From Lifeguard To Lawyer

The British Columbia Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division granted an applicant’s motion to enroll in the Law Society Admission Program notwithstanding unspecified workplace misconduct issues while employed as a lifeguard.

The Enrollment Application included an articling agreement between the Applicant and their prospective principal, AB, a lawyer practicing at the law firm, B&B.

Background

The Applicant is 33 years old.  The Applicant attended a college for post-secondary studies prior to transferring to a university (the “University”) but left the University following allegations of academic dishonesty in 2009 to 2010.  The Applicant re-enrolled at the college where they received a Bachelor of General Studies in 2017.

From 2011 to 2023 the Applicant was employed by a municipality (the “Municipality”) as a lifeguard at various public pools. 

Admission issues

(a) allegations of academic misconduct from 2009 to 2010 when the Applicant was an undergraduate student at the University (the “Academic Dishonesty”);

(b) driving contraventions for failing to display an “N” in 2009, driving while restricted in 2015 and an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) in 2016 (the “Driving Infractions”); and

(c) allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct resulting in two warning letters in 2018 and 2019 and a one-day suspension in June 2023 (the “Workplace Conduct”) collectively, the (“Misconduct”).

Findings

the Panel was persuaded that the Academic Dishonesty and the Driving Infractions occurred in the distant past and were no longer of concern.

The Panel was concerned about the Workplace Misconduct and in particular the alleged conduct which caused the one-day suspension in June 2023.

The Law Society submitted that the Panel need not engage in a fact-finding exercise to determine what exactly occurred that gave rise to the Applicant’s one day suspension because the Applicant acknowledged they committed misconduct that violated the Municipality’s respectful workplace policy.  The Panel agrees.  We accept that the Applicant engaged in misconduct, which was contrary to the Municipality’s respectful workplace policy, that the Applicant has been punished for that conduct, regrets that conduct, acknowledged it and has learned from it.

Lessons learned

The Panel is satisfied that the Applicant has changed since the Workplace Misconduct occurred.  The Applicant has matured and learned from the experience.  The Panel accepts that the Applicant understands and is aware that they must not allow their emotions to rule them.  They accept that they must take steps to control impulsivity in order to maintain professionalism and decorum in all aspects of their life, including their professional life.

Upon weighing the evidence and applying the law presented at the hearing the Panel has concluded that the Applicant has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that they are currently of good character and repute and fit to become a barrister and a solicitor of the Supreme Court.  The Panel grants the application to enroll in the LSAP program in accordance with s. 19(1) of the Act.

(Mike Frisch)