“You Suck”
The Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador Adjudication Tribunal found misconduct in part based on the Respondent’s communications with the Law Society staff including the Director of Practice Management and the Executive Director
The Adjudication Tribunal notes that Respondent’s email of November 22, 2022 represents the first of many email communications from the Respondent in which he comments on the number or proportion of female staff or representatives at the Law Society in a manner that was both troubling and offensive. The Respondent continued with this type of commentary in various email correspondence sent to the Executive Director of the Law Society beginning in December of 2022, including the following excerpts which are of particular relevance to the analysis of the other components of complaint C2023-001:
December 13, 2022
…Why are 90% of Law Society Staff female at the moment?
December 13, 2022
Eliminating the “Maintenance Man” from the equation, the Gender Ratio would be almost 95% Femail. Why such an extreme gender imbalance? In the absence of a compelling explanation and Ratio, I consider this unacceptable. I also note the most recent hire that I am aware of is also female…
December 23, 2022
Good morning. I understand that with the recent personnel changes, 16 LSA employees are female while 19, including the “maintenance man”, are male. So that is an 84.2% female to male ratio.
December 23, 2022
Removing the male “Maintenance Man” the ratio is 16/18. So an 88.8% female composition of the NLLS.
December 23, 2022
This is approximately a 6% “improvement-equalization” of the gender inequality-imbalance (female vs. male ratio) of the NLLS atm…
December 31, 2022
Flow-Up
Be advised I will be bringing this matter to the attention of the Newfoundland Justice Department in the New Year
The next communication from the Respondent relating to the practice management review was on December 31, 2022. The Respondent emailed the Director of Practice Management and stated: “… Be advised my Clients do not consent to the NLLS breaching their legal confidentiality. I agree with them.” After receiving what appears to be an automatic out-of-office reply from the Director’s email account, which indicated that she was out of the office, the Respondent replied “Lucky you.”
And later
On February 20, 2023, the Respondent replied to the Executive Director’s email by saying “You suck”. Thereafter, on February 24, 2023, correspondence was sent to the Respondent by the Director of Professional Responsibility, enclosing an allegation made by the Vice President that he sent correspondence to the Law Society that was abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer. The Respondent’s response to the allegation was required by March 13, 2023.
Medical issues
In some circumstances, medical issues may constitute a defence to disciplinary complaints. As discussed in Wentzell (Re), 2017 CanLII 54199 (NLLS), this may be the case where the medical condition affected the member’s ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of their actions. Such evidence will also be considered in the analysis with respect to the appropriate sanction(s) as a mitigating factor. In order to be considered, however, an evidentiary foundation is required. For the purposes of the determination on conduct deserving of sanction, the Adjudication Tribunal received no evidence to establish what, if any, medical condition(s) or effect(s) the Respondent was experiencing during the relevant periods of time and could not make any findings as to whether the Respondent’s medical condition(s) affected his interactions with the Law Society or his conduct generally.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Adjudication Tribunal is satisfied that:
– The Respondent failed to act with integrity in his communications with the Law Society, contrary to section 2.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct, and thereby engaged in conduct deserving of sanction;
– The Respondent failed to reply promptly and completely to communications from the Law Society and failed to cooperate with the Law Society, contrary to section 7.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct, and thereby engaged in conduct deserving of sanction;
– The Respondent failed to be courteous and civil in his communications with the Law Society, contrary to section 7.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct, and thereby engaged in conduct deserving of sanction; and
– The Respondent sent correspondence to the Law Society which was abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communications from a lawyer, contrary to section 7.2-4 of the Code of Professional Conduct, and thereby engaged in conduct deserving of sanction.
The tribunal will reconvene to consider sanction. (Mike Frisch)