Paul Aterman

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and stay motion regarding the revocation of his license, the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The Law Society sought $12,000, which was below the typical range of $15,000 to $30,000 for an appeal.

The appellant requested costs be fixed at $6,000 payable over four years, citing financial hardship but providing no evidence.

The Tribunal considered the unique nature of the appeal, which provided an opportunity to clarify the Law Society's role in assessing applications following the compromised online licensing examination.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $9,000 in costs, payable in two installments.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to account to a client, failing to be transparent about fees, and failing to pay a $15,000 default judgment obtained by the client.

The Tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, noting the misconduct was serious but involved a single dispute with a single client.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the Compensation Fund up to $15,000 for any claim paid to the client, and to pay $6,000 in costs to the Law Society.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by being wilfully blind to a fraud and money laundering scheme.

The lawyer argued for a suspension, citing powerful mitigating factors including difficult personal circumstances, the isolated nature of the transaction, strong community support, and six years of unblemished practice since the incident.

The Tribunal held that wilful blindness to fraud is tantamount to knowledge, triggering a presumptive penalty of revocation.

Finding that the mitigating factors did not explain why the misconduct occurred or amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of the lawyer's licence and costs of $24,000.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to be on guard against being the dupe of an unscrupulous client and by using his trust account for purposes unrelated to the provision of legal services.

The respondent fell victim to a fraud involving the fictitious sale of farm equipment and a fake cashier's cheque, resulting in a significant trust shortfall.

The Tribunal found both allegations established, noting that the respondent negligently ignored numerous red flags and that an honest but mistaken belief in the transaction's legitimacy is not a defence to the improper use of a trust account.

The applicant lawyer brought a motion to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension of his licence, which had been imposed due to his involvement in alleged fraudulent syndicated mortgage transactions.

He argued that the Law Society's investigation had concluded without conduct allegations, a trusteeship application was dismissed, and he had fresh evidence including metadata and a custodian agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances that would likely result in different terms.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's use of artificial intelligence to generate a hallucinated factum, which compounded concerns about his integrity.