An applicant seeking enrollment in the Law Society Admission Program (LSAP) has been granted permission to proceed with their articling by the Law Society of British Columbia, despite facing scrutiny over past misconduct. The decision, issued by a three-member hearing panel, allows the applicant to enroll under specific conditions aimed at addressing concerns about their fitness to practice law.
The applicant, who is identified only as “Applicant 21” due to a non-disclosure order, had applied for enrollment in the LSAP in September 2023, intending to article at a law firm. However, the Law Society’s Credentials Committee referred the application to a hearing due to concerns over the applicant’s academic history, driving record, and workplace conduct, collectively referred to as “Misconduct.”
Misconduct under review
The misconduct under review included allegations of academic dishonesty from 2009 to 2010 when the applicant was a university student, multiple driving infractions from 2009 to 2016, and workplace misconduct in the form of inappropriate behaviour that led to warnings and a one-day suspension in June 2023.
The applicant acknowledged the past wrongdoing in both their Enrollment Application and in testimony before the panel, showing remorse for their actions. During the hearing, the applicant testified in person, while their employer, AB, a lawyer at the firm where the applicant worked as a legal assistant, provided testimony via video.
Law Society takes neutral stance
At the hearing, the Law Society took no position on whether the applicant had satisfied the test of “good character and repute,” as required under section 19(1) of the Legal Profession Act. The applicant bore the burden of proving to the panel that they were fit to practice law, a standard assessed on the balance of probabilities.
In their submission, the Law Society acknowledged that the applicant had been forthright and honest throughout the application process and had complied with all requests for information. The Society also acknowledged that, with the exception of the recent workplace misconduct, the applicant had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation from past misdeeds.
Panel’s findings and legal analysis
The panel’s decision focused on whether the applicant had demonstrated a significant transformation of character since the time of the misconduct. The panel referred to relevant legal principles, including an article by Mary Southin, KC, on the meaning of “good character” and previous LSBC cases that addressed similar issues of misconduct.
The panel determined that while the applicant’s academic dishonesty and driving infractions were concerning, they had occurred many years ago and no longer raised significant questions about the applicant’s character. The workplace misconduct, which involved a violation of a respectful workplace policy, was more recent and posed a greater concern for the panel.
“The Applicant engaged in misconduct, which was contrary to the Municipality’s respectful workplace policy,” the panel noted in their decision. “The Applicant has been punished for that conduct, regrets that conduct, acknowledged it and has learned from it.”
The panel highlighted the applicant’s “forthright and honest” testimony, noting their “extreme regret and remorse” for the incidents and their understanding of the professional standards expected of a lawyer.
Conditions imposed on enrollment
While the panel ultimately found that the applicant met the “good character and repute” test, they imposed conditions on the applicant’s articling agreement to address concerns about their conduct. These conditions include mandatory participation in at least six hours of education or training on respectful workplace communication and conflict resolution. Additionally, the applicant must consult with a senior lawyer or a Bencher of the Law Society on a quarterly basis during their 12-month articling period.
The panel emphasized that these conditions were designed to ensure that the applicant had the necessary tools to manage future workplace interactions in a professional manner.
Rehabilitation and public interest
The decision also underscored the panel’s belief in rehabilitation, noting that past conduct does not necessarily define an individual’s character for all time. The panel found that the applicant had made “positive character changes” and taken “steps to rehabilitate themselves,” as evidenced by their candid admissions and the support of colleagues, including letters from the applicant’s siblings and employer.
“The Panel is satisfied that the Applicant has changed since the Workplace Misconduct occurred,” the decision stated. “The Applicant has matured and learned from the experience.”
The panel’s decision aligns with the Law Society’s public interest mandate to ensure that the legal profession maintains high standards of conduct while promoting rehabilitation and diversity within its ranks.
Non-disclosure order and next steps
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Law Society successfully applied for a non-disclosure order under Rule 5-8(2)(a) of the LSBC Rules. The order protects the identity of the applicant and third parties who provided evidence, ensuring their names are not publicly disclosed in connection with the case.
The panel also directed that if the parties are unable to agree on the issue of costs, they must submit written arguments within a specified timeframe.
For more information, see Applicant 21 (Re), 2024 LSBC 40 (CanLII).
