From Dean To Disbarred
The Manitoba Law Society Discipline Hearing Panel has disbarred the former Dean of the Manitoba Law School
In our case, we have numerous acts of fraud over an extended period of time based on a consistent dishonest scheme, during which the Member told his subordinate staff to “stop asking questions and just pay it”. We also have no evidence in mitigation, no extenuating circumstances whatsoever. Rather, we have a person who abused trust in an esteemed position (Dean of Law) in our profession.
Apart from the fraudulent claims for meal expenses, the Member used $472,282.00 of the Desautels Endowment Fund for unauthorized and unnecessary courses at Ivy League institutions for his own benefit exclusively. He had access to those funds because of his position of trust as Chair and Director of the Desautels Centre. His misuse of those funds violated the terms of the Desautels Fund, the conflict of interest policy of the University and fundamental principles of integrity. This was by far the largest sum that the Member improperly used and has particular significance on that account.
The Panel is cognizant of the mental health issues which the Member has raised in support of his attempts to delay proceedings. Where properly advanced, these issues could form the basis for an argument that the Society is bound to accommodate the mental disability of the Member to the point of undue hardship, under the provisions of The Human Rights Code, CCSM c. H175 which has paramount status over other statutes of the Legislature, including The Legal Profession Act. When the Panel raised this issue with Society Counsel, it was pointed out that the Member did not assert that he suffered from a disability that caused his breaches of integrity. He failed to introduce any evidence of disability in the hearing on misconduct or consequences. The evidence to support a disability that caused misconduct is flimsy at best and does not anywhere state that his mental state influenced his behaviour in misusing funds or lying about meal claims. The Panel is satisfied that no case has been made out that the Member was owed a duty to accommodate, and in any event, it is probable that the harm to the public interest of his behaviour and the bleak prospect for compliant conduct in the future would establish undue hardship to the public if accommodation were provided.
(Mike Frisch)
Posted in: