In a ruling handed down by the Law Society of Manitoba, a Winnipeg lawyer has been suspended for six months following his guilty plea to a charge of professional misconduct, which stemmed from an incident where he punched an articling student in the groin.
The hearing, which took place on May 29, 2024, detailed D.D.’s troubling behaviour and highlighted his previous disciplinary history, raising concerns about his ability to interact appropriately with those under his supervision.
The incident and guilty plea
The charge against D.D. arose from an incident in December 2022, during which he, a sole practitioner, assaulted his articling student. According to the agreed facts presented during the hearing, the incident occurred in D.D.’s office while the two were on a call with the federal court registry.
As they both observed the screen, D.D. unexpectedly turned and punched the student in the groin. The blow left the student in significant pain, causing him to double over and shout before leaving the office.
D.D. admitted to the facts, acknowledged that his actions breached the obligations set out in the Code of Professional Conduct, and entered a guilty plea to the charge of professional misconduct. The panel, chaired by Donald Knight, K.C., accepted his guilty plea, stating, “The incident, as described, constitutes a breach of the member’s obligations as set out in Rule 2.1-1 of the Code.”
Troubling disciplinary history
This was not D.D.’s first encounter with disciplinary action. The panel noted that he had been disciplined on three previous occasions, with the most recent incident involving a six-month suspension in 2009. These past infractions, which ranged from sexual harassment to breaches of trust account obligations, painted a concerning picture of a lawyer who has repeatedly abused his position of authority.
In 2001, D.D. was suspended for 45 days after pleading guilty to conduct unbecoming a lawyer, related to sexually harassing a client who had retained him for her refugee status application. In 2008, he was reprimanded and fined for failing to correct an administrative error that led to numerous breaches of trust account obligations. The 2009 suspension was related to misconduct involving paying a referral fee to a non-lawyer and improper handling of clients’ immigration applications.
The panel expressed grave concerns about the recurring nature of D.D.’s misconduct, particularly in situations where he holds a position of power or authority. They noted that, despite receiving treatment for anger issues for over a decade, his behaviour continued to be problematic.
Sanctions and future restrictions
The panel, guided by both the need for specific and general deterrence, imposed a six-month suspension on D.D. This decision aligned with the recommendation of the Law Society’s counsel, who had argued that D.D.’s disciplinary history, although somewhat dated, demonstrated a pattern of problematic behaviour.
In addition to the suspension, D.D. is required to continue mental health counselling and treatment as recommended by his medical practitioners. The panel also placed a condition on his practising certificate, prohibiting him from serving as a supervisor or principal to any law student or articling student for at least two years, unless authorized by the Law Society’s CEO.
The panel underscored the importance of this restriction, emphasizing that the relationship between a student and their principal is inherently imbalanced in terms of power. They noted that “students must be safe from physical harm in their workplaces,” and that the legal profession must maintain the highest standards of integrity, particularly in how members treat those under their supervision.
Impact and conclusion
The impact of the incident on the student was not fully detailed, as the student chose to remain anonymous and did not submit a victim impact statement. However, the panel acknowledged the potential for significant harm, particularly given the power dynamics at play.
The panel also acknowledged that, as a sole practitioner, D.D. would need time to arrange his affairs, and therefore did not impose an immediate start date for his suspension. This allows for a transition period during which his clients’ needs can be addressed.
He was also ordered to pay $2,500 in costs in connection with the Society’s investigation into the matter and the proceedings.
For more information, see The Law Society of Manitoba v David Hirsh Davis, 2024 MBLS 6 (CanLII).
