Penticton lawyer disciplined

[exFarmerS]

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/news/ ... 957ab.html

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#140315


A fine?! He only got a fine?! This is appalling. The first will was wrong but having the second will written clearly showed that he KNEW it was wrong.

[Bsuds]

Chances are good the law society will pull his license too. So he will be out of business. Not that anyone would go to him anymore anyway.

[fluffy]

Gee, he was just following his son's example by voting himself a raise. Doesn't everybody get to do that ?

[twobits]

Chances are good the law society will pull his license too. So he will be out of business. Not that anyone would go to him anymore anyway.

The law society just fined him. If they were going to pull his license, they would have done at the same time they levied the fine.

[youhavegottobekidding]

I would dare say this is "criminal" and his license should be pulled, no ifs and or buts.

[Liquidnails]

That's pretty scummy.

[Logitack]

The Law Society of BC is the regulatory body for the BC legal profession. Guided by the Legal Profession Act, the Society licenses individuals to practice law in BC, hears complaints regarding the conduct of lawyers, and administers discipline, when appropriate.

The Discipline Committee reviews complaints concerning lawyers or articled students that are referred by Law Society staff, the Complainants' Review Committee or any other committee. The Discipline Committee may dismiss a complaint, instruct staff to make further investigation, order a conduct review of a lawyer or recommend that a citation for a formal hearing be issued against a lawyer. The Committee also considers conditional admissions of discipline violations. - See more at: http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?ci ... OY5nb.dpuf

interesting that the law society is formed by lawyers to discipline other lawyers. no wonder the so called discipline action taken against this lawyer was meaningless and lenient.

such malfeasance should have resulted in immediate expulsion from the law society and loss of license.

[ToddT]

now the question is, is this a negative business review? Semantics...

[onestop67]

Now, I do know Charlie. And only in a professional setting.

I realize what he did, appears to be wrong. But don't miss the part of the story that the lady in question is nuts. She was committed and Charlie did get her released. Once she was released, a new lawyer sent him a "no contact" order. I'd be looking at that new lawyers intentions, before Charlie's.

Maybe she did want to give him a part of her estate, once she passed? Maybe she appreciated things he did for her?

His only admitted mistake was preparing the Will of a client that named him as one of the beneficiaries, and then changed the beneficiary to his wifes name, because he realized the conflict. Kind of shady work, but hardly criminal.

[exFarmerS]

It doesn't have to be criminal to be disbarred. What he did was unethical.

If a client wants to leave you money when you're their lawyer, you refuse. You encourage them to give it to relatives or to charity. You do not ever profit from a client relationship. If you do, you're unethical.

[onestop67]

It doesn't have to be criminal to be disbarred. What he did was unethical.

If a client wants to leave you money when you're their lawyer, you refuse. You encourage them to give it to relatives or to charity. You do not ever profit from a client relationship. If you do, you're unethical.

Yes, you refuse, and then you tell them to talk to another lawyer, before they make their decision, Maybe he did give her those suggestions.

How do you know that they didn't have a personal relationship? It may have not been just a lawyer/client relationship.

[exFarmerS]

How do you know that they didn't have a personal relationship? It may have not been just a lawyer/client relationship.

If they did, she should have had another lawyer.

[twobits]

How do you know that they didn't have a personal relationship? It may have not been just a lawyer/client relationship.

If they did, she should have had another lawyer.

So according to your strict rules of fiduciary responsibility, a lawyer could not even draft a will for his/her own parents if proper disclosure is made to all potential beneficiaries of the estate? Just asking.
And if you think that would be ok, what is the difference if they are non related but there was proper disclosure to all potential beneficiaries? As far as I am concerned, the mistake that Charlie made was not including a statement in the will that he drafted the will and was also a named beneficiary. That would disclose to anyone who might have an interest that they might have grounds to challenge the will if they thought the estate was being unfairly distributed.

[exFarmerS]

I think the simplest thing, if everything was truly above board, would be to say "Mrs Smith, that is SO lovely that you want to leave me money but just to make things all look kosher, let's send you to the lawyer down the road to draw up that will". And then to compound it with the second will trying to hide it all made it worse.

I used to have to spend a lot of time explaining to people what a conflict of interest is/was. And a big part of that training was also to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. The easiest way to explain it was to say "What if this appeared on the front of the newspaper? Would it look fine or would it make a lot of people doubt your ethics?". It doesn't matter if you're a public official and your brother-in-law is the best guy to give the contract to. It doesn't look good so you should bring in a 3rd party to make the final determination.

So I don't care if you're a lawyer, a cop, a health care worker, an accountant, a public servant, or a judge. You should abide by a code of ethics that the average Joe that doesn't deal with people's lives/money may not need. Although I think everyone should have a moral code that would see this as an unwise thing to do.

[twobits]

I think the simplest thing, if everything was truly above board, would be to say "Mrs Smith, that is SO lovely that you want to leave me money but just to make things all look kosher, let's send you to the lawyer down the road to draw up that will". And then to compound it with the second will trying to hide it all made it worse.

I used to have to spend a lot of time explaining to people what a conflict of interest is/was. And a big part of that training was also to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. The easiest way to explain it was to say "What if this appeared on the front of the newspaper? Would it look fine or would it make a lot of people doubt your ethics?". It doesn't matter if you're a public official and your brother-in-law is the best guy to give the contract to. It doesn't look good so you should bring in a 3rd party to make the final determination.

So I don't care if you're a lawyer, a cop, a health care worker, an accountant, a public servant, or a judge. You should abide by a code of ethics that the average Joe that doesn't deal with people's lives/money may not need. Although I think everyone should have a moral code that would see this as an unwise thing to do.

Yes, and that moral code would have been satisfied by the simple disclosure that the preparer of the will was also a beneficiary. In the end it is all about proper disclosure is it not? It is not unlike the requirement of a real estate agent to disclose a personal interest in a listing of property. It's a "heads up" to anyone that might be interested.