Stuck In Traffic
A Nigerian attorney who had emigrated to Canada and was licensed there has been suspended on an interlocutory basis for dishonest counseling of a client by the Tribunal Hearing Division of the Upper Canada Law Society
Client A alleged that the Lawyer had instructed her not to attend at her scheduled refugee hearing, but to wait on another floor of the building, so that the Lawyer could determine whether the member hearing the matter would likely be favourable. Client A indicated that the Lawyer had instructed her to leave the building and telephone the tribunal office to say she was stuck in traffic, if the Lawyer found the member was not likely to be favourable.
In relation to this allegation, in February 2017, Client A’s new counsel provided the Society with an audio recording of the conversation with the Lawyer, in which the Lawyer had counselled Client A to be dishonest.
On May 5, 2017, the Lawyer provided the Society with her representations in response to Client A’s complaint, acknowledging that she had counselled Client A to be dishonest.
There are false billing issues based on a complaint from Legal Aid Ontario
In the complaint from LAO received September 21, 2017, LAO enclosed the Decision, in which it was found that the Lawyer had engaged in false billings with respect to the duration of refugee hearings, had billed LAO for refugee hearings that had not taken place, and had engaged in double billings.
The Lawyer admitted that she claimed more hours for refugee hearings than actually took place and that she had billed LAO for some hearings that had not taken place.
The Lawyer also admitted that she billed a standard four hours of hearing for each half-day of hearing scheduled even if the hours she attended were less than four, or even if the hearing did not take place at all, because this is how interpreters at refugee hearings are paid and she thought this was fair.
The final report from LAO’s audit and compliance unit indicated that an amount of approximately $80,000 potentially had been overbilled, resulting from overbilling, double-billing and in some cases triple-billing.
The LAO Decision indicated that the Lawyer’s representations regarding the overbilling allegations were problematic: “highly improbable” and not credible.
As to immediate suspension
In the present case, the misconduct has been admitted, and through her counsel the Lawyer has acknowledged the risk of harm to the public and to public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession. The evidence substantiating this risk is strong. The concerns are based on serious and multiple allegations of dishonesty – dishonesty in connection with the LAO billings and dishonesty in the Client A matter. The allegations, if proven, could warrant a lengthy suspension or the revocation of the Lawyer’s licence to practise law.
(Mike Frisch)