A lawyer was found guilty of numerous instances of professional misconduct by a disciplinary Adjudication Tribunal of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador after repeatedly failing to cooperate with regulatory processes, sending abusive messages to Law Society officials, and neglecting to disclose a criminal charge.
The three-member panel held a hearing that focused on five separate complaints lodged against K.L. over roughly a two-year period. The Tribunal will determine appropriate sanctions at a later date.
In its reasons for decision, the Tribunal stated: “The Adjudication Tribunal finds the Respondent guilty of each of the five complaints, with the exception that under Complaint 2023-003, the Respondent was not found to have breached Law Society Rule 5.08.” The case, heard on July 10, 2024, via virtual proceedings, centred on allegations that K.L. persistently refused to participate in a required practice management review, failed to respond to multiple requests for information, and engaged in communications that the Tribunal found to be “abusive” and “offensive.”
K.L.’s conduct first came under scrutiny during a practice management review initiated by the Law Society in August 2021. According to the Tribunal’s decision, K.L. refused to produce requested documents, invoked solicitor-client privilege despite clear rules allowing the Law Society access, and made repeated disparaging remarks toward Law Society representatives, many of whom K.L. described as “Ladies” in a derogatory manner. The Tribunal wrote that K.L.’s approach was “far below the standard of cooperation that is expected” and found that he had “impeded the practice management review process.”
Unprofessional tone
K.L. not only failed to provide mandated forms and documents on multiple occasions but also consistently employed a tone deemed unprofessional. In one exchange, he responded to the Executive Director of the Law Society, identified as B.G., by saying simply, “You suck.”
The Tribunal noted, “This communication was…offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.”
Throughout the proceedings, K.L. attempted to explain his conduct by referencing medical issues. The Tribunal, however, stated: “The Respondent declined to present evidence at the hearing… The only source of evidence available…regarding the Respondent’s medical condition consists of statements made by the Respondent.” Without supporting documentation, the Tribunal could not accept medical claims as a mitigating factor for his behavior in determining whether the conduct warranted disciplinary measures.
Failures to respond
Several complaints detailed failures to respond to the Law Society’s inquiries. For instance, under Complaint C2023-001, K.L. did not report a judgment against him within 30 days as required by Law Society Rule 9.43. In another instance, Complaint C2023-012 revealed that K.L. failed to self-report a criminal charge under the Criminal Code of Canada, as required by Rule 9.44. The Tribunal found that “the Respondent was charged with an offence contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada” and that he never informed the Law Society’s executive director as obligated.
Insulting, gender-biased communications
On the issue of communications, the Tribunal enumerated K.L.’s repeated references to Law Society personnel in a manner the panel found insulting and gender-biased. In multiple emails, K.L. fixated on what he perceived as a “gender imbalance” among Law Society staff and described their efforts as “bureaucratic busy work.” The Tribunal highlighted one example in which K.L. wrote: “I consider this make-work project unnecessary, disrespectful and unprofessional.” The panel found that such statements breached the Code of Professional Conduct’s requirements for courtesy, civility, and acting in good faith.
Compliance with administrative requests was another central theme. Under Complaint C2023-003, K.L. failed to file Form 5.07B as required, an obligation that applies to lawyers who do not manage trust money or trust property. The Tribunal determined that he ignored repeated reminders and instructions, breaching Law Society Rule 5.07(6). Although the Tribunal found no breach of Rule 5.08 in that particular complaint, it concluded that K.L. “engaged in conduct deserving of sanction.”
The Tribunal also referenced K.L.’s changing and at times contradictory statements. Despite claiming to have been acquitted of the criminal charge, evidence obtained from the Provincial Court indicated that proceedings were ongoing and that no acquittal had occurred. This contradiction prompted the Tribunal to conclude that K.L. displayed a lack of honesty and integrity in his communications with the Law Society.
Standard of proof
In each complaint, the Tribunal applied the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As stated by the Tribunal, “The Law Society must establish on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent failed to meet the standards required,” referring to the Code of Professional Conduct and Law Society Rules.
The panel’s findings could carry ramifications for K.L.’s licence to practise, pending the outcome of a sanctions hearing. No date has yet been set for that phase. The decision underscores the Law Society’s regulatory authority and the obligations of legal professionals to maintain respectful, transparent, and honest dealings with their governing body.
In one of the decision’s concluding remarks, the Tribunal noted K.L.’s pattern of non-compliance and the importance of preserving the public’s trust: “Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct.” The decision leaves no doubt that adherence to professional standards of civility, responsiveness, and integrity is a baseline expectation.
For more information, see LeDrew (Re), 2024 CanLII 121632 (NL LS).
