Admitted Discipline Violations

Hearing date:  December 16, 2011
Written submissions received:  February 24, 2012 and February 28, 2012
Panel:  David Mossop, QC, Chair, Paula M. Cayley, James E. Dorsey, QC

Counsel for the Law Society:  Henry C. Wood, QC
Counsel for the Applicant:  Richard Lindsay, QC and Colleen O'Neill (Articled Student)

overview

[1] This is a credentials hearing. The Applicant, Michael Grant Gayman, requests readmission to the Law Society of British Columbia, as a barrister and solicitor. The Applicant was disbarred by a hearing panel of the Law Society on May 6, 1999. The basis for disbarment was conduct unbecoming a lawyer. Specifically, the Applicant, acting as a trustee, knowingly breached a trust instrument resulting in a loss of approximately one million dollars to some 20 investors.

[2] However, this is more than a credentials hearing. It is the story of a human journey. The Applicant had a promising legal career, but he made a serious mistake and was disbarred for it. The Applicant has tried to rehabilitate himself ever since. This story is told within the background of substance abuse, primarily alcoholism. It is a story of a man who gradually permitted alcohol to become the centre of his life and lost everything. At one stage of his alcoholism, the Applicant was drunk and was crawling in the slush on a winter’s day in Fort McMurray. This is a sad story.

[3] This is also an uplifting story, for the Applicant obtained help from the Salvation Army and has been sober for about nine years at the time of this decision.

[4] The disbarment of a lawyer is a form of capital punishment, which the Law Society uses in the most serious of cases. However, resurrection is possible, though it is a rare event. In other words, a disbarred lawyer can be reinstated.

[5] The two major questions facing this Panel are:

(a) Under what circumstances may a disbarred lawyer be reinstated? and

(b) Have the circumstances been met in this case?

[6] This Panel has decided that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Applicant should be reinstated, but only under strict conditions.

Facts

[7] This journey begins on February 15, 1951, when Mr. Gayman was born in Vancouver. He was not brought up by his natural parents. He was adopted into a middle class family living in the Dunbar area. His adopted father was a doctor. His adopted mother was trained as a school teacher, though she spent most of her time looking after Mr. Gayman and his adopted siblings.

[8] By all accounts, Mr. Gayman had a happy childhood. He was placed in an accelerated program in elementary school and completed grades 4, 5 and 6 in two years. In other words, he skipped a grade. He is still proud of this accomplishment.

[9] Mr. Gayman entered high school when he was of a young age. This caused some problems. Mr. Gayman felt he did not fit in at high school, and in fact, he did not fit in until he reached grade 11. At that time he had become an excellent rugby player. He had also been elected to the student council.

[10] In grade 12, Mr. Gayman remained on the honour roll of his high school. However, he began to lose interest in school.

[11] At this time, Mr. Gayman began to drink perhaps a couple of beers on social occasions. His parents and school personnel were concerned about his behaviour. However, he graduated from high school with honours.

[12] At this point in his life, Mr. Gayman showed a great deal of potential and promise. However, at the same time, there were indications in his life that he may turn in the wrong direction. These competing forces were pulling on Mr. Gayman in different directions, at this time and for the rest of his life.

[13] Mr. Gayman was accepted as an undergraduate at UBC. He became involved in the social life, including playing bridge and pool. Mr. Gayman also began to use marijuana. Mr. Gayman’s academic performance took a nose dive. He limped through first year and did not complete second year. He dropped out of UBC.

[14] Mr. Gayman began working at logging camps up and down the coast of British Columbia. He was drinking during this period of time and continued to use marijuana and hash when he was not working at the camps.

[15] Mr. Gayman worked at the logging camps for about three years, and then, around the age of 21, he returned to post-secondary education and picked up some credits.

[16] Mr. Gayman’s next significant job was working as a waiter at the Keg and Cleaver in Richmond, later known as the Boathouse. He found that he could make a great deal of money, and he had access to an unlimited supply of free liquor. At this point in time he became a heavy drinker, and his tolerance for alcohol became high.

[17] At this job, Mr. Gayman met his future wife, a cocktail waitress. In 1974, at 23 years of age, Mr. Gayman married in Vancouver.

[18] The couple continued working at the Keg. Their first child was born in 1976. Then the couple had two more children.

[19] Ultimately, Mr. Gayman obtained a BA in psychology and graduated from UBC Law School.

Early Legal Career

[20] Mr. Gayman articled with a distinguished downtown law firm. He was called to the Bar on May 12, 1980.

[21] Early on he was approached by Bill McDonald, a prominent lawyer, to be an associate with his firm. Ultimately, Mr. Gayman became a partner and the firm expanded to five associates. The firm became quite successful.

[22] At this point in his life journey, Mr. Gayman looked forward to a profitable and successful legal career. Of more importance, he had a wonderful family.

[23] However, he found early on that drinking was very much part of the business of practising law.

Breach of Trust

[24] Mr. Gayman had been called to the Bar for about four years when a high school friend approached him about acting as a trustee. The high school friend introduced him to SP, principal of a research company. It should be noted that at this time Mr. Gayman had practised almost exclusively in the area of employment law. He had limited knowledge of trust and tax law. However, Mr. Gayman agreed to take on the position of a trustee.

[25] Another lawyer had drawn up the trust agreement, and this lawyer was someone for whom Mr. Gayman had a great deal of respect. That lawyer, however, was not available to act as trustee. Although it is not totally clear, it seems the lawyer was going to be out of town for the relevant period of time.

[26] Even though the matter was outside Mr. Gayman’s area of expertise, he agreed to act as trustee. As Mr. Gayman stated in his testimony, he was dazzled by the prospect of being trustee of a complicated scheme of over one million dollars.

[27] This scheme or trust was set up to take advantage of the Scientific Research Tax Credit (SRTC), then in existence under the Income Tax Act. Some of these schemes were valid; others were found out to be scams or fraudulent in nature. At the time Mr. Gayman agreed to act as trustee, he had no reason to question the validity of the scheme.

[28] The Trust Agreement, to which Mr. Gayman was a party, obliged him to hold approximately one million dollars as trustee on specific terms and conditions set out in the Agreement. The essence of the Agreement was that, if the purchasers of the tax credit were unable to obtain the tax advantages intended, the trustee would disburse the funds to Revenue Canada. Alternatively, the trustee would disburse the funds to the research company in accordance with the requirements of the Income Tax Act on documented proof that the expenditures were permitted under the Act such that the purchasers would receive the tax benefit. Once Mr. Gayman had been appointed trustee, SP immediately approached him. SP wanted approximately $350,000 to be disbursed to the company immediately. He proposed this despite the requirement of the Trust Agreement that such funds should not be released until some important documentation was in place.

[29] However, SP was able to convince Mr. Gayman, even though Mr. Gayman knew this was in breach of the Trust Agreement. SP basically said the documents were forthcoming and the money was needed immediately. Mr. Gayman released $350,000 to the research company.

[30] Shortly thereafter, the same SP informed Mr. Gayman that he had lost the $350,000 on unauthorized expenditures, either in the stock market or other investments. SP asked Mr. Gayman to release the remainder of the funds.

[31] Mr. Gayman panicked and advanced the funds to the research company in the vain hope the funds could be restored in their entirety. He knew what he was doing was in breach of the Trust Agreement; however, he went ahead with it anyway. SP and the accountant involved in the Trust Agreement fled the jurisdiction. It seems they were in cahoots, and the scheme was fraudulent in nature.

[32] As it turned out, the SRTC was disallowed. Revenue Canada concluded the scheme was fraudulent.

[33] The various purchasers of the tax credit were denied deductibility of the monies that they had expended to purchase the tax credit. Further, the inappropriate disbursement of funds by Mr. Gayman caused the purchasers to lose the back-up or security that had been structured into the Agreement to protect them in the event the scheme was not approved by Revenue Canada or should there otherwise be a failure on the part of the research company to perform some obligations under the terms of the tax credit purchase.

[34] Mr. Gayman, in his testimony in front of this hearing panel, explained his behaviour at this point in time in the following way:

A … It was a high school friend of mine who advised me of this thing. He indicated that all the documentation was -- the scheme had been drawn up. He named the lawyer that had been involved in the -- in the preparation. It was someone I knew professionally and someone I respected. And I was told that this person could not be there for the closing. That he had to be out of town on something and they needed somebody who could stand in as trustee and could I do it as trustee.

It was basically outside of the area of my practice. And it had nothing to do with labour relations and employment law. And I offered to do it. And I may have been a little bit dazzled by the thought of, you know, being the trustee of this complicated scheme and -- let’s face it, a million dollars is an awful lot of money today. It was a lot more then. …

And SP came to me and said what they needed was to set up a line of credit in order to finance some of the purchases that were being made to facilitate the affairs of the company. The business operation that would qualify for this. And he indicated that the accountant, HD, wasn’t available and would be back shortly and if I would be prepared to basically transfer some of the trust funds from Swiss Bank Core, which is where the funds were held, to the Royal Bank of Canada.

And, as all of the reports show, I agreed to do that. And I knew, at the time, I did not have the necessary documentation for the release. I acknowledge that.

Q Then what happened following the second release?

A At some point in the New Year, so 1985, SP told me that he had lost the funds on investments that were not authorized investments. … And I basically -- I lost it. I was beside myself. In my mind I saw -- and I should say, also, HD, the accountant, hadn’t shown up in between the time I made the initial advance on the expectation that he would return and provide me with the necessary certificates. And by then SP told me that he lost the funds.

So HD has disappeared. And I’m realizing that I’ve made a horrendous mistake. And I don’t mind saying I saw everything I had crashing down. I lost it. I panicked. I didn’t release the balance of the funds immediately. But when I say, “I lost it,” I was beside myself and drinking insanely, and, you know --

Q How long had you been called to the bar before this happened?

A A little over four years.

Q So you now panic and –

A I basically --

Q What then happens with SP?

A I basically said to him, “Well, you’ve got to get it back.” “You’ve got to get this back.” And I advanced the rest of the funds.

I think in hindsight I’ve realized that it wasn’t just the -- the hope that he could restore the trust funds. It was, in part, just a desire to be completely out of it. You know, I -- I was sickened by the whole thing. As I said, I saw my whole life crashing down and losing everything I had. And I think that was -- at least, initially, I said, “You have to get this money back.” And I decided that I was sticking my head in the sand. And I wanted to be out of it. And then, of course, it just hung like a Sword of Damocles over my head.

The World Comes Crashing Down

[35] Three forces began to come down upon Mr. Gayman. They were the investors, the Law Society and his dependency on alcohol.

[36] The investors in the SRTC began making inquiries of Mr. Gayman. He basically ignored these inquiries and failed to respond.

[37] The investors even sent a letter of complaint to Mr. Gayman’s partner. His partner told Mr. Gayman to take care of it. Mr. Gayman did not.

[38] In 1991, Mr. Gayman was served with a Writ of Summons by the investors near the end of the limitation period. Judgment was ultimately obtained against Mr. Gayman.

[39] The Law Society did not know of any of these events until late December of 1992, when a lawyer lodged a complaint against Mr. Gayman with the Law Society.

[40] Mr. Gayman again tried to ignore the problem. He failed to give any substantial response to the requests of the Law Society for over two years.

[41] Ultimately, Mr. Gayman was cited for professional misconduct, namely failure to respond to the Law Society. A hearing was held.

[42] The panel held that Mr. Gayman had engaged in professional misconduct by failing to respond to letters from the Law Society.

[43] Mr. Gayman was ordered to:

(a) pay a fine of $3,000; and

(b) pay costs of $1,750.

[44] Mr. Gayman was also reprimanded.

[45] The full facts are set out in Law Society of BC v. Gayman, [1995] LSDD No. 159.

[46] Mr. Gayman did not renew his membership in the Law Society for 1996, and he ceased to be a member as of January 1, 1996.

[47] Ultimately, a citation was issued by the Law Society against Mr. Gayman for breach of trust.

[48] A hearing panel was convened in 1999. The panel held Mr. Gayman’s behaviour in breaching the trust was “conduct unbecoming a lawyer” under the Legal Profession Act. The panel was particularly concerned about the second disbursement of funds (approximately $650,000). The panel ordered Mr. Gayman’s disbarment as of May 6, 1999. The full text of the decision is found in Law Society of BC v. Gayman, [1999] LSDD No. 35.

Alcoholism and Drug Addiction

[49] Mr. Gayman had always been a frequent user/consumer of alcoholic beverages. As stated earlier, he started drinking in high school. Over time, he developed a high tolerance for alcohol. However, after the breach of trust, his drinking intensified.

[50] At the time of the breach, Mr. Gayman testified that he was drinking a fair amount. At another point in his testimony, he stated he was drinking “insanely” at the time of the second breach.

[51] In an expert report filed by Dr. Ray Baker, the doctor states that, by age 30, Mr. Gayman was a heavy drinker, consuming up to 26 ounces per day.

[52] After he ceased to practise law as of January 1, 1996, Mr. Gayman attempted various jobs including self-employment.

[53] In 1997, he worked for a BC furnace service company as a dispatcher. He was able to advance within the company with more responsibilities. However, his income was minimal. To satisfy his increasing demand for alcohol, he would scrounge for bottles and return them for cash to pay for drinks. In addition, to make ends meet, he would pick up cigarette butts from the sidewalk and use them.

[54] The company was aware of his drinking problem. However, they kept him on as he could do the job. Mr. Gayman was a “functioning alcoholic”.

[55] In 2001, Mr. Gayman obtained a new job at B Ltd. Again, he was given more and more responsibility. He became Operations Manager. Although his drinking intensified, he was able to do the job. B Ltd., however, went out of business near the end of 2002.

[56] At the beginning of 2002, Mr. Gayman’s mother died. He attempted to stop drinking. In the same year, his father died. Shortly after his father’s death, he started drinking heavily again. Alcoholics may attempt to cease drinking more than once before they are successful. Therefore, Mr. Gayman’s failure at this point in time is not surprising. In addition, this is not the first time Mr. Gayman attempted to quit drinking. He attempted to quit drinking in his first year of law school. Again, he failed.

[57] Mr. Gayman did attend some meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in the mid 1980s to the late 1980s. However, he did not follow through. In addition, he did make contact with Interlock Member’s Assistance Program. This program helps lawyers and their families with problems, including alcohol problems. Again, he was not ready to follow through. As Mr. Gayman stated during his testimony about his attempts to stop drinking:

What I didn’t understand was that I was powerless over alcohol and that it was bigger than me. So I kept thinking I could handle it. And I kept thinking next time will be different. And that was my insanity. I kept doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So, for me, I had to hit a very low bottom before I asked for help.

[58] In March 2003, Mr. Gayman moved to Fort McMurray with his new wife to make a fresh start. His first marriage had long since ended on account of his alcoholism. His new wife worked at a bakery shop at Safeway. He got a job at Wal-Mart stocking shelves during the nightshift at $12 per hour. This is a far cry from the hourly rate he charged when he was a practising member of the profession.

[59] However, his drinking continued, and his attempts to have a fresh start were therefore doomed to fail. His new wife left him shortly thereafter. This is another broken relationship during his journey.

Low Point

Wine hath drowned more men than the sea.

Thomas Fuller

[60] During the last night of Mr. Gayman’s stay in Fort McMurray, a low point was reached. Mr. Gayman described this low point as follows:

And I have a memory that I hope I never lose which is my last night in Fort McMurray. And, of course, I had way too much to drink. But I was -- I was crawling along the sidewalk, which was covered in frozen slush and I was pushing my briefcase ahead of me because it was too heavy to carry. And, you know, it was symbolically the last vestige of my legal career. So, as I say, I don’t want to lose that memory because I don’t want to go back there.

Turning Point

[61] In April 2003, Mr. Gayman came back to Vancouver from Fort McMurray. He described the turning point in his life:

Well, I’ve come back from Fort McMurray. And I was staying at my sister’s, briefly. I explored a couple of old acquaintances for job possibilities. And nothing was there. And I was sitting one night in my sister’s kitchen. And she would let me to drink a little bit of wine and she would drink scotch. And we were talking about my children. And I basically broke down and said to her, “Take me to a psych ward. Take me to detox. I just want the pain to go away.” So that would be the turning point.

So, you know, we were raised on the west side. And she thought the psych ward was -- had more cachet than detox. So we went out to UBC Hospital to try and get me admitted. The psych ward was full, but they took me to emergency. I was there for four or five days. It was full too. So I -- I bounced around from a bed here. And one night I slept on a foamy in the storeroom.

I obviously met with doctors and psychiatrists. And after the night there, a new psychiatrist came to me and said, “Well, look, the psych ward is still full. You can see the emergency is full. You’ve had a few days to clear your head. You can go home.”

And I said to him, “I didn’t come here to clear my head. I came here because I was going to kill myself.”

And somehow they were able to find a bed for me to stay that night and, much more fortunately, they were able to secure a bed for me in the Harbour Light Detox the next day.

Rehabilitation

[62] Since April 11, 2003, the day he went into the Harbour Light Detox program run by the Salvation Army, Mr. Gayman has not consumed alcohol.

[63] The Salvation Army Detox Program and other programs saved Mr. Gayman’s physical and moral life. However, these programs could not have achieved this unless Mr. Gayman was truly ready to change. He was.

[64] The Detox Program is a residential program lasting five to ten days. The purpose is to deal with the physical effects of withdrawal from alcohol consumption.

[65] During his stay in the Detox Program, Mr. Gayman learned about other programs available for alcoholics. His life changed from one of despair to one of hope.

[66] The rehab program is a twelve-step program. In phase one, the participants operate a food line. They prepare ten meals a week for the community and serve about 400 people a week.

[67] In the second phase, there is a life skills program. These life skills include resume writing, looking for work, personal hygiene and nutrition.

[68] Phase three is a supportive care program. Participants are allowed to stay in residence for about a year if they are looking for work and going to school.

[69] Mr. Gayman sailed through these three phases and began looking for work. He also began thinking about what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. During his testimony, Mr. Gayman described his thinking as follows:

I was looking for work. And I remember having an interview with the Surrey School Board for a Senior Human Resources Officer, manager’s position responsible for the non-teaching unionized staff. And I’m not saying they would have given me the job or not, but in the middle of the interview I realized I didn’t want it, and what I wanted to do is work at Harbour Light, even if it was working on the front desk as a desk attendant. I -- I wanted to be a piece in the puzzle that made up the big picture of the services that they provide.

[70] Fortunately, the Salvation Army saw great potential in Mr. Gayman. The Salvation Army offered him a job as assistant manager of their corrections program. He accepted.

[71] Since that day, Mr. Gayman has been employed by the Salvation Army in various positions and has moved up the corporate ladder in that organization.

[72] In March 2005, Mr. Gayman was promoted to manager of emergency shelters. This included two and a half shelters. The half refers to the additional shelter opened up during the cold weather. He had additional responsibilities for the front desk and security staff. In September 2005, the Salvation Army allowed Mr. Gayman to enter into a contract promoted with BC Housing. He became an extreme weather coordinator for the Vancouver area. This required him to put into place contingency plans for additional shelters when the weather became extreme.

[73] In 2007, Mr. Gayman took on additional responsibility as a worker in the human resources department of the Salvation Army.

[74] Finally, in July 2010, the Salvation Army asked Mr. Gayman to become director of labour relations. This was a new position. At the same time, he ceased his managerial responsibilities with the Salvation Army of BC, and he ceased his position as cold weather coordinator.

[75] In his present position as director, Mr. Gayman is responsible for 180 people. Mr. Gayman has come a long way in his life journey. At a low point, he was crawling, drunk, in the slush in Fort McMurray dragging his briefcase. Now, he is in a senior management position with one of the most prominent NGOs in Canada.

Reconnecting with the Legal Profession

[76] During this painful journey, Mr. Gayman intentionally disconnected from fellow members of the legal profession. This is understandable because he had been disbarred.

[77] However, that began to change in the spring of 2006. Mr. Gayman took counselling at Vancouver Community College. He hoped the course would make him a better manager at the Salvation Army.

[78] During this time, Mr. Gayman decided he wanted to “give back”. He began contacting members of the legal profession.

[79] Mr. Gayman ended up in contact with the accountability group of the Lawyers Assistance Program, which exists for people who are dealing with substance abuse and involves group meetings, which are attended either on a voluntary basis or as a result of a monitoring agreement put in place by the Law Society or employers.

[80] The group includes alcoholic lawyers who are at various stages of recovery. The group welcomed Mr. Gayman with open arms. Later, Mr. Gayman was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Western Recovery Foundation. That organization holds real estate assets for three residential properties where the Turning Point Society runs recovery houses that care for alcoholics and drug addicts. Mr. Gayman also sits on the Board of Directors of the Turning Point Society.

Reconnecting with his Family

[81] Mr. Gayman has re-established a relationship with his family. In his testimony Mr. Gayman said the following:

It’s much easier for me to address all the things I did wrong than it is to acknowledge the gifts that I had from recovery.

First and foremost, is to have my children back in my life. You know, I – I lost everything I had and I regained a good portion of it. And then I lost all of that again. And, you know, I – my children had, in essence, written me off once. And I regained their love and affection. And then I lost that again. So to have it now is precious.

Why Does the Applicant want Reinstatement

[82] Mr. Gayman explained it this way:

… Well, as I said earlier, you know, the idea of applying for reinstatement was formulated after I took an introductory counselling course. It’s been a long time in the making to get here. To some extent, my objective changed. I made a mistake a long time ago, and I compounded that. And then I ran from that. And, of course, I hid from it using alcohol and drugs. I hurt a lot of people in the process. It took a tremendous toll on me. I’ve had a lot of help to get to where I am now. And I’d like to acknowledge that. I’d like to acknowledge everybody in this room starting with Mr. Lindsay and Ms. O’Neil and what they have done on my behalf. …

… When I was avoiding the Law Society with a view to maintaining my right to practise prior to being disbarred so I could continue to feed my children, I didn’t give any thought to the Law Society or the legal profession whatsoever. I was concerned only about myself. And I, quite frankly, looked at it more as what the Law Society was doing to me, rather than what I was doing to the Law Society or the legal profession. As I said, I had committed, as far as I was concerned, the ultimate breach of faith that a lawyer could do. But I looked at the Law Society as -- I wouldn’t say persecuting me, but hounding me of something that I was trying to forget and put behind me.

It’s two-fold. Firstly, it’s the last step in a process where I can hopefully achieve closure of what is obviously the most significant event in my life, and, hopefully, finally forgive myself for that. The other aspect is to come here to the Law Society and say I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the time and trouble I caused everybody. And I’m sorry for the disrepute that I brought upon the legal profession in the process. I didn’t see it then. I see it now. And I thank you for hearing my application.

[83] Mr. Gayman, in pursuit of his goal of re-establishing a relationship with lawyers and the Law Society, had a comprehensive medical report prepared on his addiction issued by Dr. Baker. An updated medical report was also filed with the Panel.

[84] Dr. Baker found that Mr. Gayman met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol and cocaine dependency. He further stated that he is uncertain whether or not Mr. Gayman met the sufficient criteria to make the diagnosis for a marijuana dependency.

[85] Dr. Baker also found that the alcohol dependency, the cocaine dependency and the marijuana abuse or dependency were in sustained remission.

[86] Dr. Baker made these comments that are of some importance:

Mr. Gayman appears to have achieved a dramatic recovery from serious substance dependence …

Avoidance, procrastination and poor judgment are fairly stereotypical manifestations of alcoholism and other drug dependencies, especially during later stages when use of the drug or drugs is steady and excessive …

I believe he would be capable of performing duties that were highly responsible, safety-sensitive or safety-critical. Before clearing him medically for such duties, however, I would require several things.

[87] It is of some significance that Mr. Gayman has no specific plans as far as the practice of law. Most individuals seeking reinstatement have a specific plan in place. They plan to practise. They may want to practise on their own or they may hope to go with a specific law firm. Mr. Gayman in this case, both in his original application to the Law Society and his testimony in front of this Panel, indicated he did not have a specific plan. The Panel then raised the issue as to whether the Panel had the jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of Mr. Gayman as a non-practising member. Submissions were received. The Panel has decided it does not have to make a decision on this issue. The conditions agreed by the parties address the concerns of the Panel. Any place where Mr. Gayman wants to practise law has to be approved by the Credentials Committee. Also, Mr. Gayman will be supervised for a period of time.

Cocaine Use

[88] Mr. Gayman’s misuse of cocaine did not last as long as his misuse of alcohol.

[89] Mr. Gayman was introduced to cocaine in the mid 1970s. However, he did not start using cocaine regularly until the mid or late 1980s. Mr. Gayman stopped using cocaine in the early 1990s.

[90] Mr. Gayman, in his testimony, indicated that he was not using cocaine at the time of the breach of trust.

ISSUES

[91] In credentials hearings, it is traditional for the Law Society to submit a written statement. This written statement sets out the concerns that the Law Society has about the applicant. This was done in this case. Those concerns are:

(a) the circumstances leading up to the order by a hearing panel in January 1999 that the Applicant be disbarred for a breach of trust conditions involving the improper payment out of one million dollars over the course of two separate distributions, the latter of which occurred when he had full knowledge that preconditions had not been met;

(b) the Applicant’s failures to respond to Law Society correspondence and inquiries in the course of the Law Society’s investigation of the breach of trust matter;

(c) his assignment in bankruptcy on February 18, 2005;

(d) his failure to obey a court order, which he disclosed in response to question D9 of his application for reinstatement; and

(e) his medical fitness, which pertains to his history of both drug (cocaine) and alcohol dependency. A comprehensive medical assessment conducted by Dr. Baker in 2008 provides extensive background.

ANALYSIS

Law on Good Character