My recent excursions into Canadian bar discipline have revealed some differences with its American counterparts.

One of those differences is revealed in discipline recently imposed by the Law Society of Saskatchewan where an attorney was suspended for 4.5 months.

Between July 1992 and February 2014, the member worked as in-house legal counsel for a major Saskatchewan Crown corporation. On February 11, 2014, she was placed on leave pending an investigation by her employer. In the course of this investigation, the employer identified 26 documents on which she had forged the signature of other employees. She met with representatives of the employer on or about March 14, 2014. A follow-up meeting was scheduled for March 20, 2014, but as she had been placed on sick leave by her physician, the member did not attend that meeting.

There was substantial mitigation

counsel for the Conduct Investigation Committee pointed to a number of mitigating factors in this situation. The first of these was that the member has had a lengthy record of practice without a previous disciplinary record.

The second mitigating factor listed was that the forgeries were not aimed at producing any personal gain to the member. Furthermore, the forgeries did not inflict any damage on the employer, as the investigation showed that the documents would have been accepted in the normal course of events in any case.

The third mitigating factor was the diagnosis of mental illness, which helped to explain why a member with a clear disciplinary record would resort to a clearly unacceptable practice when she had nothing to gain from it.

The fourth mitigating factor supporting the joint submissions was the length of time the member had been absent from practice at the time of the hearing, which was approximately 25.5 months. This was not, of course, a formal suspension, but an embargo on practice the member imposed on herself. The joint submissions recommend a suspension of 4.5 months. If this is added to the time the member has already been absent, the total would be 30 months, which is at the high end of the range of penalties imposed in other disciplinary decisions for conduct analogous to that in this case.

Sanction factors

In the present case, as counsel for the Conduct Investigation Committee pointed out, the actions of the member constituted serious breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. Over a lengthy period of time, she falsified the signatures of other corporate officials, and must have been aware that this was an infraction of an obligation that lies at the ethical core of the legal profession.

 At the same time, the member has already paid a heavy price for these actions. She has lost long-term employment that was evidently important to her, and has voluntarily withdrawn from the practice of law for a lengthy period. In addition, there is evidence that she was struggling with mental illness over a number of years, and counsel for the parties are in agreement that this was a factor in the choices she made. Though we do not think the “no harm, no foul” argument should be determinative in assessing the conduct, it is true that the business of Ms. Wappel’s employer was not in fact affected by her actions. It is also significant that the member has accepted responsibility for her conduct, and has undertaken to continue medical treatment to strengthen her defenses in future.

I have not seen a U.S. case where the sanction involved suspension of a percentage of a month. (Mike Frisch)