banner banner

Discipline Decision 2004

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2004/2004canlii54629/2004canlii54629.html

SUMMARY

An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee having heard two Complaints, in a Decision dated June 16, 2004 pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999, subsection 48(3) found Keith F. Rose guilty of conduct deserving of sanction.

 

Mr. Rose entered a guilty plea to the following violations:

 

(i)  failed to enter into a written contingency fee agreement with his client and thereby failed to comply with Rule 55.17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986;

(ii)  failed to render a bill for legal fees prior to withdrawing a fee from his trust account and thereby failed to comply with the Rules of the Law Society of Newfoundland respecting Withdrawals from trust account and in particular Rule 5.05(c);

(iii)  failed to respond to several demands from the Law Society for a response and thereby failed to comply with the Rules of the Law Society of Newfoundland, Part IX – Discipline, and in particular Rules 9.04(3), 9.04(5) and 9.07;

(iv)  failed to obtain a tax certificate and a certificate of title for a client and to respond to numerous requests from the client and the client’s solicitor for compliance and thereby failed to provide a quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation contrary to the Rule contained in chapter II of the Code of Professional Conduct;

(v)  failed to comply with the Rule respecting fees contained in chapter XI of the Code of Professional Conduct;

(vi)  failed in his responsibility to the profession generally contrary to the Rule contained in chapter XVI of the Code of Professional Conduct; and

(vii)  failed to satisfy escrow conditions in a timely manner and to respond to numerous requests from a solicitor for compliance and thereby failed in his responsibility to lawyers individually contrary to the Rule contained in chapter XVI of the Code of Professional Conduct.

 

The Adjudication Panel Ordered that the member be reprimanded; that the member send letters of apology to the client and the solicitor; that the member pay a fine of $2,500; that the member pay the expenses incurred by the Law Society in the investigation and hearing of the Complaints; and that publication of the disposition of the Complaints be made in accordance with Law Society Rule 9.28.

 

Discipline Decision 2006

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2006/2006canlii45074/2006canlii45074.html

SUMMARY

On November 6, 2006, pursuant to section 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999, an Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found Keith F. Rose of St. John’s, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction.

The Complaint alleged that Mr. Rose failed in his responsibility to lawyers individually, failed to act in a manner encouraging public respect for the administration of justice and failed in his responsibility to the profession generally.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Mr. Rose entered a guilty plea.

 

The Adjudication Panel found:

(i)  Mr. Rose was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, chapter XVI, commentary 8 by communicating with, and compromising a matter directly with a party who is represented by another lawyer, without having first communicated with and obtained the consent of the that lawyer.

(ii)  Mr. Rose failed to comply with a Notice of Examination under Rules 30 of the Rules of Court, 1986. Further, he was in breach of the Code, Chapter XIII, Commentary 3, as his failure to comply with the Notice would tend to lessen the respect and confidence of the public in the legal system of which Mr. Rose is a part.

(iii)  Mr. Rose did not respond in a timely way to the Law Society and he was in contravention of the Discipline Rules (ALaw Society Rules@), in particular, (i) section 9.04(3) in failing to reply to written requests for a response to the letter from the Law Society, and (ii) section 9.07(1) in failing to co-operate fully with the Law Society’s investigation of the Complaint.

 

By Order of the Adjudication Panel dated November 6, 2006, Mr. Rose was reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of $2,500.00 and 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 2008

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2008/2008canlii12817/2008canlii12817.html

SUMMARY

An Adjudication Panel of the Discipline Committee of the Law Society found Keith F. Rose 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. Rose failed to act with integrity, failed in his responsibility to encourage public respect for the administration of justice, failed to comply with Rules 9.04(5), 9.07(1), 9.30 and 9.31 of the Law Society Rules, failed to comply with the Trust Account Rules, failed to comply with the Discipline Rules, failed in his duties respecting preservation of client’s property and failed in his responsibility to the profession generally.

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

 

The Adjudication Panel found:

(i)  Mr. Rose failed to comply with the Law Society’s Trust Account Rules.

(ii)  Mr. Rose failed to advise the Law Society of the existence of a conviction and judgments contrary to the Code of Professional Conduct and the Law Society Rules.

(iii)  Mr. Rose failed to respond to the Law Society’s requests for information.

 

The Adjudication Panel ordered:

(i) That the Respondent be suspended for a period of 90 days commencing March 1, 2008, and shall resume practice upon such terms and/or conditions as deemed appropriate by the Law Society.

(ii)  That the Respondent shall pay a fine of $2,500.00 (within 90 days of this Decision) to the Law Society.

(iii)  That during the period of the Respondent’s suspension any inquiries relating to his legal files shall be directed to Mr. John W. McGrath, Q.C., a member in good standing of the Law Society.

(iv)  That the Respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the Law Society  in the investigation and hearing of the 2006 and 2007 Complaints, payable in accordance with the Act, and the Guidelines for Payment of Fines and Costs as approved by Benchers from time to time.

(v)  That notice of the action taken by Benchers be given in accordance with the Act, and the Rules and Guidelines for Publication as approved by Benchers from time to time.

 

Discipline Decision 2010

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlls/doc/2010/2010canlii31910/2010canlii31910.html

SUMMARY

An Adjudication Tribunal of the Disciplinary Panel of the Law Society found Keith F. Rose of St. John’s, NL, guilty of conduct deserving of sanction pursuant to subsection 48(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999.

The Complaint alleged that Mr. Rose failed to comply with the Law Society Rules, generally and in particular the Uniform Trust Account Rules and the Discipline Rules; failed with respect to the quality of service provided to a client; failed in his duties with respect to preservation of clients’ property; and failed in his responsibility to the profession generally.

Mr. Rose did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel.  The Tribunal deemed that Mr. Rose had pleaded not guilty to each of the complaints.

 

The Adjudication Tribunal found that Mr. Rose failed in his obligations as a member in the following areas:

(a)  to comply with the Order of an Adjudication Panel made pursuant to the Law Society Act, 1999;

(b)  to comply with Law Society Rue 2.19;

(c) to comply with Uniform Trust Account Rules 5.02, 5.03 and 5.04 of the Law Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador;

(d)  to comply with Discipline Rules 9.04(3), 9.04(5) and 9.07(1) of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador;

(e) to comply with the Rules respecting Quality of Service contained in Chapter II of the Code of Professional Conduct, titled ACompetence and Quality of Service@, and commentaries thereto including commentaries 7(a), (b), (c), (f), (h), (j), (k), (l) and 8;

(f)  to comply with the Rules respecting Advising Clients contained in Chapter III of the Code of Professional Conduct , titled AAdvising Clients@, and Rule b thereto;

(g)  to comply with the Rule respecting Preservation of Clients’ Property contained in Chapter VIII of the Code of Professional Conduct, titled APreservation of Clients’ Property@; and

(h)  to comply with the Rules respecting Responsibility to the Profession Generally contained in Chapter XV of the Code of Professional Conduct, titled AResponsibility to the Profession Generally@, and commentaries thereto including commentary 2.

 

The Adjudication Tribunal found that Mr. Rose is ungovernable and Ordered that:

(a)  Keith F. Rose be suspended as a member of the Law Society for a period of five (5) years;

(b)  Keith F. Rose pay a fine of $5,000 in addition to any expenses or costs otherwise ordered herein;

(c) before any reinstatement as a member of the Law Society occur that:

(i)  all outstanding payments and fines relating to matters that have been dealt with by this or any other Adjudication Tribunal be paid in full, and

(ii)  all outstanding complaints which were the subject of this adjudication be rectified to the full satisfaction of the Law Society as may be determined by the Society;

(d)  Keith F. Rose will pay the expenses incurred by the Society in the amount to be determined by the Society;

(e)  publication of this Order will be in accordance with the Law Society Rules; and

(f)  the effective date of this Order shall be the date of the issuance of this Order by the Tribunal.