Not Funny

A British Columbia Law Society Hearing Panel imposed a fine for an attorney’s threats to his former intimate partner

The key issue at [the criminal] trial was whether, as the Respondent claimed in his testimony, he had not intended to intimidate LC, or for her to take his words seriously, but rather was engaging in a jesting, joking or humorous rant.

Evidence at the trial

At the time of the trial, the Respondent predominantly practised family law but had also practised criminal law. He was articulate, and thought before he spoke, but he was also a “joker” who enjoyed making people laugh. LC was a calm, nonemotional and self-confident person. She was strong and physically fit, and was not a fearful person.

He was “annoyed” that she had received the proceeds of their rental condo in settlement

The Respondent owned several firearms that he had left in the family home when he moved out. Sometime after the separation, LC asked one of their mutual friends to collect the firearms and store them at his house, as she did not want  to keep them or give them back to the Respondent. LC did not tell the Respondent that she was moving the firearms to the friend’s house.

Two prior communications gave context to the charged one

The first prior communication occurred sometime in 2016 or 2017. LC had read a comment on the Respondent’s Facebook page in which he wrote about “killing his past and maybe getting 25 years”. The next day, he called LC and said “I bitterly hate you”. When she asked why, the Respondent stated that she kept taking their child away from him and said “That is why spouses hate each other and kill each other when they are deprived of the parenting rights they believe they are entitled to.” Judge Meyers rejected the Respondent’s testimony that, in making these comments, he was not intending to frighten, intimidate or scare LC, and concluded that the Respondent had spoken these words in anger and had deliberately intended to scare her.

The second prior communication took place on April 9, 2017. The Respondent sent an email to LC in which he said “You may want to take a different approach. I saw you waving at the window today. I want you dead.” In his testimony, the Respondent said that he had made this comment because he felt he was paying too much for child support and was being shortchanged on parenting time. Judge Meyers concluded that, in sending this email, the Respondent had intended to scare, intimidate and threaten LC. It was a blatant and clear threat. Judge Meyers also held that LC was shaken and upset by the email, as reflected in a response that she had sent to the Respondent. The Respondent then replied to LC stating that his comment had been over the line and inappropriate. LC chose not to go to the police just yet. Judge Meyers accepted that the Respondent called LC the next morning and apologized.

The judge rejected the “humorous rant” explanation for the following telephone statements

(a) The Respondent called LC a “greedy guts” for wanting more money than she deserved, given that he had paid for repairs to the condominium plus lawyer fees.
(b) The Respondent said that the Ontario lawyer was letting him down and was “an f’ing jerk”, which was unusual language for him to use, and talked about putting bullets into the lawyer’s head.
(c) The Respondent went on to talk about a former criminal client who could solve problems by menacing, intimidating, hurting people, or just making them disappear.
(d) The Respondent said something about how people who were within six or two degrees of separation of them, could end up with bullets in them, and said that LC should beware, be careful or be warned. LC did not know whether the Respondent was referring to her, her family, her lawyer or somebody else, but she took his rant as very threatening.
(e) The Respondent mentioned not caring if he ended up spending the rest of his life in an eight-by-eight jail cell.

Intent

In finding that the Respondent had intended to threaten LC, Judge Meyers rejected as unbelievable his testimony that, by pure coincidence, he was arranging to pick up the guns that day to take advantage of a sale on gun storage boxes. This explanation was rejected because the guns had been out of his care for almost two years and he had sought to get them back on the same day as he made this “nasty” call to LC.

He self-reported the conviction and explained to the Law Society

the Respondent recounted the life-altering effect of being arrested, handcuffed, strip-searched, charged and tried in a criminal court, given that he was a lawyer living in a small community.

The panel sustained a “conduct unbecoming” charge and imposed a fine

Having considered the cases mentioned above and, in particular, Chow, we conclude that the $12,000 fine proposed by the parties in their joint submission falls within the range of disciplinary actions for the Respondent’s conduct unbecoming.

(Mike Frisch)