“Blatant And Inexplicable”

A Hearing Committee of the Alberta Law Society imposed a four-month suspension for an attorney’s submission of false insurance benefits claims

 Lev Kramar was admitted as a member of the LSA on August 19, 2010. Since that time, he has practiced in Calgary primarily in the areas of corporate law and real estate conveyancing. Between May 2017 and May 2018, Mr. Kramar submitted numerous false insurance benefit claims to his employer’s benefits provider. In July 2018, Mr. Kramar was confronted by the insurer which brought the false claims to the attention of Mr. Kramar’s employer. Mr. Kramar admitted his misconduct to his employer which on October 23, 2018 advised the LSA of Mr. Kramar’s misconduct. Mr. Kramar has continued to practice with that employer to the present time.

He admitted the misconduct in the ensuing bar investigation

Mr. Kramar and the LSA made a joint submission on sanction as follows: a four-month suspension commencing November 1, 2020, and payment of costs for Mr. Kramar in the amount of $2,000. Based on its review of the SAF before the hearing commenced, the Committee had concerns about the length of suspension proposed. Mr. Kramar’s dishonesty was blatant and inexplicable. Over a one-year period, he repeatedly submitted false benefit claims for relatively inconsequential sums of money. He risked disbarment for a total sum that was a fraction of his monthly salary at the time. As a result of the Committee’s expressed concerns, it heard oral testimony from GA and Mr. Kramar.

GA is a senior member of the LSA and was one of the founding members of the law firm that employed Mr. Kramar. Mr. Kramar joined that firm in 2014 and according to GA had shown himself to be an exceptional lawyer and highly skilled. When the insurer brought the false benefits claims to the attention of the firm, GA and another partner confronted Mr. Kramar. Mr. Kramar admitted what he had done but provided no explanation for his aberrant behaviour. He denied having any substance abuse issues, gambling problems or stresses at home. GA testified that the misconduct was completely out of character for Mr. Kramar and that the firm’s partners were “befuddled”.

As might be expected, the partners of the firm met to discuss Mr. Kramar’s future. The difficult discussion included the possibility of firing Mr. Kramar immediately. However, the firm decided to maintain Mr. Kramar’s employment and it reported his conduct to the LSA. The firm concurrently “ring fenced” Mr. Kramar. The firm conducted an audit of Mr. Kramar’s files and expenses (that found no issues), required Mr. Kramar to repay the monies improperly received from the insurer (which he did) and removed Mr. Kramar’s cheque signing authority. It made Mr. Kramar ineligible for discretionary bonuses and removed Mr. Kramar from the firm’s partnership track. The firm thought highly enough of Mr. Kramar to give him what GA described as a second chance. GA testified that since Mr. Kramar was reported to the LSA, there have been no concerns whatsoever about his conduct. The firm recently restored Mr. Kramar’s authority to sign cheques. For personal reasons, GA has needed to rely more heavily on Mr. Kramar during the last year and reported that he has performed exceptionally well.

In the disciplinary hearing

Mr. Kramar testified candidly. He was emotional at times and the Committee’s view is that his remorse for his actions is genuine.

The Committee was most interested in why Mr. Kramar did something so obviously wrong and stupid. Mr. Kramar had conceded that he had no “magic explanation” for his repeated dishonesty. However, the Committee did gain some insight into what may have motivated the behaviour. Contrary to what he had told GA when confronted with the false submissions, Mr. Kramar advised the Committee that he was feeling considerable financial stress at the time of the false claims. His spouse had stopped working a short time before, resulting in a significant drop in their family income. They were responsible for some ongoing medical and other expenses that made their budget very tight. Mr. Kramar was trying to be what he described as a good breadwinner. He testified that one of his major disappointments out of this whole affair was that he felt unable at the time to tell his spouse how stressed he was because of their finances. He and his spouse are working through those issues and they have taken counselling together.

Sanction

The Committee finds that a suspension and payment of costs is the appropriate sanction. Mr. Kramar’s counsel submitted that the appropriate suspension may be in the range of six to seven months as a starting point but then reduced to four months based upon the various mitigating factors. The Committee’s view is that a six to seven month suspension is on the low end of the reasonable range in this case and that three months is at the high end of the reasonable range for a reduction based on the mitigation factors. In short, the Committee’s view is that a four-month suspension is at the low end of the reasonable range of a suspension in this case. Absent the joint submission on sanction by the parties, the Committee would likely have imposed a suspension longer than four months. It is, however, constrained in this case by the principles in Anthony-Cook to defer to the joint submission. The joint submission in the Committee’s view is not “so unhinged” from the circumstances of this case that its acceptance would cause the informed and reasonable public to lose confidence in the integrity of the profession and the ability of the LSA to effectively govern its own members.

The committee also referred the matter to criminal authorities, citing mandatory provisions of the Legal Profession Act

This Committee finds that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Mr. Kramar has committed a criminal offence.

(Mike Frisch)