Canadian Witch Hunt Leads To No Cannabis While Lawyering Restriction

A young lawyer who has struggled with a number of issues has had his license restricted on an interlocutory basis by the Law Society of Ontario Tribunal Hearing Division

 Mr. Dick is 29 years of age. After articling between July 2016 and April 2017, he was called to the bar in June 2017. He has no discipline history and the Law Society has received no complaints in relation to his practice of law.

During law school, and since that time, Mr. Dick has suffered from mental health issues and substance use/addiction challenges. Between 2011 and 2014, he was admitted to hospital on a number of occasions. He has been consuming cannabis regularly for a number of years, and has been unable to abstain from cannabis use despite his prior efforts.

Mr. Dick found his articling experience very unsatisfactory. After applying to several positions, he eventually accepted an unpaid articling position with an employment lawyer. During his articling year, Mr. Dick worked mostly from his own residence and met only occasionally with his articling principal, a situation that offered him little opportunity for mentorship. Mr. Dick was of the view that his articling principal provided no guidance or assistance to him in finding employment after articling and, overall, that his principal had not been appropriately committed to training him for a career in law, leaving him inadequately prepared to enter the profession.

After he was called to the bar, Mr. Dick struggled to find work as a lawyer. He applied for numerous positions, and eventually obtained employment (in August 2017) at a small firm working for one other lawyer. His work focused primarily in the area of real estate law. He also did some corporate/commercial law and civil litigation. Mr. Dick was relatively happy with his office and his workplace schedule, which he has described as “pretty relaxed.” The firm consisted of Mr. Dick and the other lawyer. Mr. Dick said that he felt lucky to have found the position, but that the work was fairly routine and he did not find it particularly challenging. Despite his satisfaction with his employment, Mr. Dick had some lingering negative sentiments about the legal profession generally, and some ongoing frustration regarding his articling experience.

The issue related to a supposedly anonymous survey

In April 2018, Mr. Dick completed a Law Society survey that was circulated to newly-practising lawyers seeking feedback on their experiences both in respect of articling and practising law. The Law Society advertised that the survey was anonymous, and Mr. Dick completed the survey on the understanding that he was doing so anonymously. When asked for his comments on the value of the articling program as preparation for practice, Mr. Dick responded with disturbing statements and violent language that were concerning to the Law Society. Given the nature of these statements, the Law Society made the decision to attempt to identify the individual who had provided the responses. Ultimately, Mr. Dick was identified as that person.

When the Bar reached out

 In October and November 2018, in a series of e-mails sent to Law Society staff, Mr. Dick made further comments that were unusual, abusive and concerning. At about the same time, Mr. Dick left voicemail messages for Law Society employees that contained similarly offensive and concerning comments. At least some of the comments involved Mr. Dick invoking witchcraft, curses or hexes against employees of the Law Society.

After a medical evaluation

 In his report to the Law Society dated November 7, 2018, Dr. Colleton expressed the view that Mr. Dick suffers from cannabis use disorder and a chronic psychotic disorder, and opined that Mr. Dick’s mental disorders contributed to his problematic statements and communications with the Law Society. Dr. Colleton suggested that Mr. Dick “lacks control over his anger and has been prone to inappropriate outbursts, statements and writings.” He also noted that Mr. Dick did not see his own communication style as inappropriate.

While acknowledging that there was no information to indicate that Mr. Dick had not executed his day-to-day duties as a lawyer in a competent fashion, Dr. Colleton opined that the combination of persisting cannabis use and persisting psychosis rendered Mr. Dick incapable of meeting some of his obligations as a lawyer. Dr. Colleton described this in the summary portion of his report, stating: “[m]ore specifically, there is likely to be some adverse effect on his judgment and/or his attention to the interests of clients.” Dr. Colleton also advised that while Mr. Dick does not have a significant history of violence, his ongoing psychotic state, his level of anger and his irrational thinking made him unpredictable.

According to Dr. Colleton, were Mr. Dick to be abstinent from cannabis and free from psychosis, he “may well be entirely well enough at that point to function and work as a lawyer.”

As to interlocutory relief

In spite of his ongoing mental health and substance use issues, it appears that with sufficient supervision and oversight from another lawyer, Mr. Dick was able to fulfill his employment obligations, and that any risk of harm to the public was attenuated. With the revocation of his prior employer’s licence, however, that situation has changed. Currently Mr. Dick faces the stress of an uncertain future in law. As suggested by Dr. Colleton, there are reasonable grounds to believe that in another setting, with longer hours, greater demands and more complex or novel tasks assigned to him, Mr. Dick may well struggle to fulfill his professional obligations to his clients. Concerns in this regard would only be exacerbated were Mr. Dick to decide to practise on his own.

Mr. Dick’s previous interactions with the Law Society are similarly concerning. As described by Dr. Colleton, Mr. Dick’s communications with the Law Society show a profound lack of professional judgment. When unhappy about the responses that he was receiving from Law Society staff, Mr. Dick resorted to threats involving mysticism and witchcraft. While these communications did not explicitly threaten physical harm, they do reveal that, when stressed, Mr. Dick lacks control over his anger and can be prone to intemperate and inappropriate outbursts, statements and writings. As in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sumner, 2016 ONLSTH 66 (CanLII), we are satisfied that threats and comments of this kind toward Law Society staff, in response to regulatory oversight or investigation which is necessary for effective regulation of the legal profession, give rise to reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice if allowed to continue.

We are also satisfied that an order of this panel is likely to reduce the risk of harm to the public and/or the public interest, and that placing restrictions on the manner in which Mr. Dick may practise law, as opposed to a full suspension, can achieve that result. Indeed, Mr. Dick’s behaviour and attitude since the imposition of the initial interim restrictions in December 2018 supports this view.

The restrictions

Effective immediately, the respondent’s licence to practise law is restricted on an interlocutory basis, as follows:

a.      In practising law, the respondent shall be directly supervised by his employer, who shall be a lawyer with a licence in good standing approved by the Executive Director, Professional Regulation (or her designate);

b.      The respondent shall make best efforts to secure a referral to a clinician for treatment of his mental health and substance use issues;

c.      The respondent shall not consume cannabis during any work hours on a day in which he is practising law and on the morning of any day in which he is practising law;

d. In any communications with the Law Society, its staff, counsel or representatives, the respondent shall be courteous and civil and shall refrain from making any derogatory, abusive or offensive statement or comments.

(Mike Frisch)