Lawyering While Intoxicated

A reprimand with conditions has been imposed by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador

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.

He has been diagnosed with ADHD

At the time of these offences, the Respondent was suffering from an undiagnosed mental condition. The evidence establishes that he was using alcohol to control his busy mind. He has since sought medical help and is treated with prescription medication. The Respondent’s mental health condition does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. It is, however, a mitigating factor.

Disposition

we make the following order:

  The Respondent is hereby reprimanded;

  The Respondent shall abstain from the possession or consumption of alcohol for a period of two years;

   The Respondent shall submit to random alcohol testing, the results of which shall be shared with the Law Society, which testing will occur on two business days in every four week period for one year at the business premises of the testing agency used previously;

    The Respondent shall bear the cost of this random alcohol testing; and

     A summary of this decision will be published (and the decision itself) by the Law Society on the expiration of the appeal period.

      Failure to comply with this Order will give rise to further discipline. The Respondent is warned that discipline is cumulative. It is the opinion of this panel that further disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent involving alcohol will demonstrate an unmanageable risk to the public.

(Mike Frisch)