Citation issued: december 20, 2012

Ronald Wayne Perrick 

Citations are issued by the Law Society of BC's Discipline Committee and list allegations against a lawyer which 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:

Improper Use of Expired Power of Attorney

1. In or about February 2006, in the course of acting for some or all of [number] British Columbia Ltd., RW, RM and DK with respect to the transmission of voting shares in [number] British Columbia Ltd. and M Ltd. from JW and MW (the “Parents”) to RW, you improperly prepared an assignment of shares and witnessed the signatures of RM and DK on that assignment, as attorneys for the Parents under their respective Powers of Attorney, when you knew that both the Parents were deceased and when you knew or ought to have known that the Powers of Attorneys were no longer valid, contrary to Chapter 2, Rule 1 of the Professional Conduct Handbook.

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

Backdating Assignment of Shares to date prior to death of the Parents

2. In or about February 2006, in the course of acting for some or all of [number] British Columbia Ltd., RW, RM and DK, with respect to the transmission of voting shares in [number] British Columbia Ltd. and M Ltd. from the Parents to RW, you improperly backdated the assignment of shares to October 21, 2004, when you knew the assignment of shares was not executed on that date and when you had no reasonable basis to date the assignment effective as of that date, contrary to Chapter 2, Rule 1 of the Professional Conduct Handbook.

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

Failure to respond to Communications from another Lawyer

3. Between March and June 2006, you failed to respond promptly to letters requiring a response from opposing counsel, Robert Ward, regarding the handling and disbursement of the trust funds of $5,424,689.41 you received on behalf of [number] British Columbia Ltd. and in particular, you failed to respond promptly to some or all of letters dated March 29, 2006, April 3, 2006, May 18, 2006 and June 2, 2006, contrary to Chapter 11, Rule 6 of the Professional Conduct Handbook.

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

Failure to provide Quality of Service

4. Between October 2005 and June 2006, in the course of providing legal services to your client [number] British Columbia Ltd., you failed to serve your client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner so as to provide a quality of service at least equal to that which would be expected of a competent lawyer in a similar situation, contrary to Chapter 3, Rules 3 and 5 of the Professional Conduct Handbook, and in particular, you:

(a) did not take reasonable steps to determine who was authorized to give instructions for [number] British Columbia Ltd.;

(b) did not keep [number] British Columbia Ltd. reasonably informed as to the handling and disbursement of the trust funds of $5,424,689.41 that you received on its behalf and in particular, you did not respond to a letter dated February 17, 2006 from DK or to a letter dated February 26, 2006 from RM;

(c) failed to advise [number] British Columbia Ltd. of the basis for your fees.

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

Breach of Law Society Rules

5. At various times in 2006, in the course of acting for your client [number] British Columbia Ltd., you failed to comply with the Law Society Rules, and, in particular:

(a) in February 2006, you received trust funds of $5,424,689.41 on behalf of [number] British Columbia Ltd., but you failed to account in writing to it for all of these funds, contrary to Rule 3-48 of the Law Society Rules;

(b) in or about February and April of 2006, you withdrew or authorized the withdrawal of funds from trust in payment of your fees, purportedly calculated on a contingent fee basis, when you had not entered into a contingent fee agreement in writing, contrary to Rule 8-3 of the Law Society Rules, and you did not provide the statements required in writing under Rule 8-4;

(c) you failed to record each trust transaction within seven days, contrary to Rule 3-63;

(d) in April 2006, you withdrew or authorized the withdrawal of $185,000.00 from trust in partial payment of your fees, when you knew that the client disputed your right to receive payment from those trust funds, contrary to Rule 3 57(5);

(e) on or about each of February 9, 2006, February 10, 2006, February 27, 2006 and April 18, 2006, you withdrew or authorized the withdrawal of funds from trust in payment of your fees without first preparing a bill for those fees and immediately delivering the bill to the client, contrary to Rules 3-56 and 3-57.

This conduct constitutes professional misconduct or a breach of the Act or rules, pursuant to section 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.