As the regulatory body of lawyers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador is authorized under the Law Society Act, 1999 to file complaints against members.

A complaint is authorized by the Complaints Authorization Committee when the Committee is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe a lawyer has engaged in conduct deserving of sanction.  A complaint is an unproven allegation until an adjudication tribunal makes a determination on its validity. At any hearing a settlement may be proposed.

Law Society disciplinary hearings generally take place at the Law Society office at 196-198 Water Street, St. John’s, and are open to the public. However, the adjudication tribunal has the right to make certain parts of the hearings, or even the entirety of a hearing, private at their discretion.

Notice of the Hearing Date

General Nature of the Charges

In accordance with s. 45(3) of the Law Society Act, 1999, (the “Act”) the Complaints Authorization Committee (the “Committee”) has determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Andrew Martin (the “Respondent”) has engaged in conduct deserving of sanction and, in accordance with s. 45(3)(b) of the Act, the Committee has instructed the Vice-President to file the within Complaint against the Respondent on the basis that the Respondent is guilty of conduct deserving of sanction in that he:

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Breached s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failing to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to his clients, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.
2. Breached s. 3.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failing to perform all legal services undertaken on his client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer.
3. Breached s. 3.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failing to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to his client or provide the client with a competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil quality of service.
4. Breached s. 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failed to be honest and candid with his client and inform his client of all information known to him that may affect the interests of his client.
5. Breached s. 3.7 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto, in particular s. 3.7-1 (and related commentaries), s. 3.7-7, 3.7-8 and 3.7-9 (and related commentaries) by failing to properly withdraw from representation of his client.
6. Breached s. 7.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failing to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with all persons whom he had dealings in the course of his practice.
7. Breached s. 7.2-4 of the Code of Professional Conduct by failing to communicate with his client and another lawyer in a tone that is consistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.
8. Breached s. 7.2-5 of the Code of Professional Conduct by failing to answer with reasonable promptness all professional letters and communications from other lawyers that require an answer and failed to be punctual in fulfilling all commitments.
9. Breached s. 7.8-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto by failing to: a) promptly inform the client of his discovered errors and/or omissions; b) recommend that the client obtain independent legal advice regarding the matter (including any rights the client may have arising from the error or omission); and c) advise the client of the possibility that he may no longer be able to act for the client.