Discipline Decision – 1992
It was alleged that lawyer Regular had:
The Panel of the Discipline Committee found Regular guilty of counts 1 and 3, but not guilty on count 2. Regular was found not guilty of count 2 because he had not intentionally caused the property to be attached – it was a mistake (albeit a “careless” one). Benchers found the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct on counts 1 and 3. Regular was to be reprimanded for count 1 and fined $500 for count 3. He was required to pay the pre-hearing costs of the Law Society in the amount of $1,588.27.
Discipline Decision – 2006
On June 14, 2004, pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999 an Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found Robert R. Regular of Conception Bay South, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction in that Mr. Regular failed:
The finding of guilt was upheld, on appeal, by the Benchers of the Law Society and by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. The matter was remitted by the Court of Appeal to the Adjudication Panel for imposition of a penalty.
By Order of the Adjudication Panel dated March 10, 2006, Mr. Regular was reprimanded, ordered to pay a fine of $15,000.00 and to write a full apology, expressing regret for his actions, to the complainant member and to the members’ client. Further, Mr. Regular was ordered to pay the expenses incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaint.
Discipline Decision – 2007
An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found Robert R. Regular of Conception Bay South, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999.
The Complaint alleged that Mr. Regular failed to comply with the Trust Account Rule re: lending money to a client, failed to act with integrity, failed in his duty respecting confidential information, failed to maintain impartiality and to avoid a conflict of interest between clients, failed to avoid a conflict of interest between lawyer and client, failed in his duty as advocate, and failed to avoid questionable conduct.
Mr. Regular entered a not guilty plea.
The Adjudication Panel found Mr. Regular not guilty on four allegations in the Complaint and determined that Mr. Regular was guilty on two allegations in the Complaint. An excerpt from the decision dated October 15, 2007 follows:
Mr. Regular appealed the guilty findings to the Benchers of the Law Society. Benchers dismissed the Appeal and upheld the findings of the Adjudication Panel.
On appeal by Mr. Regular to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division, the Court upheld the Adjudication Tribunal finding of guilt with respect to item (ii) above and set aside the finding of guilt with respect to item (iii) above.
Mr. Regular and the Law Society both appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division. An excerpt from the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal follows:
The appeal of Mr. Regular against the decision of the Trial Division judge confirming the guilty finding with respect to the conduct of Mr. Regular in the development of the sexual relationship with his client at the meeting of March 12th, 1990 is dismissed.
The appeal of Mr. Regular on the basis that the Trial Division judge erred in determining that the finding of the Panel, affirmed by Benchers, that Mr. Regular was in conflict of interest when he represented S.G. in the family law proceedings was not unreasonable, is dismissed.
The appeal of the Law Society against the decision of the Trial Division judge setting aside, by reason of waiver by S.G., the guilty finding under Chapter VI of the Code with respect to Mr. Regular being in a conflict of interest by representing his client in a family law proceeding while he was having a personal and sexual relationship with her, is dismissed.
The appeal of the Law Society against the decision of the Trial Division judge also setting aside the guilty finding as to breach of Chapter I of the Code, with respect to failure to act with integrity and the guilty finding as to breach of Chapter XIX of the Code with respect to failure to avoid questionable conduct, in connection with the family law proceeding, is allowed, and those findings are restored.
The request to order costs on the basis of section 50(2) of the Act is denied. The order of the Trial Division judge with respect to costs before him is affirmed. In this Court, each party shall bear his or its own costs.
As there is a variation in the final determination as to the extent to which Mr. Regular has been found to be in beach of the Code, from that found by the Panel and Benchers, the order of the Trial Division judge remitting the matter to the Panel for further hearing on the appropriate sanction is affirmed, with the direction that any variation in sanction be consistent with the determinations expressed in these reasons.
The Adjudication Tribunal ordered pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, subsections 50(3) that:
Discipline Decision – 2013
THAT 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 Robert R. Regular of Conception Bay South, Newfoundland and Labrador, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction. The Adjudication Tribunal found the conduct underlying the charge under Chapter XVI demonstrates that the Respondent failed in his responsibility to a lawyer individually. The Law Society, as the governing body of the profession, has an obligation to demonstrate that its members are governable.
The Adjudication Tribunal Ordered , inter alia, that Mr. Regular be reprimanded, pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,000.00, that the Law Society publish a summary of the Tribunal’s Decision and that Mr. Regular provide a written apology to the opposing lawyer. The Order of the Adjudication Tribunal is appended.
Discipline Decision – 2014
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, dismissed the Complaint against Robert R. Regular, of Conception Bay South, Newfoundland and Labrador. The Complaint arose from a real estate transaction wherein Mr. Regular represented the Vendor who had entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with a third party. Mr. Regular subsequently purchased the property through a company in which he has an interest. The Adjudication Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that Mr. Regular acted inappropriately and that Mr. Regular’s conduct did not constitute conduct deserving of sanction within the meeting of the Law Society Act, 1999.
The Adjudication Tribunal ordered that:
The Decision and Order shall take effect upon service in accordance with Law Society rule 9.14.
Discipline Decision – 2017
TAKE NOTICE THAT an Adjudication Tribunal of the Disciplinary Panel of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, found Robert Regular of Conception Bay South, NL guilty of conduct deserving of sanction. The Adjudication Tribunal determined that Mr. Regular breached a trust condition. The breach of trust condition in this matter was an advance of $3,000.00 to Mr. Regular’s client, from a balance of purchase funds of $76,164.35 being held in trust.
An excerpt from the Decision follows.
Any uncertainty as to when or how trust conditions will be observed would not serve the best interests of the profession or of the public, as the ability to rely on trust conditions facilitates the advancement and completion of legal transactions without undue delay and in an efficacious manner. In these circumstances, a significant sanction is warranted, as a specific and general deterrent.
The Adjudication Tribunal, having considered the circumstances of this matter, is of the view that the joint submission on sanction would impose a significant sanction that would serve the purposes of a specific and general deterrent. In particular, notice to the profession, with sufficient particulars of the charge, would serve as a salutary reminder to the profession of the need to scrupulously observe trust conditions.
The Complaint involved two separate allegations, one of which was dismissed by the Adjudication Tribunal and a not guilty finding was entered. Mr. Regular appealed the Adjudication Tribunal’s finding and sanction in the other matter. The Supreme Court Trial Division dismissed the appeal against the finding of misconduct and held that the decision of the Adjudication Tribunal was not unreasonable. The appeal against sanction was allowed and that issue was remitted to the Adjudication Tribunal for reconsideration.
The Adjudication Tribunal ordered, pursuant to subsection 50(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999 that: