The lawyer in this case was responsible for supervising YD, a student-at-law, while a sole practitioner in a criminal law practice consisting of both legal aid and private clients. The Law Society of Ontario alleged misconduct on two grounds, the one relevant for our purposes being that the lawyer failed to assume complete responsibility for his legal aid practice contrary to rules 5.01(2)(a) and 2.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The lawyer was found to have failed to assume complete responsibility for his legal aid practice and abdicated his legal aid practice to a student-at-law, contrary to Rules 5.01(2)(a) and 2.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because the lawyer relied on the student to run his legal aid practice, the student represented clients, met with new clients initiated and conducted negotiations with the Crown, ought to have known that the articling student could not appear on certain offences. Furthermore, the lawyer improperly delegated the articling student to prepare and submit legal aid accounts.
Law Society of Ontario v Deslauriers, 2018 ONLSTH 61.
Leave a Reply