The appellant lawyer appealed the revocation of his license to practice law by the Law Society Tribunal.
He had been found to have knowingly assisted clients in mortgage fraud across multiple real estate transactions.
The appellant argued that the findings of fact and credibility from an initial hearing panel, which had acquitted him of knowing assistance, should have bound the second hearing panel after a new hearing was ordered.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order for a new hearing results in an entirely new hearing, and the second panel was not bound by the first panel's findings, which were based on an incorrect legal understanding of fraud.
The penalty of license revocation was upheld.