MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL

FROM: Victoria Rees, Director of Professional Responsibility DATE: May 16, 2014

SUBJECT: Professional Responsibility Monitoring Report – Executive Summary

For Approval

Introduction

Information X

Summary

The purpose of this report is to inform Council about the responsibilities and work of the Professional Responsibility Department (PR) during 2013/2014, providing multi-year comparisons where possible. This report identifies trends with regard to the volume and nature of complaint matters so that Council can be kept apprised of key areas of current and foreseeable risk relating to Professional Responsibility matters.

The PR Department is responsible for the following regulatory, risk and compliance matters:

Complaints intake, mediation/resolution, dismissal and letters of advice

Complaints investigation

Prosecutions and hearings

Fitness to Practice Program

Trust account regulation breaches, Trust Audit Program, and unclaimed trust fund applications

Monitoring bankruptcies and judgments

Unauthorized practice investigations

Ethics education and advice

Custodianships and receiverships

Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation claims

The 2013/2014 budget for PR was $1,136,245. This represented the second year in a row for reduction in budget – by almost $160,000 (16%) over two years. The actual expenses for 2013/2014, however, are forecast to be above budget by approximately $70,000 (6%) for a total of $1,209,701.

Page 149 of 301

In 2013/2014, 36% of the total expenditures related to external legal and other professional services including investigations, audit (excluding the Trust Audit Program), prosecutions, custodians and receivers, reduced from 47% in 2008/2009, 45% in 2009/2010, 43% in 2010/2011, 37% in 2011/2012, but representing an increase of 6% over last year. 49% of total expenditures related to staff salaries and benefits, representing a reduction of 6% from last year.

This year saw an increase in complaints investigation expenses by 68% as compared with budget, but a reduction in prosecution and hearing-related expenses by 22%. There was a sharp increase in the number of complaints filed between September 2013 and February 2014, which put a strain on our staff investigation resources. This required the retention of outside counsel to assist with a number of complex investigations in order to ensure our work continued to be done in a timely and thorough manner. In addition, outside counsel was required to assist with investigation of one complex claim against the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation.

Only one matter was before the Hearing Committee during the year, to consider a partial joint recommendation on settlement and arguments on costs and length of suspension, arising from the rejection of a prior Settlement Proposal in the same matter the previous year. As a result, there was a reduction in hearing expenses for this year, but significant additional expenses of nearly $100,000 for further investigation, expert opinions and legal services leading up to this second hearing. This significantly contributed to the 68% increase in investigation expenses.

There were eight complex investigations this year, which number is higher than the average of five. Once again, some additional potentially complex matters were able to be referred through the Fitness to Practice Program rather than having to move on to hearing.

During the past year, the Society was required to take steps to protect the public and solicitor-client privilege in relation to one ongoing civil matter, one ongoing criminal prosecution and one RCMP investigation involving former lawyers (Michael Iosipescu, Mark David, Peter van Feggelen). The Society’s role has been to ensure that appropriate protections are in place respecting client files and information during these proceedings, and execution of warrants for seizure of potentially privileged information.

In addition to the ‘routine’ work above, the PR Department undertook the following initiatives:

Continued to implement the new Code of Professional Conduct including development and delivery of training

Completed year two of implementation of the Federation’s national discipline standards, as part of the two year pilot project, leading to Council’s approval of the standards in April 2014

Implemented the new Complaints Review Committee independent committee structure, review process and regulations

Participated on the Federation’s national Law Office Search and Seizure Committee

Completed research and development of policies and regulations dealing with ungovernability/repeat offenders; show cause hearings; consent practice restrictions; no contest resolutions; and use of recording devices at hearings

Page 150 of 301

Played a key role at the staff and committee levels in moving forward Council’s new Strategic Direction to transform regulation and governance in the public interest

A. Introduction The Professional Responsibility Department manages the Society’s key public protection and regulatory risk management processes and tools. We are, in effect, responsible for ensuring that members comply with the Legal Profession Act and Regulations, the Legal Ethics Handbook, the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society Code of Professional Conduct, and, where applicable, the Land Registration Act, the Real Property Practice Standards and the Family Law Practice Standards. Sections 33 to 55 of the Act and Part 9 of the Regulations set out the authority of Committees and staff with regard to complaints, investigations and hearings. These and other relevant sections of the Act are discussed in more detail in each section below. i) Purpose and Values

Our role with regard to risk management, compliance and public protection includes the following:

i. Complaints intake, mediation/resolution, dismissal and Letters of Advice ii. Complaints investigation

iii. Prosecutions and hearings iv. Trust account regulation breaches, the Trust Audit Program, and unclaimed trust fund

applications v. The Fitness to Practice Program

vi. Monitoring member bankruptcies and judgments vii. Unauthorized practice investigations

viii. Ethics education and advice ix. Custodians and Receivers x. Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation

In terms of supporting the vision and values of the Society, the Professional Responsibility Department is focused on protection of the public, risk identification and management, and excellence in regulation. These values guide all programs, services and work. Our role is also to proactively enhance the competence of members and assist them in adhering to the rules of professional conduct. A foundational principle for this department is to identify as proactively as possible opportunities to educate, assist, monitor and guide members where problems have been found or reported, and to only use ‘disciplinary’ measures where required in the public interest. What is referred to public hearing, and reported in the media, represents only about one percent of the work of this department and its committees. Fairness, transparency and accountability are key to effective regulation of members in these areas. ii) Staff

The Professional Responsibility (PR) Department staff consists of the following:

Director of Professional Responsibility – Victoria Rees

Page 151 of 301

Professional Responsibility Counsel – Elaine Cumming: Society in-house counsel; ethics advice; unauthorized practice investigations; Society and department regulation, policy and procedure compliance; Fitness to Practice Committee, Code of Conduct Committee, Ethics Advisory Committee and Professional Responsibility Policies and Procedures Committee (PRPPC) professional support

Officer, Complaints and Investigations – Catherine Turcotte-Roy: complaints intake, mediation and assessment (25%); complaint dismissals and Letters of Advice (10%); complaint investigations (100%); Complaints Investigation Committee (CIC) and Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation (LFCC) professional support; and professional support for PR Counsel work on unclaimed trust funds applications and custodian/receiver matters

Officer, Compliance – Kristene Handley: complaints intake, mediation and assessment (75%); complaint dismissals and Letters of Advice (90%); case digests; PR operational policies and procedures support; and CIC regular and special meetings support

Professional Responsibility Administrator – Mhairi McInnis: trust account regulations compliance (TAR and ARTAR); trust audit program; bankruptcies and judgments; Complaints Review Committee and Hearing Committee support

Executive Assistant to Director – Donna Edmunds: file and records management; complaints processing; report creation; Complaints Investigation Committee (CIC) and Fitness to Practice Committee administrative support; back-up to PR Assistant

Professional Responsibility Assistant – Christal Marchant: department administrative support including trust accounts exceptions and audit; Complaints Review Committee, Code of Conduct Committee and PRPPC administrative support; data entry, file management, and complaints processing; back-up to Executive Assistant

iii) Committees and Volunteers

The PR Department supports a number of key Society committees and volunteer functions:

Complaints Investigation Committee (CIC) – meets regularly 7 – 8 times per year plus 3-6 special or emergency meetings; reviews staff and counsel complaint investigation reports; carries out authority with regard to risk management, compliance and public protection under Part 3 of the Act, and Part 9 of the Regulations

Complaints Review Committee – processes requests for review from members of the public who have had their complaints dismissed by staff; meets 7- 9 times per year

Fitness to Practice Committee – receives referrals respecting a member’s potential incapacity through self-reports, complaints or referral from the Complaints investigation Committee (CIC), to assess these reports, and where appropriate, take such steps as needed and agreed upon between the member and the Committee to resolve conduct concerns

Hearing Committee – carries out authority under Part 3 of the Act, and Part 9 of the Regulations with regard to risk management, compliance and public protection once complaint matters have been

Page 152 of 301

referred to hearing by the CIC; committee conducts 1-6 hearings per year; committee meets at least once annually for training and orientation

Ethics Advisory Committee – provides ethics advice, education and guidance to members

Code of Conduct Committee – reviews amendments brought forward by staff and the National Model Code Steering Committee, and makes recommendations to Council for adoption of amendments to the Code of Conduct.

Professional Responsibility Policies and Procedures Committee (PRPPC) – develops, reviews, and amends operational policies and procedures for the professional responsibility process, including complaints handling and investigation, settlement and hearing procedures

Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation Committee (LFCCC) – reviews and investigates claims relating to misappropriation and conversion by members and approves or makes recommendations to Council re payment of claims, and policy and procedure

There are over 100 volunteer positions on these committees, currently filled by about 75 lawyers and eight public representatives. The volunteers in the PR process generally have heavy workloads and are very involved in our peer review and public protection mandate. For example, CIC members assist with certain aspects of investigations and presentation of reports to the committee, serve on special panels for section 36(2) meetings or section 37(1) hearings, and provide significant assistance to staff with review of complaint files at earlier stages in investigations. The Complaints Review Committee is required to review the files in respect of dozens of requests for review annually. The Ethics Advisory Committee members provide a great deal of guidance to staff with regard to ethics inquiries from members, and participate via email or phone on short notice with regard to a number of the 50+ inquiries per year. The Hearing Committee devotes many hours before, during and after hearings to their important role.

iv) Budget and Financial Picture

The 2013/2014 budget for PR was $1,136,245. This represented the second year in a row for reduction in budget – by almost $160,000 (16%) over two years. The actual expenses for 2013/2014, however, are forecast to be above budget by approximately $70,000 (6%) for a total of $1,209,701.

Of the actual expenditures, 16% related to staff and CIC complaints investigation (about the same as last year, and significantly decreased from 34% in 2010/2011, and 21% in 2011/2012), and 10% related to hearings and prosecutions (down from 12% in 2009/10, 13% 2010/11, 11% in 2011/2012). A further breakdown of the actual expenditures provides the following:

25% related to external legal services for investigations, advice, prosecutions and other representation (e.g. responding to search warrants and applications for disclosure) , consistent with the average of 25% over the past four years)

49% related to salaries and benefits (compared with 55% last year and 47% the year before)

7% related to the costs of practice reviews and forensic audits (increased from 5% last year, and 6.5% the two years previous to that)

Page 153 of 301

4% related to the cost of receivers and custodians (down from 12% and 10% in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 respectively, and 6% for the last two years)

The Trust Audit Program budget for 2013/2014 was $52,400, but the actual expenses are forecast to be $92,400. In years past, the budget and actual costs were in the range of $50,000. The factors giving rise to the substantial increase this year include the number of risk-based audits uncovering significant trust account regulation violations, which required one or more follow up audits to ensure progress and improved compliance in the public interest; an increase in the use of this program to conduct proactive audits in risk situations, rather than ordering a full and more costly forensic audit (note the budget for forensic audits this year was $24,000 and none of this was spent); and an increase in the complexity of some audits where risks were identified. The combined budgets for the Trust Audit Program and forensic audits for this year was $76,000, therefore, the net expenses for both these accounts was only $16,000 (21%) over budget.

The budget for the third full year of the Fitness to Practice Program was $12,000, (compared with the first year of $26,500), and the actual expenses are forecast to be on budget. Four new matters proceeded through the FTPC in the past year, and two matters continued from the previous year. The budget for 2014/2015 will be $8,800. The FTP Committee consists of members with significant experience in Professional Responsibility, the Lawyers Assistance Program, and with backgrounds in nursing and social welfare, as well as one physician GP with experience in addictions treatment, and one forensic psychologist.

B. Complaints Overview and Trends

(i) Complaints

This was the second and final year of the two year pilot project relating to implementation of the Federation of Law Societies’ National Discipline Standards. The purpose of this initiative has been to articulate clear and measureable standards for timeliness, accountability, transparency and effective communications within the complaints intake, investigations and hearings processes across the country, and to support and encourage all jurisdictions in the attainment of these benchmarks. Attached as Appendix A is a chart showing the final Standards approved by Council in April 2014.

The NSBS has been a leading proponent of these standards, and we are meeting or exceeded every standard, with one exception remaining: this year, we will work to enhance our on-line Membership Directory to include members’ formal discipline records, as well as information about the location of files in the event the member’s practice is or has been the subject of an order for a receiver or custodian. In addition, in the interests of accessibility, we plan to implement a process allowing for receipt and processing of complaints on-line.

Trends

With regard to our complaints experience this year, we had a 15% increase in intake calls, together with a 29% increase in written complaints as compared with the last three years. This created challenges for us in meeting our processing and response timelines, but we met these challenges. We have experienced an increase in members of the public calling in anger and frustration with the justice system, and who fall into gaps in the system with regard to access to justice. With regard to written complaints, we have seen an increase in complaints made by lawyers against other lawyers, usually due to extreme delay and failure to communicate. This year also saw an increase in complainants filing complaints against multiple

Page 154 of 301

lawyers. The increase in volume of complaint calls and written complaints resulted in delays in completion of major investigations, but still within reasonable time limits.

Details

Complaint intake calls This year, there was a large increase in intake calls (15% - 411) compared with the past three years: 2010/2011 (317), and 2011/2012 (336). The average length of time the Officers spend on each complaint call is 21.37 minutes, which is longer than the average last year of 20.55 minutes. This reflects to some extent the mood and demeanor of complaints this past year. This does not account for the many follow up calls made and received. Breakdown of the number of intake of calls by month:

The areas which form the most frequent basis for intake call complaints are:

Quality of Service Competence Conflicts

The most frequent areas of law involved in complaint intake calls are:

Family (separation/divorce) Real estate (other) Criminal defense Family (custody/access) Civil Litigation Real estate (purchase and sale) Wills and estates – Undue delay Real estate (other)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Page 155 of 301

Personal injury

Complaints mediated/resolved Overall, we mediated or otherwise resolved 15% of complaints which entered the system by phone or mail this year, which is slightly lower than last year (17%). Many phone resolutions are achieved within a few days, while others take weeks or months as we monitor the member’s actions to ensure appropriate follow up. During this period, we were successful with informal resolution of the large majority of matters we determined were appropriate for this form of resolution:

Successful – 11

Unsuccessful – 4

Ongoing - 13

Written Complaints We received 179 written complaints, compared with 139 in 2012/2013 (a 29% increase); 154 in 2011/2012; 150 in 2010/2011; and 182 in 2009/2010. As the chart below shows, and the report relating to Custodianships and Receiverships later in this report, we are beginning to see increased risk and the impact of ageing lawyers in the professional responsibility arena. Number of lawyers the subject of complaints cross-referenced with the year admitted to the Bar and shown by % of lawyers in each 5 year category:

Nearly one-fifth (19%) of all written complaints received this year were against lawyers who have been in practice for 39 – 44 years. Nearly half (45%) of all complaints were against lawyers in practice 34 – 44 years. By contrast, only 9% of complaints related to lawyers in practice 1 – 11 years.

19%

13%

13%

8.5%

11% 9.5%

7.5% 6%

3%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1968-1972

1973-1977

1978-1982

1983-1987

1988-1992

1993-1997

1998-2002

2003-2007

2008-2012

Page 156 of 301

Of the 179 written complaints filed:

58% were against lawyers in firms – this is proportionate to the total number of lawyers practicing in firms in NS (59%): 65% of these related to lawyers in small firms (2-10 lawyers); 24% related to lawyers in medium sized firms (11-20 lawyers); and 11% related to lawyers in large firms (20+ lawyers)

23% related to sole practitioners – this is disproportionate to the number of all lawyers that sole practitioners comprise (15%)

6% were filed against lawyers with Nova Scotia Legal Aid

The number of complaints received in the period by county:

This data tells us that not surprisingly, the largest number of complaints against lawyers in NS related to lawyers in HRM.

The top three areas of law involved in complaints by county:

This data analysis shows us that Lunenburg and Colchester Counties received a disproportionate number of complaints relating to the practice of family law, while not surprisingly, HRM and Cape Breton had a large number of complaints involving real estate matters.

( 1332 )

0 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160 180 200

Lawyers

Complaints

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

AH AN CB CO DI HA HRM KI LU PI QU SH

Family-Sep/ Divorce

Real Estate- Other

Real Estate- Purch/Sale

Page 157 of 301

Complaints closed: We closed 159 complaint files in 2013/2014, compared with 117 in 2012/2013 and 128 in 2011/2012. This reflects the increase in volume of complaints received. This number is important because it helps us track how long files are open, which is often a reflection of the complexity of complaints and investigations, but can also indicate areas where resources may be insufficient, or procedures need to be improved. Due to an increase in the number of complaints received and under investigation since last fall, the number of complaint files remaining open longer with staff has increased, but the number which have been fully investigated and closed by the CIC are being closed more efficiently:

Average # of days complaints were open in the reporting period

2011/2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Staff 32 45 40

CIC 231 190 360

FH none 749 287

We had six files which were open longer due to staff’s continued mediation attempts, working with the member to resolve matters and eventual dismissal. Two of these matters were mediated and closed. Two other files were closed by staff dismissals for matters outside our jurisdiction, and the final two complaints were dismissed, one because the evidence that might reasonably be believed could not support a finding of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, professional incompetence or incapacity, or would not merit counseling, a caution or both; and one member was issued a Letter of Advice. A further breakdown of complaints opened and closed by staff from April 25, 2013 to April 24, 2014 follows:

May 1 – August 31, 2013 ave. 39 days (2012/2012 – 19) September 1, 2013 to February 1, 2014 ave. 37 days (2012/2013 - 44)

February 2 – April 25, 2014 ave. 42 days (2013/2013 – 52)

With regard to the disposition of written complaints in the past year,

For matters outside our jurisdiction (reg. 9.2.2(a)(i)), dismissal letters were prepared within an average of 14 days (27 complaints), compared with 18 days (25 complaints) in 2012/2013.

For matters where the complaint was filed for an extraneous or improper purpose (reg.

9.2.2(a)(ii)), dismissal letters were prepared within an average of 32 days (16 complaints), compared with 14 days (2 complaints) in 2012/2013.

For matters where the complaint alleged facts which, if proven, would not amount to a

violation of the rules of conduct (reg. 9.2.2(a)(iii)), dismissal letters were prepared within an average of 30 days (17complaints), compared with 24 days (7 complaints) in 2012/2013.

For matters where one lawyer response was required (reg. 9.2.10(a)), dismissal letters were

prepared within an average of 46 days (26 files), compared with 39 days (11 files) last year.

Page 158 of 301

For matters where a full document exchange was required between the complainant and the lawyer (reg. 9.2.12(a)), the dismissal letters were prepared within an average of 114 days (7 complaints), compared with 78 days (9 complaints) last year.

For matters where the complaint was dismissed with a staff Letter of Advice after one

response from the member, the letters were prepared within an average of 63 days (14 complaints), compared with 52 days (2complaints) last year.

For matters where the complaint was dismissed with a staff Letter of Advice after two

responses from the member, the letters were prepared within an average of 90 days (9 complaints), compared with 112 days (4 complaints) last year .

Disposition of Written Complaints Closed during the reporting periods

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Resolved/Other 22 (17%) 11 (14%) 28 (18%)

Staff Dismissals 95 (75%) 25 (31%) 92 (57%)

Staff LOA 6 (5%) 10 (12%) 23 (14%)

CIC 9 (7%) 12 (9%) 8 (5%)

FH 1 6 2 (1%)

The three areas which form the most frequent basis for allegations in written complaints, and which are ultimately dismissed by staff with or without Letters of Advice, are:

Delay in moving a file forward – 32 complaints (compared with 25 last year, and 30 in 2011/2012)

Client unhappy with outcome of case - 24 complaints (compared with 12 last year, and 27 in 2011/2012

Poor communications –12 complaints (compared with 13 last year, and 12 in 2011/2012)

C. Complaints Review Committee A new and more independent Complaints Review Committee (CRC) was established in June 2013 to replace the Review Subcommittee. The CRC carries out its work in accordance with Regulation 9.3. The role of the Complaints Review Committee is to review the Executive Director’s decisions (delegated to the Director of PR) to dismiss complaints on the request of a complainant. The process is designed to ensure that the review process is, and is perceived by the public to be fair and independent of the Society. Their role is to determine whether the decision by staff to dismiss a complaint was correct based on the regulatory authority and the evidence on the file. The Chair or a designate will prepare a decision letter setting out the reasons for either confirming the dismissal of the complaint as correct, or returning the complaint to the Executive Director to commence of complete the investigation.

Page 159 of 301

The CRC is comprised of a public representative Chair, and at least four lawyer members, none of whom may be serving on Council or have any current involvement in the Professional Responsibility process and related committees.

During this reporting period, the CRC met nine times by teleconference and reviewed 22 requests for review. This represents 19% of all staff dismissals with and without Letters of Advice, which is within the average annual rate of 20%. The Committee upheld the decision of staff to dismiss in 19 of the 22 files. In three matters, staff was directed to complete the investigation.

D. Complaints Investigation Committee (CIC)

Other than those complaint matters referred to formal hearing or resolved by way of public Consents to Reprimand, the vast majority of the work of the CIC is done ‘behind closed doors’. Other than reports such as this, and quarterly statistical reports to Council, there is little opportunity for members and the public to fully understand the challenging matters that are brought to the CIC, nor the often very creative and rehabilitative approach taken by the CIC whenever possible and appropriate.

The CIC held seven regular meetings this year (eight last year), as well as two teleconference meetings, and one special meeting to deal with a complex matter. While the number of regular meetings is comparable to last year, there was a significant increase in the number of unscheduled meetings. There were no s. 37(1) interim suspension/practice restrictions hearings this year for the first time in many years. However, four s. 38(1) show cause hearings were held resulting in such things as one consent to reprimand, and one strongly worded caution to a member for being a repeat offender.

Five s. 36(2) meetings were held resulting in two practice condition agreements, and a caution for a driving while impaired conviction, among other things. Two of these matters dealt with members in sole practice for fewer than four years each. S. 36(2) meetings take place when the CIC requires that a member appears to assist with the investigation or considering appropriate penalty.

This increase in meetings and hearings with members is the result of a determination by the CIC that it can have greater impact on a lawyer’s conduct and behavior if it meets with the lawyer in person, and has direct interaction, rather than sending advice or remonstrations by letter. This personal contact often leads to greater candor and honesty by the lawyers under investigation, and greater commitment to making behavioral and practice changes. It also gives the CIC the chance to assess whether there are other factors contributing to the lawyer’s conduct, such as mental health or addiction problems, which may benefit from assistance, remediation or referral to the Fitness to Practice Program.

In this reporting period, the CIC made the following decisions:

Resolved one matter – because of the corrective steps and recommendations that the member implemented

Dismissed five complaints

Directed that one complaint be held in abeyance due to the member’s probationary period and the terms of his conditional discharge for a criminal conviction

Issued four counsels (compared with one last year) in relation to impartiality, conflict of interest between clients, duties to the court, improper conduct with clients, and isolated incompetence

Page 160 of 301

Issued three cautions (same as last year) relating to conflicts, and failure to obtain clear instructions

Held four s. 38(1) show cause hearings to address such matters as a member’s recent suspension and penalty ordered by another law society, a member’s conviction under the Income Tax Act, and another member’s conviction for DUI

Ordered four practice reviews (compared with three last year) relating to three sole practitioners, and one firm member: one for failure to respond, one as a result of a complaint and trust audit, and two others based on patterns of complaint. In two of these cases, the members agreed to undergo forms of mental health assessments.

Issued one reprimand with the member’s consent (two last year) relating to the member’s lengthy discipline history, and poor ethical decision-making with regard to monies owed to previous counsel on a client file.

Appointed three new receiverships

Made two new referrals to the Fitness to Practice Program (compared with none last year)

Recommended approval of one Settlement Proposal which was accepted

The CIC is actively taking steps to identify and manage risk with member conduct as proactively as possible, and intervening at earlier stages leaving greater opportunity for remediation, mentoring and supervision to change behaviors. The CIC has become more outcomes-focused, by engaging members in consensual practice conditions and supervision, and helping members, where possible, reach goals for improved competence and quality of service to clients.

D. Professional Responsibility Policies and Procedures Committee

This committee supports Council in its governance of the Society by recommending changes to the Legal Profession Act (“the Act”), Regulations and policies and by developing procedures for the professional responsibility (PR) process. The composition of the PRPPC changed significantly last year as part of a plan established by Council to move work through this committee more expeditiously. This year’s committee is composed of five members with significant experience with the PR process from the perspective of counsel for members, counsel for the Society, a Past President, a current officer and a regulation and governance specialist. This new format is working extremely well and few matters remained on the agenda for more than two meetings. The Law Office Search and Seizure (LOSS) Subcommittee continues to operate in an effort to finalize the new Guidelines for Law Office Search and Seizure. Meetings are being arranged with stakeholders involved in this process including Court Administration and the Public Prosecution Service. There have not been any new subcommittees appointed in the 2013-2014 committee year, as most matters were able to be dealt with by the full committee now that it is a small body.

This year, the PRPPC developed a new policy and guidelines for the use of cameras and recording devices during hearings. The Committee is continuing to work on the development of an appropriate threshold for charges against a member for ungovernability, and draft regulatory amendments have been prepared for review by Council.

Page 161 of 301

While the focus of the Committee over the 2012/13 year was largely on the Hearing Committee, the last year has been dedicated to considering issues of importance to the Complaints Investigation Committee. Regulatory amendments that are currently being considered by the Committee relate to consent practice restrictions or conditions and no contest pleas.

The PRPPC continues to monitor the PR department’s compliance with the national discipline standards. While Nova Scotia has remained a leader in meeting these standards, there is one remaining standard that the Committee is now considering: the electronic availability of members’ discipline histories. In addition, the PRPPC will be working with staff on the development of an electronic complaint filing process.

E. Fitness to Practice Program The Fitness to Practice Program has been in place since February 2011. This Program helps the Society deal more effectively with members suffering from a physical, mental or emotional incapacity who are engaged in the professional responsibility process. Referrals to the Program can come through self-referral, as well as through referrals from the Executive Director or the Complaints Investigation Committee. Significant interest in our unique and effective program has developed across North America. The Committee is currently comprised of seven members, five of whom are lawyers and two are medical doctors. The Committee’s composition is very important, as there is a need for medical professionals as well as lawyers with experience in the fields of health care, addictions and member assistance. This assists the Committee in effectively assessing member incapacity, and creating appropriate agreements with members for ongoing practice or voluntary interim cessation of practice. Although this Committee is now beginning its fourth year, the Committee continues to learn and grow as it works its way through difficult and diverse matters. There are currently four matters before the Committee, and all come with unique challenges. The goal is to try to find positive ways to address a member’s incapacity, if incapacity is demonstrated, while ensuring that the public is protected.

During the past year, the Committee received three new referrals – one from the Complaints Investigation

Committee and two from the Executive Director. In addition, the Committee continues to monitor a member’s compliance with the terms of an Amended Remedial Agreement. This matter has been open for two years. One matter was closed with a resignation with the agreement of the member.

In the past year, the Committee referred one matter back to the Executive Director and one to the Complaints Investigation Committee after determining that the members did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the program.

F. Ethics Advisory Committee The Ethics Advisory Committee is responsible for assisting staff in considering and responding to ethical inquiries from members. The Society’s Professional Responsibility Department regularly receives calls from members seeking guidance with regard to ethical dilemmas they have encountered, and in many cases the input of the committee as a whole is sought and relayed to the member. In 2013/2014, we have received 77 ethics inquiries. This is a slight decrease from the 2012/2013 fiscal year when 84 ethics inquiries were received. That year saw a dramatic 45% increase in the number of inquiries from the 58 received in 2011/2012 and a 50% increase from the 56 inquiries received in 2010/2011. While the reason for the dramatic rise in

Page 162 of 301

ethics inquiries is not entirely clear, it is likely related to the coming into force of the new Code of Professional Conduct in January 2012. Inquiries from members over the past year have most often focused on conflicts of interest between clients, duties of confidentiality, duties to other lawyers, and duties to clients with diminished capacity. Many of the calls relate to very difficult and sensitive issues, and we are pleased that lawyers are taking the time to carefully work through their often competing obligations and to seek the guidance of the Society. The most common areas of law with regard to these inquiries are civil litigation, real estate, family law and criminal defense. We have also received some interesting questions about marketing and social networking. The practice of law is changing in the digital world, and we anticipate that issues related to electronic information will be raised more frequently. A new Table of Concordance has been created between the new Code and the former Legal Ethics Handbook. It is hoped that this resource will be launched in the summer of 2014. As well, it will be a priority in the coming year to create an on-line resource for members to be able to search summaries of ethical advice provided to other members. G. Code of Conduct Committee

The Code of Professional Conduct Committee is an advisory committee to Council that is tasked with reviewing the Code of Professional Conduct and any amendments that may be proposed by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. In the past year, the Committee considered a number of amendments which have been proposed by the Federation’s Standing Committee on the Code of Professional Conduct. The proposed amendments include an addition to section 3.2 regarding new language rights rules. These rules would codify the duty to advise a client of their right to proceed in their official language and the duty to decline a retainer where the lawyer is unable to provide services in the client’s official language after having been requested to do so.

The Committee has also reviewed proposed amendments to the conflict of interest rules in section 3.4, specifically those relating to doing business with clients, transactions with clients, receiving gifts from client, testamentary instruments, short term legal services and judicial interim release. Also falling under section 3.4 are the proposed amendments to the transferring lawyer rules which were circulated to the membership for feedback during the 2012/13 year.

Another important new rule that has been proposed will fall in section 5.1 and address a lawyer’s duties when in possession of physical evidence relevant to a crime. The Committee has reviewed this draft rule and has sought and received feedback from stakeholders. The draft remains before the Standing Committee at this time.

H. Ethics and Professional Responsibility Education

In addition to responding to ethics inquiries from members of the Society, PR Counsel and the Director often participate in a number of educational events for purposes of training members on new rules of ethics, how they apply to different areas of practice, and to speak about ethical issues of interest to various

Page 163 of 301

groups of members. Over the past year, this included the CBANS Mid-Winter Conference, the RELANS Annual Conference, the PPS Fall Conference, the NSBS Annual Meeting, the NSBS Skills Course and the third year Professional Responsibility course at the Schulich School of Law. In addition, the Director participated as a speaker at the International Bar Association Conference in Boston, the National Discipline Conference, the Federation of Law Societies Annual and Semi-Annual Conferences, and PR Counsel participated as a speaker at the 2nd Annual International Regulators Conference in San Francisco on the topic of fitness to practice.

I. Custodianships and Receiverships In accordance with the Society’s mandate to protect the public, whenever a lawyer in active practice involuntarily ceases practice with little or no notice (due to ill health, death, or as a result of suspension or disbarment), if no plans have been made for transfer of the lawyer’s practice to another lawyer or firm, or for a planned wind-down of the practice, then the Society will appoint a Receiver (by the CIC) or a Custodian (by the Court) to protect client interests and manage or wind-down the practice. The authority for this is found in Sections 51 and 53 of the Act. In each case, an external lawyer is retained to serve as Receiver or Custodian, and these lawyers are provided professional and administrative support, as needed, by PR Counsel and the Director of Professional Responsibility. The costs in relation to this work have varied greatly over the years, from $30,000 in 2003/2004, to $154,136 in 2006/2007, to the current budget for 2013/2014 of $57,999.68. Actual costs in 2013/2014 were $58,991.29, and the budget is based on the average of the past 3-5 years. Costs in this area are being reduced primarily through the use of an experienced team at Burchell MacDougall consisting of a senior counsel (John Rafferty, QC), an associate and a legal assistant, and by arranging for storage of as many files held by the Society as possible in one secure location.

During the 2013/14 year, there were 11 open receiverships and ten open custodianships which include three new custodianship files. In addition, there are two “informal” custodianships that have been opened in the past year. Many of these files are now dormant and date back as far as 2003. Efforts will be made in the coming year to apply for closure of inactive receiverships and custodianships, and to appropriately disburse funds remaining in trust.

It should be noted as a future risk, however, that the Society is being called upon in an increasing number of cases to assume responsibility for the open and closed client files and accounts held by senior sole practitioners who have been unable to wind down their practices effectively, thereby presenting a risk to the public. There has been an increase in demand on PR staff time to address these matters. In the result, we are recommending that Council include on the 2014/2015 annual plan a commitment to begin to consider these ‘aging’ lawyer issues, with a view to developing proactive steps or requirements to avoid these situations becoming more problematic, and to clarify the Society’s public protection role in such matters.

J. Unauthorized Practice of Law Unauthorized practice (UAP) means practicing law without being permitted to do so by the Legal Profession Act. UAP is monitored by the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, as we have the responsibility to protect the public by taking action against non-lawyers who illegally offer legal services or misrepresent

Page 164 of 301

themselves as lawyers. On receipt of the information suggesting the unauthorized practice of law, staff will gather appropriate information and begin to investigate the allegations. The powers of the Society with respect to the unauthorized practice of law are found in Sections 17 and 18 of the Legal Profession Act, and include the ability to seek injunctions and to prosecute those who violate the Act. If there is some evidence that the person is engaged in unauthorized practice of a minor nature or if the specifics are not clear, staff will seek an undertaking from the person whereby he/she will provide a written commitment not to engage in unauthorized practice. In the 2013/14 reporting year, four instances of UAP were reported and followed up on by PR Counsel. As well, one UAP matter that had been considered resolved in 2012/2013 was raised again by the reporting lawyer. Most of those contacted in relation to UAP allegations sign an undertaking to cease and desist offering legal services and the initiation of an injunction or other legal recourse is not necessary. K. Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation

The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation (the “Fund”) was established under Part IV of the Legal Profession Act to provide compensation to persons who have sustained pecuniary losses due to misappropriation or wrongful conversion of the claimants’ money or property by a member of the Society or by a law corporation. The Fund is one of ‘first resort,’ and the payments made out of it are made on an ex gratia basis. The Compensation Fund Committee has authority under the Regulations to approve claims less than $5,000, and Council receives Committee recommendations respecting payment or denial of claims over $5,000. The claims experience in Nova Scotia remains very favorable compared to other jurisdictions:

In 2009/2010, seven claims were received resulting in payment of five claims totaling $119,636.08; two claims were denied.

In 2010/2011, seven claims were received resulting in payment of five claims totaling $64,016.95; two claims were denied.

In 2011/2012, four claims were opened amounting to $560,360: two totaling $345,360 were denied by Council in full (relating to a mortgage fraud scheme), one claim in the amount of $35,000 remained outstanding (relating to conflict of interest and alleged fraud), and one in the amount of $180,000 (relating to investment fraud) was waiting to go to Council.

In 2012/2013, the claim in the amount of $180,000 was denied in full by Council. Two claims were opened totaling $75,000: one claim in the amount of $60,000 (relating to an investment transaction) remained outstanding pending the completion of the discipline investigation in the matter, and one claim in the amount of $15,000 (relating to conversion of funds intended for a settlement payment) remained open.

In 2013/2014, the claim above in the amount of $15,000 was approved in part by Council and payment in the amount of $14,273.62 was made to the claimant. The claim in the amount of $35,000 (relating to conflict of interest and alleged fraud) as well as the claim in the amount of $60,000 (relating to an investment transaction) has been recommended to be denied by Council in May on the basis of no evidence of misappropriation. In this period, we opened three new claims amounting to $82,161.33 against Peter van Feggelen: one claim in the amount of $700 (relating to an unearned retainer) was

Page 165 of 301

approved in full, one claim in the amount of $67,700 (relating to a number of loan transactions and conversion of funds intended for settlement payments) has been recommended to Council for partial payment of $40,800, and one claim in the amount of $13,761.33 (relating to conversion of funds intended for payment of invoices) is being recommended to Council for full payment. The majority of the claims approved over the past three years have involved: unearned retainers – where a lawyer receives and applies for his own use retainers for legal work

which is either never completed or has no value,

misappropriation of client funds arising from lawyer impecuniosities misappropriation of funds entrusted to a lawyer for purposes of investment with another client

conversion of funds intended for settlement or other payments

(i) Canadian Lawyers’ Insurance Association

Pursuant to Section 58(9)(d) of the Act, in June 2005 Council approved Nova Scotia’s subscription to the Canadian Lawyers’ Insurance Association (CLIA), a reciprocal insurance exchange that also includes several other provinces.

Through CLIA, the Society has access to catastrophic claims coverage of up to $10 million, with a self-retention level of $100,000 per occurrence and a stop loss of $500,000. Since obtaining insurance through CLIA, the Society has paid out no claims over $100,000. As a CLIA participant, the Society files quarterly reports on all claims against the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Compensation, including potential claims which come to the attention of the Society.

(ii) LRA Compensation Fund The Act and Regulation 11.2.2 establish a Land Registration Act (LRA) Compensation Fund for the purpose of reimbursement in the event the Minister of Finance is required to pay compensation pursuant to the LRA for claims arising out of dishonesty, fraud or criminal acts in the certifying of title by a practicing lawyer. No claims have been filed against this Fund in this or previous reporting years since inception of the Fund. L. Undistributed Trust Fund Applications

The Society provides a means each year for members and firms to dispose of undistributed trust funds, through application to the Court, and payment of these funds to the Public Trustee. Members must have made reasonable efforts to identify the source of funds and to return the funds to those entitled, and have held the funds for at least two years.

In 2010/2011, two applications were made on behalf of 25 lawyers and firms, respecting funds totaling $40,102.72. In the 2011/2012 year, one application was made on behalf of 11 lawyers and firms respecting funds totaling $11,799.63. In 2012/13, one rather complex application was made that resulted in an Order to seal the file which related to 11 lawyers or law firms and funds totaling $11,799.63.

Page 166 of 301

Changes have now been made to our process for these applications in an effort to ensure that there is no risk of disclosure of privileged information. The requirements for information to be included in a lawyer’s affidavit to be included in the application are set out on the Society’s website. It is specifically noted that lawyers must not include privileged or confidential information and that copies of trust ledgers and the like should not be attached as exhibits. There was an application in March 2013 on behalf of 23 lawyers and law firms with respect to funds totaling $39,968.79 and another in December 2013 on behalf of 15 lawyers and law firms respecting funds totaling $19,438.52.

M. Hearing Committee

The Hearing Committee is a fully independent committee of the Society, which carries out responsibilities assigned to it under Sections 41 to 48 of the Legal Profession Act and Part 9 of the Regulations made pursuant to the Act. The Committee and any hearing panel thereof have all the powers conferred by the Act and the Regulations as well as the powers, privileges and immunities of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. Members are appointed by Council. The Committee members for this year consisted of twenty four lawyers and four public representatives. The work of the Hearing Committee is of the highest importance in terms of the Society’s right to self-govern and to enhance the level of trust and respect members of the public have for the profession. The NSBS Hearing Committee operates under the most independent authority and process in the country.

There have been many positive changes to the regulatory authority, policies and procedures relating to the hearing process in the past year, in part in response to the National Discipline Standards. These include the following:

the new case management system was implemented which includes Proceedings Management Meetings and Pre-Hearing Conferences in order to address administrative matters early on and expedite the hearing process

A policy on use of recording devices at hearings was approved

The process for dealing with discipline and other convictions of members who also hold membership in other Canadian jurisdictions, is being clarified through proposed amendments to the regulations and policy, and these matters may now involve referral to the Hearing Committee

At the full day professional development and training session for the Hearing Committee, topics covered included dealing with repeat offenders and ungovernable members, the settlement agreement process, issues relating to mental health and discipline, and discussion of various policy and procedure matters

The Hearing Committee Chair is responsible for empanelling a hearing panel and appointing a Panel Chair. As noted above, hearing panels generally now consist of three members, including one public representative. Hearings are open to the public. However, a hearing panel has the authority to make orders necessary to prevent public disclosure of matters disclosed at a hearing in the interest of protection of solicitor-client privilege or where the member demonstrates that compelling circumstances exist to justify a temporary limitation on publication. These matters and other procedural or substantive issues are usually addressed in a pre-hearing conference between the Chair of the hearing panel and both parties. At the formal

Page 167 of 301

hearing, the panel hears evidence, asks questions, makes evidentiary rules and receives submissions. The panel has the authority to ask for written submissions from counsel at any time. The panel has the authority under Section 45 of the Legal Profession Act to impose a penalty and/or to impose restrictions or conditions on the member’s practice. The panel may render an oral decision. However, a written decision must also be prepared within sixty (60) days following a full hearing and thirty (30) days following a penalty hearing. These regulatory requirements have placed us as a leader in the country in timeliness of formal hearing proceedings.

A Resolution confirming the acceptance or rejection of a Settlement Agreement or the acceptance of an Agreed Statement of Facts is due within 30 days of the hearing. Decisions and Resolutions are filed with the Prothonotary and posted to the Society’s website. This year, we faced the unique situation of having a Settlement Proposal rejected, and a new hearing ordered. Based on legal advice and in the interests of fairness principles, it was determined that there would be no publication of the rejected settlement proposal, so that no reference to it could be made at the new hearing. A regulation amendment to address this situation is being brought to Council for approval.

Staff is not involved in the decision making process and is not responsible for preparing the Decision or the Resolution following the Hearing. The Professional Responsibility Administrator is responsible for assisting the Chair with communicating with committee members for panel appointments and arranging the hearing facilities, as well as posting any electronic submissions on our secure website with the Chair’s approval.

Matters Referred to Hearing 2008 - 2014

During the 2008/2009 reporting period, four matters were referred to Formal Hearing, of which one was carried forward from the previous year. In 2009/2010, three new matters were referred to hearing, with the same matter as in 2008/2009 being carried forward. In 2010/2011, the same matter was carried forward as in previous years, and four new matters were referred to hearing. In 2011/2012, due to the timing of completion of major investigations, there were no full hearings held; rather, in relation to one matter referred to hearing in 2010/2011, a hearing was held to hear arguments with regard to an issue of disclosure. Six matters were heard in 2012/2013: all proceeded by way of settlement agreement, five of which were approved.

Two matters were heard in 2013 / 2014: Peter van Feggelen was disbarred by consent effective July 8, 2013, and Philip Whitehead entered into an agreement respecting practice conditions and was suspended for one month pursuant to the Hearing Panel Resolution on March 25, 2014.

N. Trust Audits

i) Trust Account Monitoring and Audits All practicing lawyers or firms in Nova Scotia, who held money or other property in trust, are required by Regulation 4.2.2 to file an annual Trust Account Report (TAR) within one month of their fiscal year end (the large majority are due January 31st), and the Accountant’s Report on trust is due within three months of the fiscal year end (the large majority by March 31st). The purpose of the reports is to ensure members are maintaining their trust accounts in accordance with Part 10 of the Regulations. Council was provided with a Trust Accounts Monitoring Report last fall. New trust account regulations came into effect in January

Page 168 of 301

2013. For the2013 reporting period, 366 lawyers and firms filed TARs, of which a large majority reported violations; as compared with the 2012 reporting period, when 344 lawyers and firms filed annual trust account reports, of which 79% (271) reported violations of the trust account regulations. Trust account monitoring of a member’s practice can arise from the review of a member’s TAR, a trust account audit through the Society’s Trust Audit Program, the reporting of a judgment or bankruptcy, or as a result of conditions imposed by the Complaints Investigation Committee or an order by a Hearing Panel. Over the past year, a larger than average number of members and firms (13) were required to file monthly trust reconciliations (MTRs). By way of comparison, in 2009/10, three members and/or firms filed MTRs; in 2010/2011, nine members/firms filed MTRs; in 2011/2012, six members and firms filed MTRs; in 2012/2013, eight members filed MTRs. Of those filing MTRs in this current reporting period, 70% are sole practitioners, and of these, over 50% are lawyers who have been practicing for over 30 years.

ii) Trust Audit Program

The Trust Audit Program is an important risk management tool for the Society, and assists with our mandate to protect the public, and to enhance the competence of members. As noted in the Annual Scope of Audit Report, copy attached the vast majority of lawyers and firms are very receptive to the audits and responsive to recommendations for improvement of their trust account management systems. The audit results inform future education programs, and the continued development of our new on-line trust account education tools and resources for members. A copy of Graham Dennis, CA’s Annual Scope of Audits Report summarizing his general findings from audits performed May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014, is attached as Appendix B.

For the last four years, the Trust Audit Program budget has remained at $50,000. The Trust Audit Program budget for 2013/2014 was $52,400, but the actual expenses are forecast to be $92,400. The factors giving rise to the substantial increase this year include the number of risk-based audits uncovering significant trust account regulation violations, which required one or more follow up audits to ensure progress and improved compliance in the public interest; an increase in the use of this program to conduct proactive audits in risk situations, rather than ordering a full and more costly forensic audit (note the budget for forensic audits this year was $24,000 and none of this was spent); and an increase in the complexity of some audits where risks were identified. The combined budgets for the Trust Audit Program and forensic audits for this year was $76,000, therefore, the net expenses for both these accounts was only $16,000 (21%) over budget.

In 2009/2010, 45 trust audits were conducted and all revealed exceptions to the trust account regulations requiring follow up by members/firms and staff. In 2010/2011, 43 trust audits were conducted: 22 related to lawyers/firms in HRM, and 21 in areas outside HRM; 19 were sole practitioners, and 24 were firms or lawyers who practice with other lawyers. In 2011/2012, 26 audits were conducted: 16 related to lawyers/ firms in HRM and 10 in areas outside HRM; 15 were sole practitioners. In 2012/2013, 33 audits were conducted: 12 related to lawyers/firms in HRM, and 10 in outlying areas; 23 related to sole practitioners and 10 related to firms of two or more lawyers.

In this reporting period, 42 audits were conducted in 38 practices – four requiring follow up audits: 19 (50%) of the audits were conducted on practices within HRM; and 16 (42%) related to sole practices, as this group presents a high risk for trust account management problems.

Page 169 of 301

As identified in the report, the key concerns from these audits include:

10.4.11 maintain sufficient balance (old Regs) -10.6.1 of new Regs.

10.2.2 (a) - posting of books, records and accounts (old Reg) – 10.4.1 of new Regs

10.2.1 (a) – book of original entry showing date of receipt and source of trust money (old Reg ) – 10.4.2 (a) of new Regs

10.3.3 – confirmation of third party deposit EFT (old Reg) – 10.2.5 of new Regs

10.3.1 – deposit without delay (old Reg) – 10.2.3 of new Regs

10.2.1 (b) – book of original entry showing all payments out of trust money (old Reg) – 10.4.2 (b) new Regs

10.2.1 (j) – bank statements, cashed cheques / digital images (old Regs) - 10.4.2 (h) of new Regs

10.5.1 – reporting all overdrafts to Executive Director (old Reg) – 10.6.3 of new Regs

10.2.1.1 – “cashed cheques” may include original or digital image (old Reg) – 10.4.2 (h) new Regs

10.3.5 – “ money to be put into trust account” (old Regs) – 10.2.6 of new Regs

10.4.7 – withdrawals by EFT (old Regs) – NA in new Regs

10.8.8.1 – requirements on receipt of notification SNS – (old Regs) – 10.5.10 of new Regs In all cases above, there has been staff follow-up to confirm rectification of errors and system compliance. While few of the exceptions reported were cause for serious concern, at least three resulting in the opening of complaints for investigation, and required intervention by the Complaints Investigation Committee. In the coming year, considerable attention will continue to be devoted to improving our risk identification and management with regard to lawyers’ trust accounts, and assessing where our resources should be best allocated in the interests of public protection and minimizing intervention with firms where the risk does not warrant it.

iii) Bankruptcies & Judgments

As part of the Professional Responsibility Department’s role to protect the public, the Department also monitors other compliance-based work including members’ bankruptcy and judgment files. Pursuant to Regulations 4.2.8 through 4.2.12, if a member or a law corporation is served with a petition in bankruptcy, makes an assignment of property for the benefit of creditors, presents a proposal in bankruptcy to creditors, or learns of a judgment order against him or her, he or she is required to report immediately to the Executive Director of the Society.

These requirements are to ensure that the Society is aware of the matters which affect the solvency of its members and so that the Society can take the necessary steps to ensure that adequate protections are in place for clients in these circumstances. These steps may include any combination of the following:

the removal of the member as sole signing authority and subsequent appointment of a co-signer on all trust accounts;

filing a Trust Account Report (TAR) for the period from the date that was last covered by the previously submitted TAR and the date of the Assignment in Bankruptcy;

Page 170 of 301

commencement of filing Monthly Trust Reconciliation Reports.

If there appears to be evidence of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, or incompetence, the bankruptcy or judgment matter may be referred to the Complaints Investigation Committee as a complaint.

In 2009/10, 13 such members were monitored. In 2010/2011, 10 members were monitored, including two bankruptcies, four consumer proposals and four judgments. In 2011/2012, there were eight open bankruptcy files, eight open judgment files, and we closed two judgment and one bankruptcy files. In 2012/2013, four bankruptcy and seven judgment files were monitored, including five members who owed substantial amounts to CRA.

During the current reporting period, PR monitored 17 matters (a 64% increase in matters): nine bankruptcy files, and eight judgment matters. 87% of bankruptcy matters involved sole practitioners, and 50% of bankruptcies were sole practitioners. 88% of bankruptcy and judgment matters involved male lawyers, and nearly all have been in practice for more than 30 years. This adds to our concern about the resources having to be devoted to aging lawyers.

The most frequent significant matters identified in the trust audits are as follows (as reported in Graham Dennis’ Scope Audit Report)

Old and inactive trust accounts

Control over EFT systems not retained by lawyer or law firm

Reconciliation of trust bank accounts and comparison to client trust ledger balances

Written confirmation of receipt of funds by EFT

Overdrawn client trust ledger balances

Electronic wire and other transfers

Cashed cheques or images of cashed cheques

Client identification and verification

O. CONCLUSION

After two years of reductions in budget for PR, and comparably low numbers of hearings and complex investigations, 2013/2014 proved to be a very challenging year. As the statistics demonstrate, we are experiencing an increased workload due in part to practice and risk management issues with our more senior members of the Bar, and an increase in concerns of the public with access to justice. We are seeing more members in financial difficulty and with overwhelming personal problems impacting their practice of law. The answer is not to add more resources to the PR Department, but to examine what we can do to better support members in practice at all stages of their careers, and to help those in the administration of justice fill the gaps into which people like the working poor too often fall.

On a more positive note, we have a great deal of which to be proud, particularly in terms of our leadership with the National Discipline Standards. We continue to devote considerable time to assisting members through ethics advice, education and rehabilitation. We have a strong, cohesive, skilled and experienced

Page 171 of 301

team of staff devoted to excellence, fairness, integrity, accountability and leadership. We are grateful to the dozens of outstanding volunteers who contribute so much to the success of the Professional Responsibility Program.

In the coming year, some of our additional projects and initiatives will include:

Enhancement of our on-line trust accounts and ethics resources

Implementation of an effective process for handling physical and other evidence from complex investigations

Research, development, design and implementation of a new entity regulation process, structure, regulations, policies and procedures

Research, development, design and implementation of a new client/trust accounts risk management process, structure, regulations, policies and procedures

Review of the Fitness to Practice Program

Page 172 of 301