Canadian Lawyer

King's lawyer. The law society's director of discipline had also worked at TDS. Histed said the case against him should be tossed due to the perception of bias. His appeal fell on deaf ears and the law society eventually slapped Histed with an $18,000 fine and one-month suspension over his former client's complaint. This was not the only run-in Histed was having with the law society. In 2003, he was fined $3,000 for refusing to return some documents to the Crown. Then, in 2008, he was fined and ordered to pay costs totaling $10,000 because in a letter sent to the Department of Justice he offered the opinion that a judge being considered to hear a residential school case was a "bigot." The law society rejected his Charter free speech defence. King, on the other hand, was getting much gentler treatment. Now the law society knew many of the details of what SPECIALIZATION IN BUSINESS LAW Congratulations to our Inaugural GPLLM Class! We are proud to announce the 2012 GPLLM graduates: Jack Bensimon, Kathryn Daniels, Allan Ebedes, Nils Engelstad, Ricardo Fisher, Emilija Giovinazzo, Zuzanna Kusyk, Dana Lezau, Alan Luk, Mark Mahoney, Shrianand Misir, Matt Mortazavi, Shane O'Brien, Peter Ohonsi, Ugljesa Popadic, Cynthia Robertson, Fateh Salim, Matthew Scott, Brian Soye, Stanley Strug, Andrew Szonyi, Miran Ternamian, Kevin Thomas, Hilary Thompson, Denise Williams. For more information on the GPLLM program visit: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/programs/GPLLM.html Supported by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) - Ontario Chapter and in partnership with Carswell, a Thomson Reuters business. 30 ntitled-1 1 Jan uary 2013 www.CANADIAN he had done — it eventually contacted Gange, who gave a dramatically sanitized version of the story in an August 2005 letter, saying King merely encouraged Chapman to have an "affair" with Douglas and then inferred Chapman had shaken King down for money. Gange made no mention of photos on a web site. In the letter, Gange did admit "that it is likely that had this matter been referred to the Investigations Committee, it would likely have found the behaviour to be inappropriate" before offering the opinion that King still would not have been punished. According to Histed, the law society did not contact either himself or Chapman to get their version of events. Instead, in 2005, Fineblit decided that in the absence of a client's complaint they would not open an investigation into King. Today, he says they always initially take a remedial approach and when he made his enquiries, the King matter seemed to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. He says in the case of complaints against Histed the remedial approach was not an option because Histed refused to admit he had done anything wrong (unlike King). In 2005, Douglas was appointed to the bench, although what her husband had done was common knowledge within the Manitoba legal community. The law society gave its seal of approval to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, saying Douglas was a member in good standing. By then King had returned to practising law at another Winnipeg firm. Douglas was elevated to the position of associate chief justice in 2008. But everything began to unravel two years later when Chapman came to believe one of Douglas' colleagues on the bench was biased against him in a lawsuit Chapman had launched against Winnipeg's police force. Angry, Chapman decided to go public and sue King, Douglas, and their former firm over the 2003 sexual dalliance. He also launched complaints against King with Manitoba's law society and Douglas with the Canadian Judicial Council. This time the law society opened a formal investigation into King. In 2011, it hit him with a $13,650 fine and a reprimand for his conduct. Did the law society come down hard L a w ye r m a g . c o m 12-12-04 6:48 PM

• Cover