The Second Time Around

A Hearing Panel of the Law Society of British Columbia has imposed a second disbarment of an attorney who misappropriated estate funds.

There were nine heirs all living outside Canada

On or about December 20, 2013 the Respondent provided a final account to each of the beneficiaries of the estate.  In that summary account, she falsified the accounts to conceal the fact that she had taken an additional $40,000 in fees as administratrix.  Specifically, she falsely reported that she:

(a)         received $727,653.44 from the Public Guardian and Trustee – in fact she received $10,000 more – $737.653.44;

(b)        disbursed $28,625.32 to the Receiver General for income tax owing – in fact she paid $26,000 less – $2,625.32;

(c)         disbursed $4,976.50 for accounting services – in fact she paid $4,000 less – $976.50; and

(d)        disbursed $40,000 as administratrix’s fees – in fact she disbursed $80,000, or $40,000.00 more.

The Respondent has admitted that she prepared and delivered false accountings of the estate administration and misled the beneficiaries as to the amounts of funds she received and disbursed on behalf of the estate.

Disbarment times two

While it may seem unnecessary to order disbarment in this case, given that the Respondent has previously been ordered disbarred, section 38 of the Legal Profession Act provides that a hearing panel has jurisdiction to make a finding of professional misconduct against a former member.  Upon an adverse determination, the hearing panel must impose a sanction.  As the hearing panel stated in Law Society of BC v. Power, 2009 LSBC 23 (CanLII) at paras. 45 and 46:

Although it may appear odd that a Panel may suspend or disbar a non-member, the Act requires that it be done if that is the appropriate penalty. 

When imposing a penalty appropriate to the circumstances, a panel sends an important message to lawyers as well as to the public that such conduct is deserving of that kind of penalty. 

While not necessary to protect the public from the Respondent in this matter, given that she can no longer practise law, disbarment is necessary to protect the public confidence in the legal profession and to protect the public’s confidence in the ability of the profession to regulate itself.  Misappropriation of funds and falsifying accounts to clients cannot be condoned and is deserving of an order of disbarment whether the individual is a practising lawyer, a former member or a disbarred former member. 

(Mike Frisch)