Citation issued: March 16, 2015

christopher roy penty 

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. You issued two bills to your clients, ZZ and [the School], dated May 2, 2011 in connection with file numbers [number] and [number] that misrepresented the amount that you were entitled to bill for one or both of the following reasons:

(a) you billed for time spent by your legal assistant, SS, as time spent by you in the absence of an agreement with your clients to bill for SS's time; and

(b) you billed for tasks that were secretarial in nature in the absence of an agreement with your clients to bill for those tasks.

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

2. You issued a bill to your clients, ZZ and [the School] dated May 2, 2011 in connection with file no. [number] that was excessive in that the fees were more than double the amount you told your clients they would be, contrary to Chapter 1, Rule 3(9), Chapter 9, Rule 1 and Chapter 2, Rule 1 of the Professional Conduct Handbook then in force.

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

3. Between May 2012 and February 2013, in the course of representing yourself in a Legal Profession Act section 71 review before a Supreme Court Master of your bills dated May 2, 2011 issued to your clients, ZZ and [the School] you made the following representations to the court when you knew or ought to have known they were not true:

(a) on May 15, 2012, you testified that your legal assistant, SS, commenced working for you at the beginning of 2011 when he had been employed by you since on or about November 2009;

(b) on May 15, 2012, you testified that your legal assistant, SS, was not involved in your clients’ files until toward the end of your conduct of the files, when timesheets reflected that SS commenced working on the files in or about April 2010; and

(c) in your supplemental submissions dated November 28, 2012, you stated that your legal assistant, SS's time was a “very minor part” of the time billed to your clients when the timesheets reflected that SS's time was approximately 40% of the time billed to the clients.

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