Case Against Manitoba Attorney Moves Forward
The Manitoba Law Society Discipline Hearing Panel has ordered that a hearing on the merits of a complaint be conducted.
CBC News reported on the allegations and noted
A Brandon lawyer who was barred from contacting female colleagues for any non-work-related purpose now faces a number of Law Society of Manitoba charges, including sexual harassment.
Ryan William Fawcett has also been charged with breach of an undertaking to the law society and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
Fawcett was barred in July 2020 from contacting any female lawyers in Manitoba for any purpose except work-related matters.
Those restrictions were expanded in October 2020 to include any woman who is a legal assistant, or employee of the courts.
The panel described the charges
On October 17, 2017, the complainant in this matter (“AB”), then an articling student at law, filed a formal complaint against Mr. Fawcett with the Society. She alleged that on October 6, 2017, Mr. Fawcett, herself, and two other lawyers had met for a Friday evening of drinks at a local bar. In her complaint, AB wrote: “At approximately 11:45 pm, Mr. Fawcett got out of his chair, walked around the table and stood behind me. He then reached out with his left hand and he offensively grabbed my left breast. He did this in full view of [the other two lawyers]. He then sat back down at the table. [The other two lawyers] and I left within a half hour after he grabbed my breast.”
The attorney’s initial response
In his letter dated November 23, 2017, sent in response to a letter from the Society asking for “your comments and an explanation of the circumstances that are described [in the complaint]”, Mr. Fawcett wrote: “At one point, as they [AB and the other female lawyer who was present] were still seated, I got up and gave [them both] a hug, my hands touching their shoulders or upper arms. This was the only physical contact I had with anyone there.”
Mr. Fawcett concluded his letter with these statements: “When I received notice of this accusation I was shocked. I did not touch [AB] in any way that could be considered an offensive assault. I completely deny the accusation.”
The order here rejected the contention that the matter be dismissed for delay or for abuse of process
This case appears to be one of first instance. In no other case that was brought to the attention of the Panel has the member been charged with misleading, or attempting to mislead, the Society, a court, or both. For this reason alone, the Panel finds that it would be in the public interest to conduct a full hearing, with fulsome arguments on both sides of the issue. This would enable the Panel to render a decision with precedential value should a similar situation arise in the future.
It would serve little purpose to spend much time speculating on why the first CIC did what it did in 2018, but certain of the comments of both the Crown Attorney and counsel for Mr. Fawcett, and of AB herself in the Victim Impact Statement which she delivered to the Provincial Court Judge during the sentencing hearing on November 26, 2021 , offer some telling insights.
Both counsel allude to the potential difficulties AB might have experienced had she been compelled to testify at a trial of the Criminal Charges. Further, the Victim Impact Statement paints a vivid portrait of a vulnerable, frightened, and confused young woman; an articling student, who wanted to practise criminal law from an early age, who had been assaulted — in an overtly sexual manner— by a relatively senior member of the local criminal Bar; someone for whom having to testify, whether at a contested Discipline Committee hearing or at a criminal trial, would have been tantamount to an unnecessary re-victimization.
After a Complaints Investigative Committee (“CIC”) had closed its file
In April, 2021, trial dates were set for November 25-26, 2021 in the Provincial Court of Manitoba. On November 26, 2021, Mr. Fawcett entered a plea of “Guilty” to the included charge of “common assault” and was sentenced, pursuant to a joint recommendation put forward by the Crown Attorney and his criminal counsel, to a two-year conditional discharge
On the merits
the relevant facts in that regard have already been fully addressed and judicially-determined in the Provincial Court decision of November 26 2021 (which, as previously noted, was as a result of what both counsel described as “a true plea bargain”). To require that the Law Society now re-litigate the factual foundation for Charge 1 in such circumstances would be not be in the public interest, and would do nothing to preserve the confidence of the public in the ability of the Law Society to effectively govern the profession.
A further hearing will be set. (Mike Frisch)