondent guilty of conduct deserving of sanction in a written Decision and Reasons dated March 2, 2017.  The Respondent was found by this Tribunal to have misappropriated a total of $181,483.97 from three clients in a series of transactions over three years.  The Respondent was further found to have used funds held in trust for two clients to pay a number of invoices from his firm totaling $220,775.00 without giving these clients copies of the invoices.  The Respondent was also found to have attempted to mislead the Law Society and to have failed to respond in a timely and substantive matter to communications from the Law Society.

The accepted principle of sanction which is particularly relevant to the present case is expressed in Fahey, Re 1998 CanLII 12417 (NL LS), as follows: “except in extraordinary circumstances, deliberate theft of a client’s property will result in disbarment”.  The Respondent in this case knowingly planned and engaged in fraud and the theft of a total of $181,483.97 from three clients.  There are no extraordinary circumstances or mitigating factors in this case which would lead this Tribunal to conclude that anything less than disbarment is the appropriate sanction and is necessary to protect the public from further harm.

The Respondent not only failed to co-operate but attempted to mislead the Law Society during the period of the Custodianship and the Law Society’s investigation into this matter.  It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that he be ordered to pay the Law Society the costs incurred in relation to the Custodianship and in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint.

The Adjudication Tribunal ordered, pursuant to subsection 49(2) of the Law Society Act, 1999:

  1. ) that Michael Drover be disbarred;
  2. ) that Michael Drover pay the costs incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint;
  3. ) that Michael Drover pay the Law Society the costs incurred in relation to the appointment of a custodian of his practice and the practice of his professional law corporation (Michael Drover PLC Inc.), as well as the costs the Law Society subsequently incurred in relation to that custodianship; and
  4. ) that in accordance with subsection 51(3) the Law Society publish a summary of the Adjudication Tribunal’s decision and order, including the information set out in subsection 51(4).