Neha Chugh

The respondent lawyer was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with successor counsel, withholding client files and trust funds, delaying settlement payments, failing to report a potential LAWPRO claim, and breaching court and Ministry of Labour orders.

The Law Society sought revocation of his licence, while the respondent sought a one to three-month suspension.

The Tribunal found that while the misconduct was serious and repetitive, revocation was disproportionate given the respondent's rehabilitation efforts and lack of prior discipline history until recently.

The Tribunal imposed a seven-month suspension and ordered the respondent to pay $15,000 in costs.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The Law Society adduced unchallenged evidence that the respondent misappropriated settlement funds, failed to account to clients, abandoned his practice, and failed to co-operate with investigations.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public if the respondent was permitted to continue practising.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of the respondent's licence.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including acting in a conflict of interest by having a sexual relationship with a client, making discriminatory comments, participating in a fraudulent vehicle transfer using a false statutory declaration, and acting uncivilly toward police.

The Tribunal found that the fraudulent vehicle transfer attracted presumptive revocation under the Bolton principle, as it involved a client and a false statutory declaration, which compromised public confidence in the profession.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, and alternatively applying the ordinary penalty approach, the Tribunal revoked the lawyer's licence and ordered him to pay $35,000 in costs.