Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Law Societies – Barristers and solicitors – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Disbarment – Public interest – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness
McGuire v. Law Society of British Columbia,  B.C.J. No. 2161, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 7, 2007, M.A. Rowles, M.V. Newbury and R.E. Levine JJ.A.
The Discipline Panel of the Law Society of British Columbia (the “Panel”) disbarred the Appellant for repeated deliberate misappropriation of his clients’ trust fund monies.
The Appellant appealed the decision on the basis that the Panel erred in imposing the most serious penalty available to it in circumstances which, he contended, the public would be “well protected by lesser sanction”. The Court of Appeal held that it could not interfere with the Panel’s conclusions unless the decision was unreasonable (not supported by a tenable explanation). The Panel is bound to consider the protection of the public and the Court of Appeal found that it was not unreasonable for the Panel to have given high importance to that objective. The Court of Appeal found the Law Society’s position that “disbarment is the remedy for deliberate misappropriation of trust funds except in highly unusual circumstances” was indeed reasonable. The Appellant’s unexpected marital problems and unexpected veterinarian bills were not deemed sufficient to justify the suspension of a lawyer’s ethical or professional duties.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.