Notice of Upcoming Hearings

Disciplinary Hearings

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 Ronald Cole, QC (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 a 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 take reasonable steps to maintain a normal lawyer and client relationship in circumstances where his client’s ability to make decisions was impaired in contravention of s. 3.2-9 and related commentaries thereto.

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 T. James Bennett (the “Respondent”) has engaged in conduct deserving of sanction and, in accordance with s. 45(3) 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.
2. ) Failed to provide courteous, thorough and prompt service to his client in contravention of s. 2.3-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
3. ) Failed to be honest and candid with his client in relation to information that may have affected his client’s interests in contravention of s.3.2-2 of the code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
4. ) Failed to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with all persons whom he had dealings with in the course of his practice in contravention of s. 7.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.
5. ) Failed to promptly inform his client of an error or omission, recommend the client seek independent legal advice concerning the matter and advise the client of the possibility that he may no longer be able to act in circumstances where he discovered that he had made an error or omission that may have been damaging to the client in contravention of s. 7.8-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct and related commentaries thereto.

The particulars of the Complaint are as follows:

That the Respondent:

1. ) failed to reply to communications from the Crown, and failed to forward those communications to his client;
2. ) failed to report to his client with proper details and dates;
3. ) failed to advise his client of a demand for particulars from the Crown;
4. ) failed to file documents causing the dismissal of his client’s tax court case; and
5. ) failed to provide a quality of service at least equal to that which lawyers generally expect of a competent lawyer in a like situation.

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 Susan LeDrew, QC (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:

Law Society Rules:

1. ) Failed to comply with Law Society rule 5.02 by failing to prepare monthly trust reconciliations.
2. ) Failed to comply with Law Society rule 5.04 (now rule 5.05) by:
   1. ) inappropriately withdrawing money from her trust account; and
   2. ) failing to properly document transfers, from her trust account.
3. ) Failed to comply with Law Society rule 5.05 (now rule 5.06) by failing to report trust shortfalls to the Law Society.

Code of Professional Conduct:

1. ) Failed to discharge all responsibilities to her clients 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.