[27] The Applicant gave evidence on his behalf in support of his application for admission and call, both in the form of oral evidence and in the form of a letter written by and on his own behalf. The Applicant was cross-examined by counsel for the Law Society.
[28] Having completed his elementary and high school education in Port Alberni, Richmond and Vancouver, the Applicant commenced and completed his undergraduate degree at the University of British Columbia.
[29] The Applicant received a scholarship to attend Dalhousie Law School and completed his legal training there from 1974 to 1978.
[30] After a brief delay in commencing his articles, the Applicant was called to the bar of Nova Scotia in 1980.
[31] The Applicant practised continuously in Nova Scotia without incident or complaint for approximately 20 years. His practice dealt primarily with criminal matters, legal aid matters, and family law.
[32] After a formal hearing in 2000, the hearing panel of the Discipline Subcommittee of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society concluded that the Applicant had assisted a former client with the purchase of crack cocaine, used crack cocaine with the client and had sexual relations with that client.
[33] As a result, the Applicant was found guilty of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a barrister, for which he was ultimately suspended from practising law in Nova Scotia for 18 months. Conditions of reinstatement included:
(a) submitting to a drug dependency assessment; and
(b) submitting a mental health report showing that he was not suffering from any mental health disorder.
[34] The Applicant denied the client’s allegations and appealed the decision of the Nova Scotia hearing panel to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.
[35] In January 2001 the Applicant returned to British Columbia where his mother was then residing.
[36] On returning to British Columbia in 2001, the Applicant established and conducted a meditation practice, a practice he has maintained to date.
[37] Having re-settled in British Columbia, the Applicant spearheaded efforts to form a family mediation society and recruited a group of respected individuals in the mediation community to form a board of directors. He invited LB to join the group of mediators on its board in 2002.
[38] LB testified that in recruiting her for the board, the Applicant did not disclose his past conduct or discipline history in Nova Scotia to her, or to any of the other board members. Rather, in her words “it was not until late spring of 2003 that each board member received an email containing a newspaper article outlining [his] legal situation in Nova Scotia.” It is unclear from the evidence who delivered the email or why.
[39] As a result of the information regarding the Applicant’s past conduct and discipline history becoming public, the non-profit society lost its government funding. LB felt compelled to resign from the board “because there was no acceptable level of trust.”
[40] In March, 2002, the Applicant declared bankruptcy. He was subsequently discharged from bankruptcy.
[41] Having met the conditions required for reinstatement, on December 1, 2003, the Applicant was reinstated to the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society.
[42] On December 22, 2003, the Applicant applied for call and admission on transfer to the Law Society of British Columbia. On March 4, 2004, the application was referred to hearing by the Credentials Committee of the Law Society.
[43] The hearing before the panel (the “BC Hearing Panel”) was initially held on November 2, 3, 4, and 23, 2004. Before the BC Hearing Panel completed its deliberations, counsel for the Law Society applied to reopen its case. The hearing was reconvened on June 28, 2005.
[44] By decision released on July 28, 2005, the BC Hearing Panel denied the Applicant’s application for admission to the Law Society of British Columbia finding that the Applicant was not at that time “a person of good character and repute and fit to become a barrister and a solicitor” as required by Section 19(1) of the Legal Profession Act.
[45] A review of the decision of the BC Hearing Panel suggests it came to its decision primarily as a result of:
(a) the Applicant’s dishonesty and failure to be candid with a client about the reason he was not a lawyer in BC (i.e., his discipline history in Nova Scotia) and about the manner in which the Law Society operates (i.e., implying that a quota system prevented him from being called in BC);
(b) the Applicant’s dishonesty with the same client and the hearing panel about the fact that he was practising law instead of providing mediation services; and
(c) the Applicant’s dealings with a second client for whom he engaged in the practice of law commencing “just two days” after the initial hearing had been adjourned for a decision.
[46] Neither the conduct leading up to the Applicant’s suspension from practice in Nova Scotia in 2001 nor the 2002 bankruptcy appeared to be of major significance to the BC Hearing Panel in its decision to deny the Applicant’s application for admission to the Law Society of British Columbia.
[47] The BC Hearing Panel accepted the medical evidence presented to it that, by the time of hearing in 2005, “the Applicant [had] dealt with medical and mental health issues that caused him to be suspended in [Nova Scotia] and that they are no longer an issue for him.”
[48] In 2005, some four years from the decision of the Nova Scotia Hearing Panel, the Applicant publically criticized both the competency of the hearing panel and its treatment of him. His comments were subsequently published in a book.
[49] At this hearing, the Applicant conceded that his comments were “injudicious” and described them as “silly comments borne out of anger … .” In retrospect, he acknowledged that the hearing panel had been civilized and respectful and that the 18-month suspension he was given “could have been a lot worse.”
[50] By Consent Order filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on December 14, 2005, the Applicant was permanently enjoined from practising law in British Columbia until such time as the Applicant became a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.
[51] In 2005, the Applicant decided to return to the practice of law in Nova Scotia, both for financial reasons and to allow him to face his problems in Nova Scotia head-on. To that end, he met with the Barristers’ Society of Nova Scotia to discuss his return to practice. The Applicant also met with a panel from the Legal Aid Society to discuss reinstatement, which would allow him to perform legal services for it. As a result of those efforts, since 2005, the Applicant has practised law in Nova Scotia as a sole practitioner primarily doing Legal Aid work and family law. He has conducted that practice in a space-sharing arrangement with FF.
[52] The Applicant’s evidence was that, given the relatively small size of the Halifax bar and given the notoriety resulting from his past conduct, at times his return to practice in Nova Scotia was difficult but humbling.
[53] While he has not fully disclosed his past conduct and discipline history with every person or client since his return to practice in Nova Scotia, he has done so when asked. When he has done so, most people have been encouraging of his efforts to re-establish his practice and have accepted him back. Clients have, for the most part, chosen to remain as his client.
[54] FF has confirmed that, at the time the Applicant contacted him in 2005 to inquire about sharing office space, he was open and candid about the charges and decision of the BC Hearing Panel relating to the unauthorized practice of law in British Columbia.
[55] FF also confirmed that since re-establishing his legal practice in Nova Scotia in 2005, the Applicant has operated a busy and stressful practice. His view was that at all times since 2005, the Applicant has been able to effectively and positively handle the stress of that full and busy practice.
[56] Because he is a lawyer practising in Nova Scotia who directly practised with and observed the Applicant on a daily basis from 2005 to date, we place significant weight on the evidence of FF.
[57] KR gave evidence that she met the Applicant in 2006 when she applied for an articling position. At the time, the Applicant was forthright about his discipline history in Nova Scotia. The Applicant told her about the decision, the discipline, and that the decision was published. The Applicant also told her about the decision of the BC Hearing Panel regarding the unauthorized practice of law in BC. In her experience, the Applicant was up front about his past, he never hid or lied about his past conduct or discipline history.
[58] From the time she accepted an articling position with the Applicant and FF in 2006, KR had the opportunity to observe the Applicant in the course of his practice, including his interactions with clients and in court. Given her previous work with “vulnerable populations”, including the mentally ill and children, KR described herself as being “very sensitive” to what she deemed to be appropriate behaviour. Even with the background, she never had any concerns with the Applicant’s conduct or interactions with clients.
[59] In KR’s view, the Applicant is a mature person who has a lot of life experience and knows exactly what he needs to do in order to function effectively, healthily, professionally and appropriately.
[60] KR has practised in close contact with and observed the Applicant on a daily basis for approximately six years. We place significant weight on her evidence.
[61] At all times between 2005 and 2012, the Applicant has conducted his legal practice in Nova Scotia without any reports or complaints of improper conduct.
[62] In 2006, LB reconnected with the Applicant and for the past six years has worked with him on the board of a society called Family Mediation Canada. She has found him steadfast and hard working with a good reputation among mediators.
[63] In May 2012, together LB and the Applicant met with another mediator who was considering working with the society. LB testified that the Applicant was forthcoming with respect to his discipline history with the Law Society.
[64] Notwithstanding her previous distrust of the Applicant stemming from the lack of disclosure in 2003, LB has come to regard the Applicant as a “trusted colleague”.
[65] Both HM, a former Chair of the BC Human Rights Tribunal, and LM, a long-time friend of the Applicant, provided favourable character evidence in support of the Applicant’s application for call and admission to the Law Society of British Columbia. While we have noted the evidence of both of these individuals, we have placed little weight on that evidence: HM because she was not subject to cross-examination and LM because she has not worked with the Applicant or seen him conduct himself in a professional capacity.
[66] At all times between 2005 and 2012, the Applicant has conducted his mediation practice in British Columbia without any, or any report of, negative incidents or complaint, either for the unauthorized practice of law or otherwise.
[67] The clear, mainly uncontroverted, evidence is that the Applicant’s past conduct, particularly between the years 1997 to 2005 was, in the words of the Applicant’s counsel, “lamentable”. Much of that conduct has resulted in the conclusion by hearing panels of both the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society and Law Society of British Columbia that, in the past, the Applicant was not of “good character and repute”. Of particular significance:
(a) He has had addiction issues that impacted on his ability to practise law and led, at least in part, to his suspension in Nova Scotia;
(b) He has had mental health issues that impacted on his ability to practise law;
(c) In 2001 he assisted a particularly vulnerable client in purchasing cocaine, used cocaine and had sexual relations with her, all while acting as her legal counsel. As a result of that conduct, the Applicant was suspended from practising law in Nova Scotia for 18 months;
(d) The Applicant has been publically critical of the competency of the Nova Scotia hearing panel and of its treatment of him;
(f) In 2002, during the period in which he was suspended from practice in Nova Scotia, the Applicant was not candid with a client for whom he engaged in an authorized practice of law about his discipline history or the regulation of lawyers of British Columbia;
(g) The Applicant was not candid with fellow board members of a non-profit society regarding his past conduct and discipline history, which history eventually led to the loss of funding for the society;
(h) In 2002, the Applicant declared bankruptcy; and
(i) On at least two separate occasions in 2005 the Applicant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in British Columbia.
[68] The evidence before this Panel also discloses as follows:
(a) The Applicant has overcome the addiction and mental health issues that led (in part) to his suspension from practice in Nova Scotia in 2001;
(b) The Applicant has been discharged from his 2002 bankruptcy;
(c) The Applicant has admitted that his conduct was wrong with respect to his dealings with the clients with whom he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that he was not candid with the BC Hearing Panel in respect of that unauthorized practice;
(d) The Applicant has acknowledged that his negative comments about the competency of the Nova Scotia hearing panel and its treatment of him were “injudicious”;
(e) Since returning to Nova Scotia in 2005, the Applicant has been candid with both colleagues and clients regarding his past conduct and discipline history; and
(f) Most significantly, in seven years since 2005, the Applicant has practised law in Nova Scotia without any reports or complaints of improper conduct. Similarly he has continued to operate his mediation practice in British Columbia without any complaints about his conduct, either for the unauthorized practice of law or otherwise.
[69] The words of the hearing panel of the Law Society of British Columbia in Re: Applicant 3, (supra), are particularly a propos of the circumstances of this case where it stated:
[22] Credentials hearings are a challenge to panel members. They have to enquire into an applicant’s “good character and repute”. This enquiry raises high human drama. In many cases, such as the one the Panel faces here, the Applicant has engaged in activity that is criminal in nature, whether or not it led to a criminal conviction. Such activity raises an immediate concern regarding the character and fitness of the Applicant. The question becomes whether the applicant is able to demonstrate that he or she has rehabilitated himself or herself. Always a balance must be struck between protecting the public from rogue or undesirable lawyers and the concept of redemption through rehabilitation, which runs deep in western civilization.
[23] The determining factor at all Credentials hearings is the public interest. To protect the public, the Law Society must be satisfied that an applicant meets the test of being of “good character and repute”. Unlike in the disciplinary context, the onus is on the Applicant to meet this standard. In this context, public interest has a broader meaning. It is in the public interest to have articled students and lawyers from diverse backgrounds. Persons who have gone astray and have truly rehabilitated themselves can give valuable insight to clients, the courts and the public. They can become valued and trustworthy members of the profession. They set an example to all of us. However, here the onus is on this Applicant to prove his rehabilitation. It is not enough for the Applicant to appear and say, “These events happened a long time ago, and by the way, I have rehabilitated myself.” A much more thorough examination is required.”
[emphasis added]
[70] As with the applicant in Re: Applicant 3, the Applicant’s past conduct is far from perfect. However, we accept that “no isolated act or series of acts necessarily defines or fixes one’s essential nature for all time.”
[71] Notwithstanding his past conduct, on the whole of the evidence before us, we are satisfied that the Applicant has rehabilitated himself. It is particularly significant that the Applicant has practised law in Nova Scotia and conducted a mediation practice in British Columbia without incident or complaint for seven years.
[72] We conclude that, as of the date of this hearing, the Applicant has met the burden of proving that he is of “good character and repute and fit to become a barrister and a solicitor of the Supreme Court” and, as such, should be admitted as a barrister and a solicitor and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia. We order that the application for call and admission is granted.
[73] No submissions were made as to costs of the hearing. The parties will have 30 days from the date of this decision in which to make any submissions on costs.