Two Sets Of Bills
Billing misconduct drew a 30-day suspension from the Manitoba Law Society Discipline Hearing Panel
In accordance with two amended Citations and an Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Currie admitted to creating false documents and engaging in secret billing practices in late 2016 and in 2017 that had the effect of hiding from his partners’ billings accrued in 2016 on 55 matters, Further, he admitted that prior to being interviewed in December 2014 on behalf of a Court Monitor regarding billings by his firm with respect to residential school claimants, he made no inquiries of the firm’s associates and staff, or any adequate inquiry, such that answers he gave to certain questions put to him misled the Court Monitor. Misleading the Court Monitor in this fashion amounted to a failure to treat the Court with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect. The panel found the foregoing conduct to be professional misconduct.
Circumstances
In January 2009 Mr. Currie joined the firm of D’Arcy & Deacon LLP as a partner. D’Arcy & Deacon LLP was a well-known and respected Winnipeg firm that had existed, in one form or another, for over a century. In the fall of 2014 due to the departure of six partners, the remaining partners became concerned that the firm was no longer financially viable.
The partners held a number of meetings with a view to either dissolving the partnership or continuing it in some revised form. Mr. Currie and the Society agree that there was enormous stress and a degree of animosity between some of the partners regarding the unfolding situation through the late autumn of 2016. The panel was provided with a number of documents related to the discussions that took place between the partners but it was not our task to determine what the precise obligations of the partners were in and about December 2016. In the event, two groups of partners and associates formed two new firms and some partners chose to carry on the existing partnership. For the first six months of 2016, the existing accounting system of D’Arcy & Deacon LLP was utilized by the several firms that now existed as the firms looked for new premises and the partners saw to the discharge of the outstanding liabilities as of December 31, 2016.
Mr. Currie claimed entitlement to his work in progress accrued in late 2016 and in support of that claim drew attention to some statements in memoranda to the partners that arguably might have been a bit confusing. Evidently, this claim of his was vigorously rejected by many of his partners at D’Arcy & Deacon LLP who insisted that all partners were obligated to bill their work in progress and outstanding disbursements to the credit of the partnership which had significant liabilities to discharge through December 31 ,2016. The panel was provided with some documentation that is consistent with the conclusion that partners were being asked to bill their work for the partnership through December 2016. However, it was not our task to determine whether Mr. Currie’s position was viable. Indeed, the parties advised us that an arbitration had taken place between Mr. Currie and his former partners at D’Arcy & Deacon LLP covering this issue and that the matter had been resolved and releases had been exchanged between the parties.
Currie admitted that with respect to 35 client matters covering work done in 2016, he created two sets of bills. One set accurately showed the work as having been done in 2016. The other set falsely showed the work as being done in 2017 (when Mr. Currie’s newly created firm would be entitled to the payments of the accounts). Both sets of accounts were entered into the D’Arcy & Deacon LLP accounting system but the panel was told it would not be apparent from a casual look at the accounting system that there had been duplicate accounts created for the same matter. In the event, the partners of D’Arcy & Deacon LLP discovered the false accounts and, as noted above, they were the subject of an arbitration now concluded.
On a further 19 matters covering work done in November and December 2016, Mr. Currie did not enter the work as having been done in 2016 but kept a secret record of it and billed it to the clients in 2017 to the credit of the new firm of which he was a member. It appears that the partners of D’Arcy & Deacon LLP likely did not know of this deception at the time of the arbitration but, again, the panel was told that in light of the exchange of releases and the conclusion of the arbitration it was not being pursued. On one further matter covering work done in November 2016, Mr. Currie arranged for the client to pay $1,200.00 on a bill from D’Arcy & Deacon LLP and a further $7,000.00 pursuant to a new bill issued by his new firm in 2017.
The attorney had no prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)