Court of Appeal sides with P.A. lawyer, misconduct charges stayed

The alleged infractions first came to the attention of the Law Society during a 2012 investigation of Kristian Eggum, whom Abrametz practiced law with at their firm Abrametz and Eggum.

Abrametz was found guilty on four counts of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Among the charges were allegations Abrametz was directing clients to sign payment cheques over to him rather than depositing them into his law office account, as required by law society regulations. Another charge accused Abrametz of knowingly causing trust cheques to be issued to a fictitious person for the purpose of effecting a transfer of funds for payment to himself.

The Law Society also claimed Abrametz failed to maintain books and records to the professional standards.

The appeal hearing was held in June, 2019, and following a 30-day suspension, Abrametz was granted a request by the Court of Appeal to resume work. The entire court process has lasted the better part of eight years.

“My view is that it was not necessary and it shouldn’t have happened but I can’t tell the Law Society how to conduct themselves and the Court of Appeal was the one who set them right,” Abrametz said.

In his written decision released late last week, Justice J.A. Barrington-Foote wrote the facts of the case disclosed a particular mix of proven and alleged wrongdoing by Abrametz. But the decision cited unexplained and unacceptable delays by the LSS, public interest and professional regulatory considerations, and negative impact on Abrametz.

“To err is human.The facts in this case tell a troubling and disappointing story about a regulator that should given its mandate resources and composition, be a model to others,” the decision said.

Barrington-Foote also cited what he referred to as “the insidious effects of delay in judicial and administrative proceedings.”

“The undue delay in this case was inordinate, and caused actual prejudice of such a magnitude that the public’s sense of decency and fairness would be offended. In these circumstances, the delay would bring the LSS disciplinary process into disrepute. This was the clearest of cases.”

Barrington-Foote noted although the offences Abrametz were charged with implicated important interests, he did not misappropriate funds.

“Mr. Abrametz had paid a heavy price for the serious misconduct he was found to have committed by the Hearing Committee – including by having been convicted of the charges specified in the Formal Complaint – and the public’s interest in enforcement had been well served.”

At the time of the decision to disbar Abrametz, he was ordered to pay costs to the Law Society of Saskatchewan in the amount of $58,000. Those costs have now been set aside by the Court of Appeal ruling.

Response from the Law Society of Saskatchewan

When the Law Society of Saskatchewan was contacted by paNOW for a comment on the Court of Appeal decision, the following statement was provided:

“We recognize and respect the Court’s oversight role and understand the concerns raised by the Court in connection with the timeliness of the investigation phase of this matter and the timeline generally. We acknowledge that faster is better and actively engage in best efforts when it comes to matters like these. Unfortunately, faster is not always possible when dealing with large forensic investigations and other complex issues like the ones that arose in the Abrametz case. The nature of the conduct in question in this case created complications during the investigation phase. The complications associated with this matter continued through the prosecution phase which included several applications to the Court of Queen’s Bench and several preliminary motions before the Law Society Hearing Committee. All of these complications served to expand the timeframe needed to bring this matter to hearing.

Throughout the course of these processes the Law Society remained deeply concerned about the conduct of Mr. Abrametz and the Law Society viewed it to be in the public interest that the prosecution be completed. The Court ultimately determined that the principles of timely discipline outweighed the concerns about Mr. Abrametz’ conduct. This represents a call to the Law Society, and all regulatory bodies, to act with greater expediency.

The Law Society strives for continuous improvement in relation to its processes. To that end the Law Society began laying the groundwork for a new Hearing Administrator position in 2019. Currently the Law Society is in the final stages of hiring for the Hearing Administrator position. A key part of this position will include a case management function to enable more timely navigation of complex matters and facilitation of more timely resolutions. This will go a long way in addressing the delay related concerns raised by the Court of Appeal.”

—

nigel.maxwell@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @nigelmaxwell

by Nigel Maxwell

Court of Appeal sides with P.A. lawyer, misconduct charges stayed

What's Trending