banner banner

Discipline Decision – 1989


Mr. and Mrs. A. retained Martin to represent them in a negligence action, and a settlement was proposed by the insurance company in this matter. Mr. A. made numerous attempts to reach Martin by telephone during the following year, but Martin did not respond to any of the calls. Mr. A. wrote a letter to the Law Society concerning this, and in turn, the Law Society made numerous attempts to contact Martin, but the lawyer still did not respond. A couple of years later, Mr. A. met with the lawyer, during which the latter apologized for not having commenced an action on behalf of Mr. A. within the time prescribed by law. Further to this, a member of the Law Society made a written complaint to the Law Society concerning the conduct of Martin.

An Agreed Statement of Facts was entered before Benchers. Benchers decided that the member was guilty of professional misconduct, resolved to reprimand him and directed that he pay the costs incurred by the Law Society in relation to the complaint (approximately $1,370.00).

Discipline Decision – 1993


It was alleged that Martin had failed to carry out his responsibilities towards a client (“Client A”). The Panel of the Disciplinary Committee found that the lawyer had failed to conduct himself in a professional manner toward Client A by failing without reasonable explanation to:

  1. ) properly defend Client A’s interests in an action against her by failing to file a proper defence,
  2. ) respond to his client’s telephone calls and requests for information,
  3. ) properly conduct an action for damages on his client’s behalf, and
  4. ) carry out undertakings and assurances which he had provided to his client on numerous occasions.

Benchers agreed that Martin was guilty of professional misconduct and decided that he would: pay a $2,500 fine, pay the costs of the Law Society in the hearing of the matter, and meet with the Treasurer and/or Secretary of the Law Society. The purpose of this meeting would be to review Benchers’ concerns over the fact that this was the second disciplinary action taken against Martin and to offer any appropriate assistance to Martin from the Law Society or its members with a view to preventing further such complaints.

Discipline Decision – 2009


An Adjudication Tribunal of the Disciplinary Panel of the Law Society found Gerard J. Martin, QC of Corner Brook, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999.

The Complaint alleged that Mr. Martin failed to comply with the Law Society Rules respecting discipline, failed to provide a proper quality of service, and failed in his responsibility to the profession generally;

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Adjudication Tribunal found:

  1. ) Mr. Martin’s failure to reply promptly to communications of the Law Society was repeated and protracted, which conduct constitutes a failure to comply with the Law Society Rules respecting Discipline including rules 9.04(3), 9.04(5) and 9.07, and the rule contained in Chapter XV of the Code of Professional Conduct titled Responsibility to the Profession Generally, and in particular commentary 2; and
  2. ) Mr. Martin’s failure to provide quality and promptness of service to a client does not comply with the rule respecting Quality of Service contained in Chapter II of the Code of Professional Conduct, and in particular rule (b), commentaries 7(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (1) and 8).

The Adjudication Tribunal Ordered:

  1. ) the Respondent is reprimanded in respect of each of the three enumerated charges of the Complaint.
  2. ) the Respondent is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint, in the amount to be determined by the Law Society, within thirty (30) days of the written submission of those costs by the Law Society to the Respondent, or within such longer time as the Law Society may allow.
  3. ) pursuant to paragraph 49(2)(m) of the Act and in accordance with the Law Society Rules, it is ordered that the Law Society publish a summary of the Tribunals Decision, including the information set out in subsection 51(4) of the Act.
  4. ) pursuant to paragraph 49(2)(o) of the Act, the Respondent is ordered to report, in writing, to the Law Society regarding steps taken in the relation to the motor vehicle accident claim of Mr. R, on a quarterly basis, until there is a resolution of the claim. The first quarterly report is to be delivered by the Respondent to the Law Society on or before March 31, 2010, and thereafter by or before the last day of each succeeding quarter of the year, continuing until there is a resolution of the claim.