Is it essential for a lawyer to respond to a Law Society communications?

In Law Society of BC v. Hall, 2003 LSBC 11, [2003] LSDD No. 55, the respondent lawyer was found to have committed professional misconduct by failing to respond to Law Society communications. The panel commented at paragraph 2: [I]t is essential for lawyers to respond to Law Society communications. Otherwise the Society cannot effectively discharge its responsibility of protecting the public interest in the administration of justice. It is simple: lawyers neither have the freedom not to respond nor the freedom to respond according to a schedule that suits them. They certainly cannot put their heads in the sand, as the Respondent said he did.