SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – SUSPENSION
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Raymond Jacquard; 2012 NSBS 1
Raymond Jacquard - Suspension - May 9, 2012

The lawyer was charged with numerous breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook relating to his practice of real estate law. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

During 2006 to 2008, over 35 property transactions of a suspicious nature were processed through Raymond Jacquard's office. These included: quick property flips for increased value; non-arm's length transactions between clients; backdated agreements of purchase and sale; use of non-standard private agreements of purchase and sale; real estate commission and deposit issues; and the representation to lenders that purchases were refinances. The property flips involved purchases and sales in rapid succession, some within one day, with mortgage amounts increasing with each subsequent transaction. These transactions typically involved the same core group of people, most of whom were represented by Mr. Jacquard. Where Mr. Jacquard represented multiple parties, including lenders, he failed to ensure each party gave informed consent. In some cases, Mr. Jacquard himself was a party to the property transaction.

A practice review conducted by the Society in August 2009 found that Mr. Jacquard shared his Property On-line private password with his property paralegal; failed to monitor his property practice or supervise his property paralegal; and acted with respect to mortgage transactions which were suspicious.

A follow up practice review was conducted in October 2010, which confirmed that Mr. Jacquard had taken steps to correct all identified breaches, and was by that time practising in compliance with the Act, Regulations, Standards and the Legal Ethics Handbook.

Mr. Jacquard admitted to all charges and that his effective abdication of his real estate practice in this manner between 2006 and 2008 constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

The Hearing Committee approved the settlement agreement reached between Mr. Jacquard and the Society, resulting in a 12 month suspension of his practising certificate to be served from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013; on his reinstatement, a one year restriction on his practice requiring that he only practice with one or more members of the Society in good standing; and, payment of costs in the amount of $65,000 plus HST, with 25 percent of this amount due on or before the earlier of June 30, 2013 or reinstatement of his practising certificate, and the balance in increasing monthly installments between January 1, 2014 and December 1, 2016.
Sanction:
12-month suspension, conditions upon return to practice, costs.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – SUSPENSION
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Whitehead; 2014 NSBS 1
Philip Whitehead - Suspension - March 4 and 25, 2014

The lawyer was charged with several breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook relating to his practice, including that he failed to be honest and candid when advising clients; acted when his own interests and those of his clients were in conflict; failed to be competent to perform all legal services conducted on behalf of clients; acted when the interests of his clients were in conflict; allowed his outside interests to jeopardize his professional integrity, independence and competence and otherwise engaged in conduct that brought the administration of justice into disrepute. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

The Hearing Panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts that had been reached between Mr. Whitehead and the Society. They found that Mr. Whitehead was guilty of professional misconduct and professional incompetence in relation to the matters set out in the March 2, 2014 amended complaint.

With regard to the appropriate sanction, the Hearing Panel found that in light of the absence of a prior discipline history for Mr Whitehead, his practice history, and the apparently prolonged absence in his professional life of competent professional guidance from more senior counsel, 30 days is the appropriate length of time for Mr Whitehead to be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to s.45(4)(d)(i) of the Act.

In addition to the suspension, the Hearing Panel has required Mr. Whitehead to attend and successfully complete the Professional Responsibility course at the Schulich School of Law and restrict his practice from the field of corporate commercial law, prohibited him from having an articled clerk for a period of 5 years and be subject to practice supervision by a supervisor appointed by the Executive Director for a period of one year. Further, Mr. Whitehead must pay costs of $40,000 plus HST of $6,000 by way of a lump sum payment of $5,000 prior to the expiry of his suspension, $750 per month for 12 months beginning July 1, 2014 and $1,333.33 per month for 24 months beginning July 1, 2015. Failure to make any of the payments by their due date will result in Mr. Whitehead’s immediate suspension.
Sanction:
30-day suspension, restrictions and conditions upon return to practice, costs.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – SUSPENSION
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Whitehead; 2014 NSBS 2
Philip Whitehead - Suspension - March 4 and 25, 2014

The lawyer was charged with several breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook relating to his practice, including that he failed to be honest and candid when advising clients; acted when his own interests and those of his clients were in conflict; failed to be competent to perform all legal services conducted on behalf of clients; acted when the interests of his clients were in conflict; allowed his outside interests to jeopardize his professional integrity, independence and competence and otherwise engaged in conduct that brought the administration of justice into disrepute. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

The Hearing Panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts that had been reached between Mr. Whitehead and the Society. They found that Mr. Whitehead was guilty of professional misconduct and professional incompetence in relation to the matters set out in the March 2, 2014 amended complaint.

With regard to the appropriate sanction, the Hearing Panel found that in light of the absence of a prior discipline history for Mr Whitehead, his practice history, and the apparently prolonged absence in his professional life of competent professional guidance from more senior counsel, 30 days is the appropriate length of time for Mr Whitehead to be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to s.45(4)(d)(i) of the Act.

In addition to the suspension, the Hearing Panel has required Mr. Whitehead to attend and successfully complete the Professional Responsibility course at the Schulich School of Law and restrict his practice from the field of corporate commercial law, prohibited him from having an articled clerk for a period of 5 years and be subject to practice supervision by a supervisor appointed by the Executive Director for a period of one year. Further, Mr. Whitehead must pay costs of $40,000 plus HST of $6,000 by way of a lump sum payment of $5,000 prior to the expiry of his suspension, $750 per month for 12 months beginning July 1, 2014 and $1,333.33 per month for 24 months beginning July 1, 2015. Failure to make any of the payments by their due date will result in Mr. Whitehead’s immediate suspension.
Sanction:
30-day suspension, restrictions and conditions upon return to practice, costs.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – PERMISSION TO RESIGN
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Iosipescu; 2012 NSBS 4
Michael Iosipescu - Permission to Resign - November 2, 2012

The lawyer was charged with numerous breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook relating to his practice, including that he allowed himself to become a dupe of an unscrupulous client; acted when his own interests and those of his clients were in conflict; failed to properly supervise staff and otherwise engaged in conduct that brought the administration of justice into disrepute. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

At the request of both Counsel for the member and for the Society, the Hearing Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to Section 44 of the Legal Profession Act. The ban covered medical reports and the names of Mr. Iosipescu’s clients and others. The Hearing Panel unanimously found that the prejudice to the member in having the details of his medical information disclosed outweighed the importance of the transparency of the process.

The Hearing Panel approved the Settlement Agreement reached between Mr. Iosipescu and the Society. They found that Mr. Iosipescu’s admissions to the very serious charges was to his credit and agreed that the medical evidence disclosed allowed the panel to find that the sanction was appropriate and in the public interest.

As a result, Mr. Iosipescu was permitted to resign and is ineligible to reapply for at least five years. If Mr. Iosipescu reapplies, all information and documents in the possession of the Society will be made available to the Credentials Committee. Further, Mr. Iosipescu must pay costs of $15,000 plus HST of $2,250 by way of monthly payments of $200 beginning in January 2013.
Sanction:
Permission to resign; costs; shall not apply for readmission for at least five (5) years.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – PERMISSION TO RESIGN
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Calder; 2012 NSBS 2
Ann Calder - Permission to Resign - June 6, 2012

On March 10, 2011, the lawyer was convicted of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance and two counts of possession for the purposes of trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As a result, she was sentenced to two consecutive 30 month sentences. The appeal of her conviction and sentence was dismissed on November 10, 2011. Based on these convictions, the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society charged Ms. Calder with breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook. She admitted to all charges against her and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming.

Ms. Calder had no prior discipline history and at trial, extensive evidence was entered regarding her history of mental health issues. Transcripts of the evidence given by Dr. Rosenberg at Ms. Calder’s trial were provided to the Hearing Panel to support the proposed Settlement Agreement. Dr. Rosenberg’s evidence indicated that Ms. Calder had been suffering from a major depressive disorder and personality disorders and at the time of her arrest in July 2009 was unfit to practice law.

The Hearing Committee approved the settlement agreement reached between Ms. Calder and the Society, resulting in Ms. Calder being permitted to resign and ineligible to apply for readmission to practice for a period of two years. If she reapplies, Ms. Calder will have to demonstrate to a Credentials Committee that her mental health will not interfere with her ability to practice. If readmitted, Ms. Calder will be required to abide by any conditions the Credentials Committee may place on her practising certificate and make arrangements with the Society for repayment of $5000 in costs.
Sanction:
Permissions to resign; shall not apply for readmission for two (2) years; costs to be paid prior to any application for readmission.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – PERMISSION TO RESIGN
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Wheeler; 2012 NSBS 3
R. Ritchie Wheeler - Permission to Resign - July 5, 2012

The lawyer was charged with numerous breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook relating to his practice. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, professional incompetence and incapacity.

At the request of both Counsel for the member and for the Society, the Hearing Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to Section 44 of the Legal Profession Act. The ban covered Appendices B (trust audit report) and C (practice review report) to the Settlement Agreement, the content of the medical reports of Dr. Theriault, Dr. Seaman and Ms. McGrath and the names of the member’s clients. The Hearing Panel unanimously found that the prejudice to the member in having the details of his personal and medical information disclosed outweighed the importance of the transparency of the process.

The Hearing Panel approved the Settlement Agreement reached between Mr. Wheeler and the Society. They found that Mr. Wheeler’s admissions to the very serious charges was to his credit and agreed that there were mitigating circumstances which supported the proposed sanction. As a result, Mr. Wheeler was permitted to resign and is ineligible to reapply until he is able to demonstrate that he is no longer substantially impaired by a physical, mental or emotional condition, disorder or addiction which would impact his ability to practice law with reasonable skill and judgment.

If he reapplies, Mr. Wheeler will have to demonstrate to a Credentials Committee that he has addressed the mental health and addiction issues which led to his present incapacity; will continue to follow any prescribed treatment plans; and is no longer substantially impaired by a physical, mental or emotional condition, disorder or addiction. If readmitted, Mr. Wheeler will be required to abide by any conditions the Credentials Committee may place on his practising certificate. Mr. Wheeler must pay $5,000 plus HST of the $19,913.00 plus HST in costs ordered against him prior to his application for re-admission being considered. If he is readmitted, Mr. Wheeler must make arrangements with the Society for repayment of the remaining costs.
Sanction:
Permission to resign; costs payable upon application for readmission; may not apply for readmission unless member can show member is no longer impaired by physical, mental, or emotional condition, disorder, or addiction
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS - DISBARMENT
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society v. Hayes; 2011 NSBS 1
Michael Hayes - Disbarment - March 30, 2011

The lawyer was charged with numerous breaches of the Legal Ethics Handbook related to his real estate practice. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence.

Early into his representation of some property vendors, he raised concerns about certain credits and rebates being granted to purchasers. However, when he advised one of the vendors that his office would no longer act in these transactions, the individual became extremely agitated and publicly threatened the lawyer, his staff and their families if the lawyer did not continue to act in this regard. Out of concern for his wife and the safety of his staff, he agreed to continue to act and did so until the Society's investigation, even though he knew his clients were misrepresenting sale prices to mortgage companies, who were also his clients.

The lawyer acted on over 100 property transactions involving these clients in which he was aware, or should have been aware, that the property sale price had been inflated. He prepared and processed mortgage documents that he knew were based on false sale prices; failed to hold deposits in his trust account, while confirming to the mortgage companies that these deposits were being held in trust; paid out mechanics' liens prior to the satisfaction of trust conditions and failed to advise the mortgage companies that the sale prices had been inflated or that he was disbursing money contrary to the agreements of purchase and sale.

The lawyer acknowledged that he should have refrained from acting in respect to any of the agreements that had been negotiated by these clients and that, prior to the release of any mortgage funds, he should have advised any mortgage company for which he had acted that the credits and rebates authorized by the vendor had the effect of significantly reducing the purchase price shown in the agreements of purchase and sale. The lawyer also acknowledged that he had not been candid and honest with the practice reviewer when first questioned as to the nature of these transactions. He attributed this lack of candour to concern for the safety of his family and staff.

Prior to the submission of evidence, the lawyer suggested that proceeding with a formal hearing and reviewing details of the complaint were unnecessary since he had already consented to "the ultimate penalty" of disbarment. The Society objected to this submission and took the position that it was in the public interest to proceed with what would be a brief summation of the facts. The Hearing Committee determined that the primary concern was the protection of the public and that it was important to proceed with a presentation of the facts in a formal public hearing.

The Hearing Committee approved the settlement agreement reached between the lawyer and the Society, resulting in the lawyer's disbarment, with the proviso that he would be unable to apply for readmission to practice for a period of five years. He was also ordered to pay the Society costs in the amount of $50,000, payable in monthly instalments of $200.
Sanction:
Disbarment; costs; shall not apply for readmission for five (5) years
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS – DISBARMENT
The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society v. Peter van Feggelen; 2013 NSBS 1
Peter van Feggelen - Disbarment - July 8, 2013

The lawyer was charged with breaching provisions of the Legal Ethics Handbook and the Code of Professional Conduct, including that he failed to conduct himself with integrity, committed acts of fraud and dishonesty, failed to observe all relevant laws and rules respecting the protection and safekeeping of clients’ property entrusted to him, and engaged in conduct which brings the profession and the administration of justice into disrepute. He admitted to all charges against him and admitted that this constituted professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming.

In a November, 2009 complaint (amended April 2010), Mr. van Feggelen was charged with professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming and professional incompetence with respect to, among other things, the misappropriation of approximately $30,000 of client trust funds. By decision dated June 4, 2010 [ADD LINK], a Hearing Panel of the Society ordered that Mr. van Feggelen be permitted to continue to practice subject to conditions, including having a practice supervisor and neither operating a trust account nor accepting any client trust funds. These conditions were to continue for two years from the date of the resolution.

On September 21, 2012, the Society received a written report from Mr. van Feggelen’s practice supervisor advising that Mr. van Feggelen breached his June 11, 2012 agreement by accepting the sum of $50,000 from clients respecting a pending property transaction and depositing the money in his personal bank account. The funds had been recovered and the clients reimbursed by the time the report was made to the Society.

Mr. van Feggelen was suspended from the practice of law on September 24, 2012 by the Complaints Investigation Committee and a Receiver appointed. In an October 3, 2012 report, the Receiver advised that he had been contacted by a number of former clients of Mr. van Feggelen, indicating they had provided cash retainers to him, contrary to his undertaking not to accept client funds. Another client advised the Receiver that she had provided Mr. van Feggelen with $15,000, evidenced by a copy of a bank draft payable to Mr. van Feggelen in that amount. A review of Mr. van Feggelen’s personal banking records showed that he deposited $15,000 into his personal bank account on the same date as that shown on the bank draft and that the money was then spent.

The Hearing Panel approved the Settlement Agreement reached between Mr. van Feggelen and the Society. They accepted that he was suffering from serious mental health problems which have continued since at least 2009, in spite of ongoing medical treatment and intervention.

As a result, Mr. van Feggelen was disbarred and is ineligible to reapply for at least five years. If Mr. van Feggelen reapplies, all information and documents in the possession of the Society will be made available to the Credentials Committee. Further, Mr. van Feggelen must pay costs of $10,000, due and payable as of July 8, 2013, the date of the Hearing Panel’s acceptance of the Settlement Agreement.
Sanction:
Disbarred; costs of $10,000 to be paid; may not reapply for five years.

Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
Inmagic WebPublisher PRO