What is the effect of a finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society of BC for failing to file a trust report?

Despite our finding of professional misconduct, the disciplinary action that we have directed as set out at paragraph [14] of our decision falls within the “light” category. In this regard, we have considered the non-exhaustive list of factors, which may be considered by a hearing panel in determining the appropriate disciplinary action, set out in Law Society of BC v. Ogilvie, [1999] LSBC 17, as follows: (a) the nature and gravity of the conduct proven is a Rules breach that, because of the circumstances, amounts to professional misconduct; (b) we have taken note of the fact that no evidence of a client complaint resulting in disciplinary action against the Respondent was presented to us, although the Respondent has been in practice for almost 30 years. However, while the Respondent has no disciplinary record predating this matter, he has been suspended twice for failing to file his trust reports; (c) the breach of the Rules appears to have had no impact on the Respondent’s clients; (d) no advantage has been gained by the Respondent, other than that he has not incurred the complication of obtaining a second signatory to his trust account; (e) the offending conduct occurred over a protracted period of time; (f) the Respondent has freely acknowledged the misconduct; (g) we have considered the Respondent’s bankruptcy in assessing the disciplinary action; (h) we have fashioned the disciplinary action to ensure compliance with the Rules in the future, so as to protect the public; (i) in setting the disciplinary action and the order for costs, we take into account in the Respondent’s favour, that he cooperated fully at all times with Law Society staff who sought information from him, while also taking into account, on the other side of the ledger, the protracted period of time in which the breaches occurred.