Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Pillow Talk

By Michael Frisch

An attorney who shared intimate details of three client matters with his (now former) spouse has been found to have engaged in four citations of misconduct by a Hearing Panel of the British Columbia Law Society.

In one instance

EB, represented by the Respondent, was the respondent in a family law proceeding commenced by his wife.  On April 16, 2017, the Respondent emailed [former spouse] PS a copy of EB’s affidavit.  In the Respondent’s email to PS, he entitled it “Bedtime reading”.

 The affidavit of EB contains highly personal and confidential information, including EB’s account of his relationship with his wife and her background, which includes allegations of drug use, erratic behaviours, infidelity, beliefs regarding mental health issues, verbal abuse, violence towards him and private medical information.  The affidavit also sets out EB’s concerns about the conduct of his wife’s boyfriend towards their daughters, including physical hitting and molestation.  Details of private conversations between the children and a social worker, and the children’s full names and dates of birth, are also set out in the affidavit.

No thanks for sharing

 During her interview with the Law Society on February 1, 2019, PS explained her understanding of why the Respondent shared confidential client information with her.  PS stated in her interview that the Respondent was especially “fascinated” with EB’s case.  PS observed that the Respondent had always been drawn to or was intrigued by “bizarre sexual kind of behaviours” of his clients, or that he was “smitten” with criminal activities of his clients, such as pot operations and a case involving steroids.

PS further stated in her interview with the Law Society that she told the Respondent at the time that “maybe it’s better that you not tell me so much information”.
 
Each instance violated the duty of confidentiality

With respect to the Respondent’s disclosure of confidential client information in each of the allegations, we prefer the evidence of PS that the Respondent disclosed, intentionally for warped or callous purposes, the exceedingly sensitive, personal and confidential information of his clients.  While no known harm resulted to the clients in question, we find the Respondent’s disclosure of confidential client information to harm the reputation of lawyers and the legal profession as a whole.  Such intentional disclosures erode the public confidence in lawyers, and are plainly a marked departure from the standard expected of the profession.  We find this professional misconduct to be serious and reprehensible.

A fourth citation involved his divorce from P.S.

When we apply these standards to the conduct of the Respondent, we are deeply concerned and find professional misconduct in the Respondent’s actions respecting the affidavit.  When the Respondent impugned the integrity of opposing counsel, without any factual or good faith basis in the affidavit, we find that to be professional misconduct.  When the Respondent relied upon his affidavit in open court to challenge the integrity of counsel for PS, we find professional misconduct.  When the Respondent used his firm’s resources and acted in his professional capacity as a lawyer to prepare, swear and file the affidavit (despite having legal counsel), we find his conduct to be abusive of the legal system and his position as lawyer and we conclude, without reservation, that it constitutes professional misconduct.

Presumably a sanction order will follow.

The Vancouver Sun (Ian Mulgrew) covered some earlier travails

The 60-year-old litigator who once quipped he was a “frequent flyer” with the Law Society of B.C.’s disciplinary airline is currently selling cars and trucks in Fort St. John.

He was suspended from practice in 2019 and is now facing unrelated criminal charges related to events alleged to have occurred decades ago and nine new citations of professional misconduct.

Lessing had been on the regulator’s disciplinary radar since the turn of the century and placed under investigation again early last year.

Yet he was allowed to practise law until Dec. 2 when his licence was indefinitely suspended for failing to co-operate.

(Mike Frisch)