The Wrong Reason To Visit Niagara Falls

An attorney who had failed to respond to bar complaints surrendered his license in a proceeding before the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The background facts are straightforward. During the summer and fall of 2016, the Law Society received four separate complaints regarding possible professional misconduct by Mr. Richey, including that, among other things, he may have mishandled or misappropriated monies from his clients. Three of the complaints were from clients. The fourth was a judicial complaint.

Since July 2016, the Law Society has asked Mr. Richey multiple times, both through phone calls and in writing, about the complaints. Mr. Richey has not provided a complete response, or any response, as required.

There were complications

An initial hearing in this matter was set for May 16, 2017. On that date, Mr. Richey was not in attendance. The previous day he had driven to Niagara Falls and contemplated suicide, and on the morning of the hearing he had attended at a hospital for medical care. Mr. Richey did advise Mr. Emblem that he would admit that the facts as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) which he had already signed amounted to professional misconduct, and that a finding of professional misconduct could be made. We agreed, and found professional misconduct based on the ASF. We also agreed that, particularly as Mr. Richey wanted to be present at the hearing to give evidence in support of his request for permission to surrender his licence, the penalty phase of the hearing should be adjourned.

The hearing resumed on October 5, 2017. In the interim, the Law Society retained, and obtained reports from, two medical experts (Dr. Wright and Dr. Chatterjee) on the question of Mr. Richey’s ability to proceed with the hearing. Among other things, the experts advised that: i) Mr. Richey met criteria for a mental health disorder that caused him marked and overwhelming distress, in particular around the issue of the hearing, and that he had been psychologically unable to face the investigations; ii) that in addition to his adjustment disorder, Mr. Richey appeared to be experiencing some cognitive difficulties; and iii) that there was no evidence that Mr. Richey’s suicidality was feigned to avoid the Law Society proceedings or that he was malingering with respect to his cognitive impairment or fabricating symptoms of his mental disorder, including the associated symptom of suicidality. 

When the hearing resumed on October 5, Mr. Richey was not in attendance. Mr. Emblem advised that on the morning of the hearing, Mr. Richey had again driven to Niagara Falls and was contemplating suicide, but that he was receiving assistance. The hearing was adjourned once more. Ultimately, it was agreed that the hearing would proceed by way of written submissions and a joint position of the parties as to both penalty and costs.

The attorney had a prior record of non-cooperation.

Note

we want to thank both counsel for their assistance, their co-operation, their compassion and their empathy throughout the course of a uniquely difficult matter.

(Mike Frisch)