What factors must be considered in determining a finding of misconduct under section 38 of the Legal Profession Act?

We have been referred to the oft cited decision of Law Society of BC v. Ogilvie [1999] LSBC 17, which states: 9. Given that the primary focus of the Legal Profession Act is the protection of the public interest, it follows that the sentencing process must ensure that the public is protected from acts of professional misconduct. Section 38 of the Act sets forth the range of penalties, from reprimand to disbarment, from which a panel must choose following a finding of misconduct. In determining an appropriate penalty, the panel must consider what steps might be necessary to ensure that the public is protected, while also taking into account the risk of allowing the respondent to continue in practice. 10. The criminal sentencing process provides some helpful guidelines, such as: the need for specific deterrence of the respondent, the need for general deterrence, the need for rehabilitation and the need for punishment or denunciation. In the context of a self-regulatory body one must also consider the need to maintain the public’s confidence in the ability of the disciplinary process to regulate the conduct of its members. While no list of appropriate factors to be taken into account can be considered exhaustive or appropriate in all cases, the following might be said to be worthy of general consideration in disciplinary dispositions: (a) the nature and gravity of the conduct proven; (b) the age and experience of the respondent; (c) the previous character of the respondent, including details of prior discipline; (d) the impact upon the victim; (e) the advantage gained, or to be gained, by the respondent; (f) the number of time the offending conduct occurred; (g) whether the respondent has acknowledged the misconduct and taken steps to disclose and redress the wrong and the presence or absence of other mitigating circumstances; (h) the possibility of remediating or rehabilitating the respondent; (i) the impact on the respondent of criminal or other sanctions or penalties; (j) the impact of the proposed penalty on the respondent; (k) the need for specific and general deterrence; (l) the need to ensure the public’s confidence in the integrity of the profession; and (m) the range of penalties imposed in similar cases.