A Winnipeg lawyer has been suspended for 30 days by the Law Society of Manitoba after admitting to sexual harassment during a law school moot competition event. The decision was handed down following a disciplinary hearing concerning the associate at a Winnipeg law firm who was cited for professional misconduct.
P.A., who was called to the bar in June 2020, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual harassment, while two additional counts were withdrawn. The case stems from his inappropriate conduct toward a law student he was coaching at the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law moot team during a competition in Toronto.
At a cocktail reception after the moot event, P.A. placed his hand on the student’s back, and later, at a karaoke bar, he escalated his behaviour by moving his chair closer to hers and placing his hand on her lower back and buttocks. The inappropriate touching continued during a vehicle ride back to the hotel, where he placed his hand on the student’s thigh and caressed it for the duration of the ride.
In its ruling, the panel emphasized the power imbalance between P.A., as a coach, and the student, and noted that the student’s discomfort was observed by another student who attended the event. The Law Society’s legal counsel pointed out the seriousness of the breach, citing the violation of the student’s bodily integrity and the distress caused to both the student and the witness.
While acknowledging that P.A. had taken significant remedial actions, including apologizing to the student and the law school and completing training in sexual harassment, stress management, and sensitivity, the panel determined that a suspension was necessary to deter such behaviour within the legal profession.
“The Member has been a model of remedial actions following the complaint,” the panel noted in its decision, “but we do not believe the penalty proposed… on behalf of the Member (fine plus reprimand) would have the necessary deterrent effect for the profession generally.” The panel added that a suspension was essential to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the profession.
The Law Society took the position that suspension is required in cases of sexual harassment except in the rarest of circumstances. While P.A.’s actions were not categorized as sexual assault, the Society argued that the behaviour was far from the lower end of the spectrum of sexual harassment.
The Law Society pointed to the “significant power imbalance” between the coach and student, as well as the “serious impact” the misconduct had on the victim and the witness. It acknowledged, however, that P.A. had taken all possible steps following the complaint, including participating in counselling for depression and anxiety.
Despite P.A.’s contrition and the numerous character references provided on his behalf, including from his firm’s managing partner and a female colleague, the panel emphasized the need for general deterrence, particularly given the imbalance of power between a lawyer and a law student. The panel also noted that P.A.’s consumption of alcohol during the events was an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
P.A.’s counsel submitted 15 documents in mitigation, including an apology letter and evidence of the training P.A. had completed. P.A. argued that the facts in the case fell at the “low end” of the sexual harassment spectrum and proposed a penalty of a $5,000 fine and a reprimand, citing similar discipline cases that did not result in suspension.
The panel rejected this proposal, noting that “the public could reasonably view a fine, particularly one of the amount suggested, as a lawyer simply ‘buying their way out of trouble.’” It added that a fine alone would not “sufficiently express the denunciation that public confidence in the legal profession requires.”
Ultimately, the panel concluded that a suspension was necessary to protect the public, the profession, and law students. In addition to the 30-day suspension, P.A. was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the Law Society.
In closing, the panel commended the student for her courage in coming forward with her complaint, stating, “It is only with the courage and commitment of students like [the complainant] that the Society can be successful in eradicating this misconduct.”
For more information, see The Law Society of Manitoba v Aquila, 2024 MBLS 8 (CanLII).
