THE REGULATORY ISSUES
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct, or in the alternative, conduct unbecoming, in that, he failed to disclose his personal interest to his client, failed to recommend independent legal advice (“ILA”) and failed to obtain his client’s prior consent to a transaction contrary to Rules 2.1-1, 3.4-28, 3.4-29 and 7.3-1 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”).
REGULATORY MEETING OUTCOME
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable rules of the RPC. The Members of Proceeding Authorization Committee (the “Committee”) reviewed the following evidence with the Lawyer.
From 2002 until 2015, the Lawyer worked as an “on-call” outside counsel for the Ontario Provincial Police Association (“OPPA”). Under the OPPA’s Legal Assistance Program (“LAP”), the Lawyer handled notably criminal and police disciplinary matters for OPPA members. Under the LAP and related policies, the solicitor/client relationship included the lawyer, the OPPA board and the member.
In June 2014, the Lawyer incorporated a consulting company and became its sole shareholder and president. In August 2014, a three (3) year consulting agreement was signed between the consulting company and the OPPA. The agreement outlined that the Lawyer would provide the OPPA a range of consulting services for a monthly fee. The services included, notably “travel benefits through various travel agencies, and other opportunities.”
In October 2014, the Lawyer and three (3) members of the OPPA executive (the “Executive”) -- acquired shares of a travel agency company. Prior to the purchase, the Lawyer promised to contribute, if necessary, $30,000 from fees earned from his consulting company towards the Executive’s purchase of shares. Ultimately, the Lawyer did not contribute consulting fees to the Executive’s purchase of shares. However, at the time of purchase of the travel agency’s shares, the Lawyer and the Executive neither disclosed nor obtained the prior consent of the entire OPPA Board for the transaction. In November 2014, after the share purchase, OPPA members were directed to use the travel agency for all their travel arrangements. On February 2, 2015, the Lawyer disclosed to the OPPA Office Manager that he was part owner of the travel agency and involved in its management. In March 2015, further to the execution of RCMP search warrants, the Lawyer and the Executive’s ownership interest in the travel agency became public.
The Committee and the Lawyer also reviewed the subsequent criminal and disciplinary history of this matter. In June 2016, criminal charges for fraud over $5,000 were laid against, inter alia: the Lawyer and the Executive. In August 2016, the Law Society was court ordered to put its investigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. On November 9, 2016, the Law Society obtained an interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer’s license. On June 6, 2017, the Law Society Tribunal’s Appeal Division dismissed the Lawyer’s appeal of the interlocutory suspension of his license.
In September 2019, the criminal trial began. During the trial, the Executive testified that they bought their shares for the benefit of the OPPA (i.e. OPPA to eventually become part owner of travel agency servicing its members). They also testified that it was their goal to sell their shares at cost to the OPPA once the travel agency had proven its ability to meet the needs of OPPA members. The Lawyer testified that it was his goal from the outset to partner with the OPPA and not the Executive given the temporary nature of their positions. The Lawyer and Executive testified, inter alia, that it was their intention to disclose their ownership interest to the entire OPPA Board by no later than the May 2015 meeting of the OPPA’s board. While the Lawyer did reveal to the OPPA Office Manager on February 2, 2015 that he was part owner of the travel agency and involved in its management; during the trial, both the Lawyer and the Executive admitted that for strategic reasons they did not disclose their ownership interest in the travel agency to the entire OPPA Board prior to the execution of the search warrants in March 2015.
In November 2019, a jury acquitted the Lawyer and the Executive of the criminal charge. The Crown did not appeal the acquittal. As a result, on February 4, 2020, further to the Lawyer’s motion and with the Law Society’s consent, the Law Society Tribunal cancelled the interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer’s license. Upon the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the Law Society reactivated its investigation into the Lawyer’s conduct.
Throughout the course of this matter, the Lawyer fully cooperated with the Law Society. He self-reported, submitted responses during the ongoing investigation. Since the cancellation of the interlocutory suspension of his license, the Lawyer has practiced without restrictions.
After discussion of the foregoing, the Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations under the Rules. In particular, the Committee reminded the Lawyer that he that he ought to have been reasonably aware that the OPPA considered itself privy to the solicitor-client relationship under the LAP program given his close relationship with the OPPA from 2002-2015. The Committee also reminded him that he must disclose his personal interest to his client, recommend ILA and obtain his client’s prior consent before proceeding with a transaction involving his client. In addition, the Lawyer was reminded that if he is in a position of trust or in a fiduciary relationship vis-à-vis another person and enters into a transaction with that person; then he should disclose his personal interest, recommend ILA and obtain that person’s prior consent, even if he is entering into the transaction in a personal or private capacity in relation to an interest outside the practice of law.
Given his relationship with the OPPA, the Lawyer acknowledged he should have ensured from the outset that all members of the OPPA Board – and not just the Executive – were clearly and fully informed in a timely fashion of his role in the consulting company and the travel agency.
The Lawyer assured the Committee that there is no risk of a repetition of such conduct again; moreover, he has no intention of engaging any future entrepreneurial ventures with former or current clients while being engaged in the practice of law.
The Committee agreed that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that it had appropriately addressed regulatory issues arising from the Law Society’s investigation and there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(The Lawyer attended with his counsel, Nadia Liva)