Admission Granted In British Columbia: Applicant Can “Weather Ethical Storms”

A Hearing Panel of the Law Society of British Columbia has found that an applicant possesses the necessary good character for admission. 

 The issue is whether Mr. Sanandaji is of good character and repute and fit to become a barrister and a solicitor of the Supreme Court.  In particular, it must be determined whether Mr. Sanandaji has established on the balance of probabilities that he is of good character and repute and fit to become a barrister and solicitor given the charges enumerated in the Law Society’s Rule 2-91 notice (refusing to provide a breath sample, driving in the wrong direction and driving without reasonable consideration; excessive speeding; and assault), considered together with the manner in which he addressed these charges on his application for enrolment and subsequent communications with the Law Society.  It is the latter point, the manner in which he addressed these issues with the Law Society, that were the focus of the hearing. 

The assault

With regard to the assault, the agreed facts amount to an unfortunate bar fight after Mr. Sanandaji became intoxicated.  It is not part of a pattern of behaviour, and this one bar fight does not amount to a problem with character, repute or fitness.  Nor does this bar fight combined with driving the wrong way six years previously amount to a character, repute or fitness problem. 

The panel found he had been candid about past incidents

Mr. Sanandaji left his home country so he could make a better life for himself in a society not characterized by the type of injustices he witnessed in Iran.  He learned several languages and completed two degrees.  His pursuit of a career in law is driven by his desire to help people go through the immigration process he navigated on his own.  He not only volunteered in the [Thompson River University]  legal clinic, but collated the questions he was fielding from the international students and went to them with the offer of more assistance and help.  These are the qualities and actions of a person who can make hard decisions, accept the consequences, overcome obstacles, and put the interests of other persons before his own.  The letters of reference he received and the evidence of Maryam Sodagar demonstrate that he is highly regarded. 

The question is really whether his character is robust enough to weather ethical storms.  That is a question of fitness raised mainly by his dealings with the Law Society.  But, as noted above, character, repute and fitness are not really separable, and in this case, the incidents raised in the Rule 2-91 notice call into question character as well as fitness…

Mr. Sanandaji is of good character, repute and fit to be enrolled into the Law Society Admission Program, allowed to commence his articles and, in due course, to become a barrister and a solicitor of the Supreme Court. 

(Mike Frisch)