“Poor You”

A reprimand has been imposed by the Quebec Bar Disciplinary Board for conduct at an interrogation

Mr. Riahi asks the respondent if he is stopping him from asking questions on this subject. The latter responds, using a falsetto voice: “Poor you. You are prevented from making a full defense”, and that his client has already responded. Mr.  Riahi asks him if he  called her “poor you”. The respondent retorts: “So, poor you. Poor you. You’re prevented. » Nevertheless, after an exchange between lawyers, the interrogation continues. A little later, the respondent announced that the interrogation would continue before a judge. He then mentions to M ^e  Riahi: “And we’ll see how smart you are then”. During the interrogation, the respondent often reacted to Mr. Riahi’s questions with a little laugh. After other exchanges, Mr. Riaji asked that a conversation be held “off-record”. During this discussion, the respondent said: “Your questions are fucking nonsense.”

Two incidents precede this out-of-court interrogation on July 29, 2022. Although their impact cannot be measured with accuracy, it appears that they had an effect on the tense atmosphere that emerged during the interrogation.

A first incident seems due to a mutual incomprehension as to the place and method of holding the interrogation. The respondent assumes that the interrogation will take place virtually and prepares his client accordingly. He then takes the necessary measures to be able to proceed from his workplace, being on call as a specialist doctor. Mr. Riahi , for his part, plans to conduct the interrogation in person, at his office, and provides as proof the confirmation of reservation of the stenographer indicating as the location the address of Mr. Riahi’s office. She presumes that the respondent clearly understood her intention and her refusal to proceed virtually. This disagreement contributes to the climate of tension which is felt from the start of the interrogation.

On the other hand, a few days earlier, another incident occurred. In its order of June 16, 2022, the Court of Quebec specifies that the defense’s second opinion will take place at the home of Mr. M between June 16 and July 7, 2022.

However, the expert does not show up on the scheduled date even though Mr. M is waiting for him at his residence.

Furthermore, during the hearing, the respondent produced consent letters of support and documents showing his involvement in the community. No witnesses are heard.

Sanction

 Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors already analyzed as well as the principles applicable to disciplinary sanctions, the Council judges that a reprimand constitutes the appropriate sanction in this case.

The extensive number of prior cases for inappropriate remarks in such situations make for interesting reading.

In the Goldwater affair, a lawyer made the following remarks to a colleague: “If you don’t want to understand anything, eat crap” and, faced with the latter’s surprise, she returns to the charge : “Eat shit and I can tell you in several languages ​​if you want. “. Then she adds: “It’s not my fault if your client has a penis that’s too small to satisfy his wife and what’s more, it’s too cheap. » After an examination of the case law, the council imposes a reprimand on him.

 In this decision, the disciplinary council refers to the Rosenberg case, a lawyer, usually working in business law, acted pro bono in a case of euthanasia of a dog. In this context, the lawyer is declared guilty of the following charge: ”  in connection with the legal case of her client CP involving the City of Montreal, has, within the framework of a filmed interview, treated one or more employees of the said town of mother fuckers. When the assistant trustee sent her a transcription of her words, she admitted having uttered these words “despite my better judgment” “the passion I felt for the injustice I witnessed must have clouded my judgment and I am deeply sorry for having used those words [ …]  ”. The disciplinary council considers the alleged words to be crude, and that they are not comments made inadvertently. This lawyer is a repeat offender. A fine of $2,500 was imposed on him. In the present case, the respondent is not a repeat offender.

In the Jean case, a lawyer was found guilty for having made the following remarks towards a lawyer during a trial in the Youth Chamber: “Stop making me shit arrogant… it’s your duty, the delays were caused by your client and the father. So get the father’s position, rather than pissing me off with useless spam.  [sic].” This lawyer, with more than 20 years of experience, had already been the subject of a warning for conduct of the same nature and had a disciplinary history for different conduct. Due to the above, the disciplinary council rejects the respondent’s suggestion to use the reprimand as a sanction and decides to impose a fine of $3,500. In this case, as already mentioned, the respondent has no disciplinary history.

In the Bouchard case, a lawyer addressed the prosecutor’s lawyer by calling her “estie de crosseuse” (count 1) and, a few weeks later, when the judge s he is about to leave the room after having refused his request, has the following reaction: he throws his pencil and declares: “I am shouting my camp. » (count 2). The lawyer says he is not proud of his conduct. The disciplinary council does not believe in the respondent’s regrets and considers that he is not immune from repeat offenses. A fine of $2,500 was imposed on him under the first count (the minimum fine then was $1,000) and a reprimand under the second. This situation differs from the present case in terms of the assessment of the risk of recidivism.

 In the Fradette case, the lawyer addresses the prosecutor’s lawyer by saying: “You can’t understand that, you have no heart…Because you have no child. You have no heart. »(count 1). A few months later, he mentioned the following to the same lawyer: “It’s a bad deal that you don’t have any children, children it’s a bad deal that you don’t have any . »(count 2). This lawyer read a letter sent by the lawyer in which he wrote that he was ashamed of having had her as a colleague while he worked at the Crown prosecutors’ office. This was reached by the words of the lawyer. The latter admitted his guilt, but the disciplinary committee reported a certain casualness in the face of the seriousness of his words. The fact that Mr. ^Fradette used personal and privileged information to reach his colleague in a very sensitive aspect of her private life is an important aggravating circumstance, as is the fact that he repeated the same comments, in the same circumstances, three months later. Count 1 carries a fine of $1,000 and, under count 2, this fine is $5,000. The Council judges that the seriousness of the facts of this case is more important than those of this case because of the type of information used by the lawyer to hurt his colleague, and the fact that he repeated his action a few months later.

In the Laferrière case, the lawyer is responsible for a mediation session. While addressing one party and in the absence of the other, he describes the latter as “crazy screaming”. He is also criticized for his authoritarian behavior. The disciplinary council notes that in the cases where a reprimand was imposed, the sanctioned lawyer had apologized and expressed regret, “which is not the case in this case”. This imposes a fine of $2,500.

(Mike Frisch)