Gambling No Mitigation
An attorney has been disbarred by a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia Law Society
Then Respondent admits that he committed professional misconduct as follows:
(a) On or about November 16, 2016, he intentionally misappropriated $200,000 that he received in trust for his client, contrary to Rule 3-64 of the Law Society Rules;
(b) On or about November 25, 2016, he intentionally misappropriated $200,000 that he received in trust for a second client, contrary to Rule 3-64 of the Law Society Rules; and
(c) Between October 12, 2016 and November 9, 2016, he received a $5,000 retainer from the second client and
i. intentionally misappropriated $5,000 by depositing those funds into his general account when he was not entitled to those funds;
ii. failed to deposit the retainer into his pooled trust account, contrary to Rule 3-58 of the Law Society Rules; and
iii. failed to deliver a bill to his client, contrary to s. 69 of the Legal Profession Act.
[10] The Respondent consents to an order that he be disbarred.
[11] The Hearing Panel concluded that the conduct admitted to by the Respondent constituted professional misconduct and that the appropriate disciplinary action is disbarment.
The reason
The Respondent explained that his actions in intentionally misappropriating over $400,000 from two clients resulted from a gambling addiction. However unfortunate the Respondent’s personal circumstances may be, the existence of a gambling disorder is not a mitigating factor justifying his conduct, nor do they suggest disbarment is not an appropriate sanction…
The Respondent cooperated with the Law Society investigation, admitted his misconduct, expressed remorse and apologized for his misconduct. Even if we accept, in the absence of any medical or corroborating evidence, that the Respondent suffers or has suffered from a gambling addiction, this does not justify wrongfully taking clients’ money and does not constitute a mitigating factor.
(Mike Frisch)