“Intemperate And Discourteous”

The Manitoba Law Society Discipline Hearing Panel has disbarred an attorney

The Complaints Investigation Committee of the Law Society of Manitoba (the “Society”) charged Rishi Ganesh Bharath (the “Member”) with multiple counts of professional misconduct that will be later detailed. The charges were contained within two citations, dated October 24, 2023 (the “Citation 1”) and March 19, 2024 (the “Citation 2”). The citations contained various charges of professional misconduct regarding the Member’s billings to Legal Aid Manitoba (sometimes referred to as “LAM”), representation of clients associated with these billings, and the Member’s dealings with the Society during the investigation of these matters. The professional conduct matters raised by the two Citations touched on expectations involving breaches of integrity, charging and accepting fees that were not fair and reasonable, improper withdrawal of representation, breach of trust accounting rules, and failure to respond promptly and completely to the Society.

An issue

  Information obtained from Client A about the August 25^th letter was put to the Member during the Society’s investigation. The Member’s response included the following discourteous and intemperate commentary about Client A:

•              Client A was an “unhinged” liar;
•              Client A had tampered with emails included in Client A’s Law Society complaint.
•              Client A seemed to be on substances when the Member spoke to Client A.
•              The Member called Client A “aggressive”, “agitated”, “belligerent” and “hateful.”
•              “… such is [Client A’s] arrogance and sense of entitlement that [Client A] plays the victim claiming [to be a single parent] of three children, in an attempt to manipulate … [Client A] made “bizarre and unhinged claims” and had “mental health issues compounded by drug use.”
•              Client A had “gang tattoos all over [the] arms/upper body” and was the [partner] of a gang associate; and
•              Client A had “an extensive criminal record”. (There was no criminal record in the client file materials).

    There was no evidentiary support in the Member’s file materials for any of these intemperate and ad hominem remarks made by the Member about Client A when responding to Client A’s complaint and the Society’s investigation.

The Society does not believe that the Member sent the August 25^th letter to Client A and found that the letter was fabricated in an attempt to mislead the Society during its investigation (see post).

(Mike Frisch)