The lawyer in this case supervised staff in her debt collection practice. The Law Society of Upper Canada alleged misconduct on two grounds: the one relevant for our purposes being: “failure to assume complete professional responsibility for her practice and failure to directly and effectively supervise the staff to whom collection activities were delegated”. The lawyer was found to have engaged in professional misconduct because the lawyer “failed to directly and effectively supervise the staff of her law office and failed to assume complete professional responsibility for her practice”, the high-volume nature of the practice requires responsibility to be taken when things go wrong including but, not limited to misleading, threatening and harassing behaviour on the part of the staff, and the fact that the lawyer’s staff generated 155 complaints over four years, indicative of staff communications that used a tone and content that crossed the line, failing to ensure that staff carried out their responsibilities in a manner that fit the standards of a professional law office. The lawyer was reprimanded for her behaviour.
Law Society of Upper Canada v Deanna Lynn Natale, 2013 ONLSHP 94.
Leave a Reply