The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50823
MISCONDUCT RULING AGAINST CHRISTIE regional wrap-up APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS T he B.C. Court of Appeal has dis- missed a request from lawyer Douglas Hewson Christie to have a Law Society of British Columbia dis- cipline panel decision overturned. The decision found him guilty of profes- sional misconduct for causing the prep- aration of three subpoena documents in a way not permitted by B.C. law. On April 30, 2009, the panel found Christie knowingly changed Form 21, even though he knew there was no such thing as a "Subpoena for Documents in British Columbia" and had just com- pleted an appropriate Rule 26 applica- tion weeks earlier. The panel found Christie's zeal in pursuing the case on behalf of his clients caused him to over- look his professional responsibilities and ordered him to pay a $2,500 fine and $20,000 in costs. In his appeal request, Christie con- tended the panel erred in finding his conduct deliberate rather than negli- gent or inadvertent. He also submit- ted that the panel ignored evidence of stress in assessing his relevant state of mind and that he was prejudiced by B.C. lawyer disbarred B .C. lawyer David William Blinkhorn has been disbarred and ordered to pay the Law Society of British Columbia $37,000 by Sept. 1 for costs incurred during his disciplinary proceedings. He represented himself throughout. Blinkhorn admitted to numerous counts of professional misconduct in late 2009 in a number of instances of misappropriated trust funds, breaching under- takings he had been given, misleading a client on one occasion on the handling of her affairs, and misleading the LSBC on another occasion. He also breached the LSBC rules in relation to keeping of records. Blinkhorn's transgressions, involving a slew of clients, occurred over a seven- year period from 1999-2007. The panel said the respondent blamed his trouble on "acute depression and melancholy" immune to drugs and brought on by family, domestic, and business stresses. The panel, though, did not find these to be "compelling evidence of extraor- dinary mitigating circumstance sufficient to us that the protection of the public interest and reputation of the profession do not require disbarment." The panel said its difficulty was that the respondent presented a "self-diag- nosis or report of what he believes ails him" although he claimed to be under treatment. "For reasons that were not revealed to us, however, he did not choose to proffer any evidence from his professional advisers." The panel said it was "driven to the conclusion" that Blinkhorn should be disbarred. The LSBC said it cost $146,000 to investigate the claim and pay counsel fees. It was only asking Blinkhorn to pay $38,500 in costs. Blinkhorn argued the amount should be reduced as the hearing had only lasted one morn- ing rather than the two days originally scheduled. The costs were then reduced to $37,000. — JS Searching for a better way to attract candidates? 12 JUNE 2010 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com an inordinately long delay in the LSBC review. The subpoenas were questioned in May 2005 when the defence counsel, in a case that Christie was to argue, complained that they were being used to obtain documents to which Christie did not have the right to ask for. Justice Kenneth Mackenzie, in his reasons for judgment April 21, pointed out that according to evidence tendered before the panel, Christie admitted to signing the subpoenas and directing another individual to change the wording on one subpoena from "requiring" information to "requesting" information. As a result, the appeal court justice concluded there was not evidence to disturb the panel finding of misconduct. The appeal court acknowledged Christie's illness at the time plus a wife serving as a receptionist who was also battling cancer and absent at the time, but also accepted the panel review find- ings that this had not "prevented him from preparing and delivering proper subpoenas" or "lead to subpoenas being prepared and delivered, without his knowledge, which improperly sought to compel pretrial production of docu- ments not permitted" under court rules. The court also did not find that there had been a delay that affected Christie prejudicing his ability to respond. The justice reasoned that while Christie challenged only the cost por- tion of $20,000, the LSBC had original- ly tallied the charge of the proceedings at $50,000 but reduced this amount to reflect Christie's 30 years of unblem- ished service and his contributions to the pro bono community. — JEAN SORENSEN jean_sorensen@telus.net