The Law Society of Upper Canada Hearing Panel imposed practice restrictions rather than suspension of an attorney who possessed child pornography.
The Lawyer was found guilty of possession of child pornography after he acknowledged evidence to that effect in a Statement of Admissions. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 45 days, together with ancillary orders and conditions.
We found at the hearing that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the Lawyer’s continued ability to practise would create a significant risk of harm to members of the public, but that a significant risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice would exist, if the lawyer continued his practice of law in an unrestricted fashion. Therefore, we dismissed the Society’s motion to suspend the Lawyer’s licence to practise law. Instead, we made an order restricting the Lawyer’s ability to practise.
The conviction led to a bar investigation
The Lawyer admitted to the investigator that he had viewed images of child pornography (mostly of young girls about 14 years of age) about once a week, for a few years, usually after his wife and children had gone to sleep. He was aware that possession of this material was illegal, and knew that what he did was wrong. He admitted that it was a very serious mistake, with disastrous consequences for himself and his family. His children were affected. His spouse continues to support him.
But full suspension on an interlocutory basis was not necessary
We are not persuaded and we find no objective basis for believing that, unless the Lawyer’s licence to practise were completely suspended, the public interest in the administration of justice would suffer a significant risk of harm. We are also not persuaded that only an interlocutory suspension would adequately reduce the risk of harm.
We conclude that a restriction on the Lawyer’s practice will adequately and best address this risk.
The panel orders as follows:
- The motion for an interlocutory suspension is dismissed.
- The following interlocutory restrictions are imposed on the Lawyer’s practice.
- The Lawyer shall not be alone with persons under the age of 18 years in connection with his practice, with the exception of his own children.
- The Lawyer shall not represent persons under the age of 18 years.