Complaints, Lawyer Discipline and Public Hearings

 

Citation issued: May 11, 2018

Tova Grace Kornfeld

Citations are authorized by the Law Society of BC's Discipline Committee and list allegations against a lawyer that will be considered at a discipline hearing. Please note that allegations in a citation are unproven until a discipline hearing panel has determined their validity.

Nature of conduct to be inquired into:

1.  In or about November and December 2013, in the course of representing P Ltd. with respect to its purchase of real property, you did one or more of the following: 

(a)  acted in a conflict of interest contrary to one or more of rules 3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.4-5 and Appendix C, paragraph 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia (the "BC Code") by representing lenders to P Ltd. in the same transaction including one or more of C Ltd., RK and Kornfeld & Co;

(b)  lent money to P Ltd., contrary to rule 3.4-34 of the BC Code;

 (c)  entered into a transaction with P Ltd. by lending it money when P Ltd. did not have independent legal representation with respect to the transaction or had not consented to it, contrary to rule 3.4-28 of the BC Code; and

(d)  caused C Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, to enter into a transaction with P Ltd. by lending it money and allowed P Ltd. to enter into that transaction with C Ltd. when you had not:

 (i)  disclosed and explained the nature of the conflicting interest in the transaction;

 (ii)  recommended and required that P Ltd. receive independent legal advice; or

 (iii)  obtained P. Ltd.'s consent,

 contrary to rule 3.4-29 of the BC Code.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.

2.  In or about December 2013, in the course of representing DF with respect to her sale and purchase of real property, you did one or more of the following:

 (a)  acted in a conflict of interest contrary to one or more of rules 3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.4-5 and Appendix C, paragraph 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia (the "BC Code") by representing lenders to DF in the same transaction including one or both of C Ltd. and Kornfeld & Company;

 (b)  lent money to DF, contrary to rule 3.4-34 of the BC Code;

 (c)  entered into a transaction with DF by lending her money when DF did not have independent legal representation with respect to the transaction or had not consented to it, contrary to rule 3.4-28 of the BC Code; and

 (d)  caused C Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, to enter into a transaction with DF by lending her money and allowed DF to enter into that transaction with C Ltd. when you had not:

 (i)  disclosed and explained the nature of the conflicting interest in the transaction;

 (ii)  recommended and required that DF receive independent legal advice; or

 (iii)  obtained DF's consent,

 contrary to rule 3.4-29 of the BC Code.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.

3.  In or about June and July 2014, in the course of representing AD with respect to her sale and purchase of real property, you did one or more of the following:

 (a)  acted in a conflict of interest contrary to one or more of rules 3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.4-5 and Appendix C, paragraph 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia (the "BC Code") by representing lenders to AD in the same transaction including one or more of C Ltd., RK and Kornfeld & Company;

 (b)  lent money to AD, contrary to rule 3.4-34 of the BC Code;

 (c)  entered into a transaction with AD by lending her money, when AD did not have independent legal representation with respect to the transaction or had not consented to it contrary to rule 3.4-28 of the BC Code; and

 (d)  caused C Ltd., a corporation in which you had an interest, to enter into a transaction with AD by lending her money and allowed AD to enter into that transaction with C Ltd. when you had not:

 (i)  disclosed and explained the nature of the conflicting interest in the transaction;

 (ii)  recommended and required that AD receive independent legal advice; or

 (iii)  obtained AD's consent,

 contrary to rule 3.4-29 of the BC Code.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.