Racist Emails Get 30-Day Suspension

Offensive emails drew a one-month suspension from the Law Society of Upper Canada

The Respondent’s misconduct was serious. There is no need for us to repeat what we said in our Reasons on Finding (for example, at paras. 74-85), or the extensive discussion in the four levels of decision in the Groia case about the impact of incivility on fellow licensees, the reputation of the profession, the ability to serve clients, and the administration of justice. At least six of the seven offensive e-mails were personal and/or ethical criticisms of the individual lawyers themselves. One of the e-mails was a racist attack on a fellow lawyer. None of these e-mails had any place in professional communications between licensees. The Respondent’s communications had an impact on others; Mr. Wilson was offended at the outset, and Ms. Chen was disgusted by the racist comments about her.

The attorney has twice been subject to short suspension for failure to respond to bar complaints

Mr. Robson provided no explanation for his conduct at either the finding or penalty stage. He did not testify in response to the allegations of professional misconduct, or at the penalty hearing. In terms of specific deterrence, we have no basis on which to conclude that the Respondent understands that his conduct was unacceptable. There is no evidence that his conduct was out of character or unlikely to happen again. There is no evidence of remorse or extenuating circumstances…

The Lawyer also submitted that neither the Rules of Professional Conduct nor the jurisprudence have afforded any clear lines by which lawyers can guide their conduct in communicating with others. He referred to the “lack of a coherent standard,” and asserted that the conduct application should not have been brought against him. This approach involved a renewal of themes that he raised in defence of the misconduct Moreover, we have the Groia case, which establishes that there are rules to be followed: incivility constitutes professional misconduct, and there will be penalties.

  Another set of five arguments was based on the Lawyer’s characterization of his communications. He referred to the fact that they were exchanged among lawyers, not lay people. They were e-mail communications, which are different from letters. All but one of the e-mails were sent over one weekend. The matters were minor, “mostly bickering”. Finally, the only public disclosure of these communications was through this application. In our view,  the first two of these characterizations are true but irrelevant. The next two are true, but of marginal relevance. We have no evidence of the fifth, but it too is unimportant to our decision.

As t o his efforts to recover costs

There is no basis for an award of costs against the Law Society. As we observed in our Reasons on Finding, the hearing was unduly protracted due to lengthy cross-examinations by the Respondent that proved unhelpful to us in making our findings. We were forced to set time limits for the cross-examinations and, even then, counsel exceeded the allotted time, and the many extensions we granted had to be enforced over his objection. The Law Society, on the other hand, submitted all of its evidence through three concise affidavits. 

The Law Society prevailed in its request for costs.  (Mike Frisch)