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

Citation Anonymity Rejected

By Michael Frisch

A Motions Adjudicator of the British Columbia Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has rejected a motion for anonymity with respect to a pending citation predicated on the attorney’s recent electoral victory

 the Respondent was elected Mayor of the District of West Vancouver and on November 7, 2022 was sworn in as Mayor.

The principle

Openness and transparency in the disciplinary process is required to maintain confidence in the Law Society as a self-regulating body and there is a strong presumption in favour of an open process. Even though public scrutiny can be a source of inconvenience and embarrassment, such factors are not enough to overturn the strong presumption that the public can attend and be made aware of hearings.

Reasons

The Respondent stresses that extraordinary circumstances exist given his profile as a newly elected Mayor and the District will suffer if the Citation is published. In seeking election, the Respondent had a 2019 professional conduct record containing professional misconduct findings that are not dissimilar to the allegations contained in the Citation. I note that the findings were relatively recent and are searchable in the Law Society database. If there is any reputational risk or risk to the constituents of the District, it already exists from the proven misconduct findings. In this case, publication of the Respondent’s name with the Citation will not exacerbate the reputational risk such that it meets the legal test of being an exceptional circumstance. 

I reject the proposition that the Respondent’s newly elected role as Mayor makes him more deserving of anonymity or somehow puts him in a different category than the average lawyer. Lawyers, by profession, have a public profile and many take on positions that are in the public eye. The Law Society cannot be seen as creating different categories of transparency – especially those that may hold public or high-profile offices.
 
I agree with the Law Society that the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in A Lawyer. In this case, the investigation concluded, and the Discipline Committee authorized the Citation. Further, this is not a situation where the Respondent seeks to have certain documents sealed – he seeks complete anonymity such that the public would not be aware that there is a Citation issued against him.
 
I have difficulties with the submission of the Respondent that the employees will be put in a difficult situation. The Respondent has raised this as a ground I should consider but I was not provided with specifics to understand what the Respondent meant by “difficult situation” or who would be creating the “difficult situation”. When seeking election, the Respondent had knowledge of the investigation and sought to be in a close working relationship with these employees. It is the Respondent that has created the situation and he has the ability to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to protect employees from any consequences that may arise from publication.
 
CBC News reported on the allegations and decision. (Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process