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 Referral to a Hearing 

Respondent:	Andrew Martin
Type of Hearing:	Conduct

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.

The factual particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. The Respondent was retained by client A.T. to pursue a claim;
ii. The Respondent was subsequently retained by A.T. and her daughter to pursue a second claim;
iii. The Respondent failed to move the matters forward over an extended period of time;
iv. The Respondent was dishonest with A.T. about the status of the matters and advised that they had been settled when they had not been settled;
v. The Respondent was dishonest with A.T. about his receipt of settlement funds, which were never received, and engaged in dishonest and avoidance behavior relating to the distribution of the allegedly received settlement funds;
vi. Without instructions from A.T., the Respondent contacted another member of the Law Society advising that A.T. was seeking new representation and that he would refer A.T. to the member;
vii. The Respondent forwarded to A.T. an email and a memo that he alleged were prepared by that other member of the Law Society relating to the take-over of A.T.’s matters;
viii. The Respondent himself drafted the email and memo that he alleged were prepared by the other member, who had no knowledge of the email or memo until it was brought to her attention by A.T.;
ix. The Respondent did not withdraw from the A.T.’s matters in an appropriate manner;
x. The Respondent failed to appropriately or within a reasonable timeframe inform A.T. that he omitted to pursue her matters, that she should seek independent legal advice and that he could no longer represent her in the circumstances.

Notice of the Hearing Date

Respondent:	Robert Regular
Type of Hearing:	Conduct
Date:	TBD
Time:	TBD
Place:	TBD

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 Robert Regular (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. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to his client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

1. The Respondent, as a landlord, was engaged in a landlord-tenant dispute;
2. The Respondent attended at the property relating to the dispute with heavy equipment (i.e. a front-end loader);
3. While operating the heavy equipment, the Respondent pushed a vehicle into a snow bank, thereby causing damages to the vehicle;
4. At the time there were persons in the vicinity of the vehicle;
5. The Respondent also caused damages to the property occupied by the tenants, which was the subject matter of the landlord-tenant dispute; and
6. The Respondent thereby engaged in questionable conduct relating to the tenants, the owner of the vehicle and the public at large.

Notice of the Hearing Date

Respondent:	Averill Baker
Type of Hearing:	Conduct
Date:	June 13, 2023
Time:	9:00 am
Place:	Law Society Building, 196-198 Water Street, St. John’s, NL

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 Averill Baker (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 she:

C2021-064

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a trust audit contrary to Law Society Rules 5.10 and 5.15.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That the Respondent:

i. failed to provide a response to a trust audit report notwithstanding several requests from the Law Society to do so and the Respondent’s confirmation that she would do so.

C2022-021

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a disciplinary investigation contrary to Law Society Rules 9.04 and 9.07.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. an allegation (the above noted Complaint File Number C2021-064) was filed by the Vice-President;
ii. the Law Society requested a response from the Respondent relating to the allegation; and
iii. notwithstanding several requests for a response and the Respondent’s confirmation that she would do so, the Respondent failed to respond to the allegation.

C2022-005

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a disciplinary investigation contrary to Law Society Rules 9.04 and 9.07.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.Page 3 of 6
2. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. the Law Society received written correspondence from the Respondent’s client requesting help opening the lines of communication between him and the Respondent and expressing concern about the service he had received from the Respondent;
ii. the Law Society requested confirmation from the Respondent that she had contacted the client; and
iii. notwithstanding several requests for such confirmation, the Respondent failed to provide confirmation to the Law Society that she had contacted her client.

C2022-019

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a disciplinary investigation contrary to Law Society Rules 9.04 and 9.07.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. an allegation (Complaint File Number C2022-001) was filed by the VicePresident;
ii. the Law Society requested a response from the Respondent relating to the allegation;Page 4 of 6
iii. the Respondent did not provide a response to the allegation or otherwise communicate with the Law Society regarding the allegation.

C2021-001

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to hold the information she received from her clients during the course of their professional relationship in strict confidence in contravention of s. 3.3-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
3. Failed to care for her clients’ property and observe all relevant rules and law about the preservation of her client’s property in contravention of s. 3.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
4. Failed to be courteous, civil and act in good faith with all person with whom she had dealings in the course of her practice in contravention of s. 7.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. Following her eviction from the premises of her law offices in November, 2021, the Respondent’s landlord, who is not a member of the Law Society, collected all of the property associated with the Respondent’s law office, including client files, and arranged for its storage;
ii. The Respondent did not make any effort to retrieve the property from storage;
iii. The Respondent’s former landlord contacted the Law Society on December 17, 2021 with respect to the property associated with the Respondent’s practice in his possession;
iv. When the Law Society took possession in accordance with a custodianship order on December 20, 2021, it was discovered that the office space, in which the filing cabinets and boxes with client files were stored, was not locked. The filing cabinets were not locked and client information was visible when the door to the space was opened;
v. The Respondent did not protect solicitor-client information with respect to the client files stored by the landlord; and
vi. The Respondent did not provide a response to the allegation to the Complaints Authorization Committee.
C2022-029

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to her client or provide the client with a competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil quality of service in contravention of s. 3.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
3. Failed to be honest and candid with her client and inform her client of all information known to her that may affect the interests of her client in contravention of s. 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto
4. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
5. Failed to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with her client in contravention of s. 7-2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.
6. Failed to communicate with her client with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer in contravention of s. 7.2-4 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. The Respondent was retained by client T.M. to pursue a claim;
ii. The Respondent failed to appropriately, or within a reasonable time, move the matter forward;
iii. The Respondent failed to appropriately, or within a reasonable time, respond to T.M.’s inquiries about the matter;
iv. T.M. requested the return of his file from the Respondent;
v. The Respondent, despite assuring T.M. the file would be returned, failed to return the file and failed to communicate with the Law Society regarding the file (see Complaint C22-005); and
vi. The tone of some of the Respondent’s communications with T.M. were unprofessional and the contents of some of her communications were misleading.

C2022-029

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to her client or provide the client with a competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil quality of service in contravention of s. 3.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
3. Failed to be honest and candid with her client and inform her client of all information known to her that may affect the interests of her client in contravention of s. 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
4. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
5. Failed to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with her client in contravention of s. 7-2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.
6. Failed to communicate with her client with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer in contravention of s. 7.2-4 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. The Respondent was retained by client T.M. to pursue a claim;
ii. The Respondent failed to appropriately, or within a reasonable time, move the matter forward;
iii. The Respondent failed to appropriately, or within a reasonable time, respond to T.M.’s inquiries about the matter;
iv. M. requested the return of his file from the Respondent;
v. The Respondent, despite assuring T.M. the file would be returned, failed to return the file and failed to communicate with the Law Society regarding the file (see Complaint C22-005); and
vi. The tone of some of the Respondent’s communications with T.M. were unprofessional and the contents of some of her communications were misleading.

C2022-040:

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a disciplinary investigation contrary to Law Society Rules 9.04 and 9.07.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i. an allegation (Complaint File Number C2022-029) was filed by T.M.;
ii. the Law Society requested a response from the Respondent relating to the allegation;
iii. notwithstanding several requests for a response, the Respondent failed to provide a response to the allegation.

C2022-054

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her client and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity in contravention of s. 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
2. Failed to perform all legal services undertaken on behalf of a client to the standard of a competent lawyer.
3. Failed to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to her client or provide the client with a competent, timely, conscientious, diligent, efficient and civil quality of service in contravention of s. 3.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
4. Failed to be honest and candid with her client and inform her client of all information known to her that may affect the interests of her client in contravention of s. 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto
5. Failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society in contravention of s. 7.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
6. Failed to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with her client in contravention of s. 7-2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.

Law Society Rules:

1. Failed to cooperate with the Law Society relating to a disciplinary investigation contrary to Law Society Rules 9.04 and 9.07.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That:

i.      The Respondent was retained by client P.M. to pursue two matters, a slip and fall and a motor vehicle accident.
ii.     The Respondent failed to appropriately, or within a reasonable time, move both matters forward;
iii.    The Respondent failed to file a statement of claim relating to the motor vehicle accident before the expiry of the limitation period;
iv.     The Respondent did not respond to legal inquiries from P.M. relating to the matters;
v.      The Respondent was not honest or candid with P.M. relating to the status of either matter; and
vi.     The Respondent failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation before the Complaints Authorization Committee.