Discipline Decision – 1982

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1982/1982canlii39/1982canlii39.html

Summary

The complaint alleged that the Respondent had dealt with the Respondent’s trust account in an improper manner. The Panel of the Disciplinary Committee recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct. Benchers found that the Respondent failed to maintain the Respondent’s trust account in a proper manner in that the Respondent wrote cheques on the trust account when the Respondent knew or should have known that no trust funds existed to cover such cheques, and that the Respondent had not maintained normal accounting procedures. The Respondent was reprimanded, fined $3,000.00, required to supply the Society with certain periodic accounting reports, and ordered to pay the costs of the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the complaint ($3,035.50).

 

Discipline Decision – 1985

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1985/1985canlii190/1985canlii190.html

Summary

The Respondent was accused of contravening several provisions of the Law Society’s trust account rules. The Panel of the Discipline Committee found that there were deficiencies in the Respondent’s trust account, that the account had been in disarray for a number of years, and that the Respondent had been paying personal and business expenses with the trust account. The Panel concluded that the Respondent was guilty of breaching the Law Society Act and Rules.

Benchers found that the Respondent had:

1. ) withdrawn or permitted to be withdrawn monies from the trust account other than monies properly required for payment to or on behalf of the Respondent’s clients or monies belonging to the Respondent,
2. ) failed to maintain at all times sufficient monies on deposit in the trust account to meet the Respondent’s trust obligations, and
3. ) failed to maintain the trust account in a proper manner by not maintaining proper accounting procedures.

Benchers reprimanded the Respondent, fined the Respondent $1,000.00, required the Respondent to provide to Benchers certain accounting reports periodically, and required the Respondent to pay the expenses of the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the complaint ($9,908.25). Benchers agreed that the member’s name not be published.

 

Discipline Decision – 1990

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1990/1990canlii3990/1990canlii3990.html

Summary

A complaint was made to the Law Society that the Respondent had failed to conduct themself in a professional manner towards client “Company A” by failing without reasonable explanation to answer reasonable requests from the client for information concerning the conduct of legal business on behalf of the client. By way of Agreed Statement of Facts, the Respondent admitted to not answering any correspondence or return any telephone messages from the client for over 4 years, and pled guilty to the charge of professional misconduct. Benchers decided to reprimand the Respondent and order that the Respondent pay the costs of the Law Society in the investigation of the matter.

 

Discipline Decision – 1994

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1994/1994canlii7185/1994canlii7185.html

Summary

A client of the Respondent complained that the Respondent had used profane language with the client in the Duty Counsel office of Provincial Court. Although initially the Respondent had maintained that the use of profanity was justified, during the hearing of the Panel, the Respondent admitted by way of Agreed Statement of Facts that the Respondent had acted improperly and was prepared to apologize to the client. The Panel concluded that the Respondent had failed to conduct themself in a professional manner towards that client, as the Respondent had failed to conduct themself with integrity as required by the Code of Professional Conduct. The Panel suggested that the Respondent be reprimanded and be directed to provide a letter of apology to the client. (The Respondent subsequently wrote a letter of apology to the client which satisfied the Panel.) Benchers found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct, reprimanded the Respondent, ordered that the Respondent pay the costs of the Law Society in the hearing, and agreed to not publish the name of the Respondent.

 

Discipline Decision – 1996

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1996/1996canlii7919/1996canlii7919.html

Summary

A complaint was registered against the Respondent that the Respondent failed without reasonable explanation to: respond to telephone messages and correspondence from a client, transfer on a timely basis the client’s file to another named solicitor, and properly proceed with the client’s instructions in an action for return of certain property or a claim for compensation in relation to property wrongfully transferred to third parties. After a hearing into the matter, a Panel of the Discipline Committee found that the Respondent had not failed to do any of the aforementioned activities. Benchers adopted the Panel’s findings of fact and dismissed the complaint of professional misconduct against the Respondent. Benchers did not make any order as to costs.

 

Discipline Decision – 1996

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1996/1996canlii7917/1996canlii7917.html

Summary

It was alleged that the Respondent was guilty of professional misconduct in that:

1. ) The Respondent represented both parties to the real estate transaction without adequate disclosure and without the consent of the client;
2. ) The Respondent executed the instructions of one client who was a party to a real estate transaction without the knowledge of and to the detriment of another client who was the other party to the same real estate transaction;
3. ) The Respondent inadequately supervised staff in their law office to whom the Respondent delegated the task of preparing documents and communicating with a client in a real estate transaction.

After a hearing of the matter, the Panel of the Discipline Committee recommended to Benchers that the Respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct. Benchers accepted this recommendation.

In respect of penalty, counsel for the Society advised that the Respondent paid the client from the lawyer’s personal funds the value of the original deposit plus interest, and made a written apology to the client. Counsel noted that the lawyer had been co-operative with the Society and had avoided a costly and lengthy hearing by providing an Agreed Statement of Facts. Benchers ordered the lawyer to pay the expense incurred by the Society and reprimanded the Respondent. Benchers decided not to publish the identity of the Respondent.

 

Discipline Decision – 1997

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/1997/1997canlii12053/1997canlii12053.html

Summary

A complaint was laid against the Respondent, charging that the Respondent:

1. ) Failed to maintain a standard of practice expected of barristers regarding a personal injury claim which person (Ms. ‘A’) wished him to pursue on her behalf and which the Respondent had agreed to undertake for her, or that the Respondent had agreed to review and advise Ms. A whether the Respondent was prepared to accept a retainer, and
2. ) Such failure was part of a pattern of neglect amounting to professional misconduct given that the Respondent was found to have had similar problems with other client matters at around the same time for which the Respondent was found to have committed professional misconduct.

The Panel of the Discipline Committee found that there was no solicitor-client relationship and that the lawyer’s failure to make a particular phone call was not sufficient to constitute professional misconduct. The Panel also found that the activities of the lawyer were not sufficiently similar to his actions in another disciplinary matter to establish a pattern of negligence. Benchers accepted the findings of fact and recommendations of the Panel and directed that the complaint be dismissed. Benchers declined to make an award as to costs.

 

Discipline Decision – 2000

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2000/2000canlii21278/2000canlii21278.html

Summary

On January 24, 2000 Benchers exonerated the Respondent and dismissed the complaint of professional misconduct pursuant to section 45 of the Law Society Act. The allegations giving rise to the complaint were, namely, that the Respondent failed to ensure the protection of the public interest, did fail in the Respondent’s duty when making legal services available, and did fail to prevent the practice of law of an unauthorized person. Benchers accepted the recommendation of the panel of the discipline committee and determined that the facts so found did not make out a case of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a member or failure to adhere to the Code of Professional Conduct.

 

Discipline Decision – 2000

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2000/2000canlii21250/2000canlii21250.html

Summary

By a decision dated April 11, 2000 Benchers exonerated two Respondents and dismissed the complaint of professional misconduct pursuant to section 45 of the Law Society Act. The allegations giving rise to the complaint were, namely, that the Respondents’ conduct amounted to a failure on their part to adhere to the duties incumbent on them contained in Chapter III of the Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct; and by their failure to act with impartiality and to avoid a conflict of interest contrary to the Rule contained in Chapter V of the Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct. Benchers accepted the recommendation of the panel of the discipline committee and determined that the facts so found did not make out a case of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a member or failure to adhere to the Code of Professional Conduct.

 

Discipline Decision – 2001

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2001/2001canlii26499/2001canlii26499.html

Summary

On December 7, 2001 an Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee exonerated a member and dismissed the complaint of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to section 48(2) of the Law Society Act, 1999. The allegations giving rise to the complaint were that the member failed to provide a proper quality of service and failed to properly advise the client. The Adjudication Panel determined that the evidence presented did not support the allegations and dismissed the complaint.

 

Discipline Decision – 2002

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2002/2002canlii46686/2002canlii46686.html

Summary

An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee, in a Decision dated November 13, 2002, and pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999 found a the Respondent guilty of conduct deserving of sanction on the basis of the Respondent having failed to fulfil the responsibility owed to another lawyer as prescribed by the Code of Professional Conduct, Chapter XVI. The Adjudication Panel found the Complaint to be substantiated in relation to only one of the four rules allegedly breached. The Adjudication Panel determined that the evidence presented did not support the allegations that the Respondent had failed to act with integrity contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct, Chapter I; had failed in the Respondent’s duty when advising a client contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct, Chapter III; and had failed to avoid questionable conduct contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct, Chapter XIX.

The Adjudication Panel Ordered that the Respondent provide a full and complete apology to the other lawyer; that the Respondent pay one-quarter of the costs incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint; and that the Respondent’s name not be published as such publication would compound the degree of sanction and detract from the appropriate level of sanction required in this particular Complaint.

 

Discipline Decision – 2004

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2004/2004canlii57060/2004canlii57060.html

Summary

An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee, in a Decision dated October 18, 2004 pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, subsection 48(3), found a Respondent guilty of conduct deserving of sanction.

The Respondent entered a guilty plea to the following violations:

1. ) failed to file with the Vice-President of the Law Society of Newfoundland a completed Notice of Change in Practice in form 2.19A prior to or at the time of changing the Respondent’s association in practice;
2. ) failed to execute form 2.19A for a period of approximately seven months following the change of the Respondent’s association in practice;
3. ) transferred substantially all client files to another law firm without obtaining each individual client’s consent to the transfer of each file to another law firm prior to the actual transfer of the respective file, including the files of three clients, who individually complained to the Law Society of Newfoundland respecting transfer of their files without their consent.

The Adjudication Panel Ordered that the Respondent be reprimanded; that the Respondent have one year to pay the expenses incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint; and that publication of the Respondent’s conduct deserving of sanction be published in accordance with Law Society rule 9.28.

The Adjudication Panel ordered that the Respondent’s name be withheld from publication. This deviation from the Law Society’s publication policy was based on the following reasons. The facts and circumstances relating to the complaint were not unusual or egregious. The object of general deterrence to members of the profession in the proper and careful dissolution of partnerships and/or transfer of files can be generally satisfied by publication of the conduct deserving of sanction without reference to the name, in that members can take notice to exercise care and caution in situations where partnership and associations are dissolved and confidential clients’ files are transferred.

 

Discipline Decision – 2006

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2006/2006canlii52656/2006canlii52656.html

Summary

On January 26, 2006 an Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found a member guilty of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999. The Panel found that the member’s representation of three clients fell below the standard set by the Code of Professional Conduct. The Adjudication Panel identified quality of service issues regarding the timeliness and sufficiency of communication with the clients.

By Order of the Adjudication Panel dated August 23, 2006 the member was reprimanded and ordered to pay the sum of $5,000, being part of the expense incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint. The Adjudication Panel further ordered that the name of the member not be published. The Adjudication Panel’s rationale for the deviation from the Law Society’s publication policy follows: In the present instance the Panel has determined that the imposition of a reprimand and the order to pay the costs as indicated below is sufficient punishment. To impose upon the member the sanction of having the member’s name published would be excess punishment and is not warranted having regard to the findings of the Panel as set forth in the Decision and the findings herein.

 

Discipline Decision – 2015

https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2015/2015canlii90845/2015canlii90845.html

Summary

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, by Decision dated December 7, 2015 found the Respondent guilty of conduct deserving of sanction. The Respondent entered a guilty plea to the allegations of breach of a Court Order and breach of an Undertaking to uphold that Order.

The Adjudication Tribunal filed a Decision on August 28, 2015 on the Respondent’s Preliminary Application re Publication. The Adjudication Tribunal accepted there was a risk that harm may come to another party in this particular matter and allowed the Application.

The Adjudication Tribunal filed a Decision on July 8, 2014 on the Respondent’s Preliminary Application re Jurisdiction. The Respondent applied to have the Complaint declared a nullity. The Adjudication Tribunal found that the statutory procedure had been followed and dismissed the Application.

The Adjudication Tribunal ordered, pursuant to subsection 50(3)(a) of the Law Society Act, 1999 that:

1. ) The Respondent is to be given a reprimand.
2. ) The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the Law Society, with the exception of the costs for the publication ban application.
3. ) All decisions and orders shall be made available to the Law Society website and provided to CanLII for publication following the expiry of the 30 day statutory appeal period, subject to the Order of the Adjudication Tribunal that the name of the Respondent and any other identifying party not be published.
4. ) Notice of all decisions and orders will be provided electronically to the Courts, the appointed benchers and members of the Society following the expiry of the 30 day statute appeal period, subject to the Order of the Adjudication Tribunal that the name of the Respondent and any other identifying party not be published.
5. ) The Decision and Order shall take effect upon service in accordance with Law Society rule 9.14.