In Court Intoxication Draws Reprimand

The Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has sanctioned an attorney for two incidents

The first incident is occurred on February 17, 2014. By decision dated January 18, 2017 this Tribunal found the Respondent guilty of drinking alcohol in Court and of being intoxicated while in Court on a family law matter.  We have set out our findings of fact in the decision on the merits and will only briefly summarize them here. The Respondent was noted to be under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was not fit to continue with the family law trial. Sherriff’s Officers smelled alcohol on his breath and seized an empty pop bottle from the court room, next to the Respondent’s belongings. The bottle also smelled of alcohol. The presiding Judge confronted the Respondent in the presence of opposing counsel. The Respondent apologized.  The case was adjourned until the following day when the Judge declared a mistrial.  Eighteen months later, the family trial took place with new counsel representing the Respondent’s former client.

The second incident occurred on August 8 of 2014.  On that date the Respondent was driving a motor vehicle, nearly hit a pedestrian, collided with a pole and then refused to provide a breath sample to a police officer. The police officer noted that there was a very strong smell of alcohol, that the Respondent was very slow moving, staring blankly ahead and had trouble getting out his vehicle. There was a flask of rum on the floor, with one third of the alcohol remaining.  The Respondent refused to provide a breath sample and was convicted for this refusal on December 19, 2014. The Respondent admitted the factual underpinnings of this portion of the complaint, but argued that the Law Society has failed to establish that the conduct in question is deserving of sanction under the Code of Professional Conduct. This argument was rejected.

The impact of the in-court behavior

 The former client testified before the Tribunal at the penalty phase. As a result of the Respondent’s conduct, the hearing date of the family matter was postponed. This caused significant distress and anxiety to the Respondent’s family law client. The trial did not reconvene until some 18 months alter. As the living arrangements of a young child was the issue to be decided, the stress of the Respondent’s client is an understandable response. The client had her life and education on hold as a result of the mistrial.  She suffered a significant wrong.

An issue regarding sanction

In the present case, a unique factual situation presents itself. The Respondent was facing disciplinary proceedings before this Tribunal when a third incident occurred. The third incident arose due to an alleged breach of an Undertaking entered into by the Respondent. The Undertaking was sought and obtained by the Law Society due to the existence of the matters before this Tribunal. Shortly after receipt of information about the third incident, the Law Society suspended the Respondent from the practice of law. The suspension lasted two months. The charge which gave rise to the suspension was withdrawn.  The decision to suspend the Respondent was without legal authority…

We find that the prior suspension is a relevant factor on penalty. We find that the suspension of the Respondent for two months in 2016 is a consequence of the matters before this Tribunal. Had these matters not existed, there would not have been an Undertaking. Without an Undertaking, there would not have been a suspension. While the suspension was not a penalty, it is a factor that must be taken into account in determining an appropriate sanction.

The attorney was reprimanded and must abstain from alcohol (with monitoring) for two years. (Mike Frisch)