Reasonable Grounds To Believe
A psychiatric examination of an attorney was ordered by the Law Society of Upper Canada Tribunal Hearing Division
There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Lawyer might be or might have been incapacitated, and that the proposed examination by a psychiatrist would provide significant additional assistance in determining that issue, given the evidence available so far. The fact that the Lawyer is administratively suspended is not a reason for the Tribunal not to proceed with the issues in the capacity application, including obtaining the necessary medical information. At the hearing, we made the order requested by the Law Society, with reasons to follow. These are our reasons…
As we heard from the Spouse during her submissions at the May 2, 2016 hearing, it appears that originally the Lawyer told the police that he saw his spouse trying to drown their baby. The Society received, however, what appeared to be a written confession signed by the Lawyer, a copy of which had also been sent to the Crown. The document states that an earlier statement made by him about the drowning was a lie. It also states that he and his daughter – an older child from a previous marriage – had tried to kill his spouse and the baby by drugging them. In the Lawyer’s communication to the Law Society, he asks that his licence to practise law be revoked. The Spouse, in her comments to us on May 2, 2016, acknowledged her involvement in drafting this document, but says that it reflects the Lawyer’s statements and wishes.
The Spouse reports that the Lawyer is seriously ill and cannot speak for himself. Her comments to us at the previous hearing suggest that the Lawyer is not able to make even the most basic contact with the Society, be it in writing or even by telephone.
The Law Society has received numerous e-mails from the Spouse which presented a confusing picture of accusations towards the Lawyer, and which in numerous instances requested that the Lawyer be disbarred.
The Law Society received an e-mail dated February 13, 2015, purportedly from the Lawyer, making allegations about an attempt on the Spouse’s life by the Lawyer’s older daughter by drugging her with Ketamine. The e-mail also refers to “criminal activities” by the writer of the e-mail, committed in addition to his professional misconduct, and asks that his “Law Licence” be revoked. The e-mail continues with three pages of generalities and details about the alleged murder plot. The e-mail has as an attachment a four-page document entitled “Tom’s Confession Jan 18 15” which was addressed to two senior counsel, a judge, and the Attorney General of Ontario. Much of that document was rambling and at times bordering on incoherent. It includes the statement that “I am offering my resignation to this court for this ‘false allegation’ which I can no longer bear and sit back watching my wife and a most vulnerable baby paying the price”. The document ends with the cryptic message: “From Mr. Greenspan who my wife last consulted with on Dec.10, 2014, I understand this case basically has no merits – a waste of tax payers money; And therefore should be dropped.” It concludes with “Sincerely yours” followed by a signature where only the first letter (B) is legible.
Another document was submitted to us entitled “Attempted murder plot in 5 milestone periods”. The opening paragraph reads as follows: “The 4 Defendants committed: Attempted Willful Deliberate Premeditated Murder and Solicitation of Murder of Baby Pippa and her mother Catherine May”. It then proceeds to outline various details about the periods referred to in the title.
The legal standard
In Lyon the Tribunal noted (at paras. 24-26) that ordering a medical examination to which the licensee does not agree is a significant step that affects his or her autonomy, dignity and privacy, but that such orders may be made because of the public role played by lawyers and paralegals as part of a regulated profession with its accompanying benefits. An order should be restricted to what is necessary to achieve the goal of public protection…
There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Lawyer might be incapacitated, given the statement of the family doctor that he has dementia. Moreover, this is supported by the observations of the investigator at the interview and the concerning and contradictory communications that the Lawyer appears to have signed. As there is very little detail in the family physician’s letter, the proposed examination would provide significant additional assistance in determining whether medical conditions in fact make him incapable of meeting his obligations as a licensee.
Our earlier coverage here. (Mike Frisch)