Canadian Efficiency On Display

I am impressed that, during the current crisis, a hearing committee of the Saskatchewan Law Society was able to conduct a teleconference hearing on March 3 and issue a report within five weeks.

The attorney admitted culpability to three complaints

(Formal Complaint #1)

did charge the Estate of F.B. a fee that was not fair or reasonable, in that he charged for time spent responding to a Law Society complaint;

(Formal Complaint #2)

did, without the approval of the Court, enter into a contingent fee agreement for legal services related to a family law dispute;

(Formal Complaint #3)

did accept cash in an aggregate amount of $249,700.00 in respect of one transaction, contrary to Law Society of Saskatchewan Rule 909.

As to charging for the bar complaint response

  The first complaint involves the member’s representation of the executor of an estate.  In 2017 two beneficiaries of the estate filed a complaint against the member with the law society.  Law society complaints counsel recommended no further action on the complaint.  The member charged the estate in excess of $1,300.00 for his time in responding to the complaint.   The law society had issued an ethics ruling in 2000 stating it was unethical for a lawyer to charge a client for time spent to respond to a law society complaint.

He was unaware of the contingent fee prohibition.

As to the cash

  The member was surprised to receive the sum in cash and sent an email to the law society seeking advice.  Unfortunately, the email went inadvertently into a junk mail folder and was not discovered until almost three weeks later.  In the meantime, the member deposited the amount to his trust account.

The board

Of the three complaints, the third matter dealing with acceptance of cash beyond the limit allowed by the rules is the most egregious.  Money laundering is a very serious problem and governments are taking steps to curtail it.  Lawyers can wittingly or unwittingly provide valuable assistance to those engaged in money laundering.  Consequently, it is understandable that governments want to see the activities of lawyers regulated.  Law societies and others concerned about the possible erosion of the principle of solicitor-client privilege have successfully argued that the regulatory regimes administered by law societies are a sufficient, even better, way to regulate lawyer activities related to money laundering.  Maintaining that position requires law societies to rigorously enforce the rules they administer to accomplish this.  One such rule is the no-cash rule.

The attorney was reprimanded and fined a total of $9,500. (Mike Frisch)