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

Jurisdiction Retained

By Michael Frisch

A Disciplinary Hearing Panel of the Manitoba Law Society holds that it retains jurisdiction to discipline an attorney

Ms. Cramer was called to the bar in 1962. She practised for almost 60 years with only one disciplinary matter on her record. She was the subject of two citations in 2020 and retained prominent, experienced counsel, Saul Simmonds, to represent her. Through negotiations in December 2020 with senior staff of the Society (Leah Kosokowsky, the current CEO of the Society), it was agreed that in exchange for Ms. Cramer’s commitment to voluntarily retire from practice no later than February 14, 2021 and to enter into an undertaking that took effect on December 14, 2020, the Society would not proceed to a Discipline panel with the charges in the two 2020 citations.

 It is apparent from the record that the Society alleges that Ms. Cramer did not comply with that undertaking and the Society issued a third citation, in 2022, against her relating to her activities following the agreement to retire and the undertaking signed December 7, 2020. The Society also suspended Ms. Cramer from practice on an interim basis. Ms. Cramer has not admitted to the allegations in any of the citations.

The argument that retirement equates with resignation was rejected

Neither Mr. Hill nor Mr. Kravetsky had any precedent decisions from this or any other jurisdiction on the issue of whether retirement is equivalent to resignation. Mr. Kravetsky submitted that this is because the Act is clear and the argument in this case is novel and contrary to the express provisions of the Act.

This panel finds that the provisions of s. 17 of the Act are clear as to the requirements for a resignation to be effective in ending the membership of a practitioner. Only when a panel of the Society hearing a disciplinary matter concerning the member makes an order permitting the member to resign, can a resignation be effective and membership ended on that basis. No such panel order has occurred yet in this case, and none is asserted to have occurred.

In fact, at the time of the agreement between the parties, Ms. Cramer formally applied to be accepted as a non-practising member of the Society and submitted her payment to gain that status ($100 plus GST). There is no suggestion that she was misled about her withdrawal from practice and changing her membership in the Society, while she was represented by senior, experienced counsel.
 
It can be added that lawyers who choose to cease practice for reasons other than death generally retire and must meet the requirements of the Society to care for the interests of their clients in doing so. That act of retirement does not remove their membership status or the Society’s jurisdiction over them. They are either non-practising or inactive, per their election. In some instances, lawyers come out of retirement and to do so, request the Society to accept them back as practising members in good standing on whatever conditions the Society imposes. The third citation in this matter alleges that Ms. Cramer effectively came out of retirement without the Society’s approval, and in contravention of her undertaking at the time of her December 2020 retirement.
 
For all of the above reasons, this panel rejects the jurisdiction submission on behalf of Ms. Cramer and finds that the Society retains jurisdiction over her. The parties may now proceed to schedule a hearing on the three (3) citations at a time convenient to all.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process