- Error
Legal Feeds Blog
A former lawyer who resigned from practice during his articling and was later disbarred after his conviction for fraud has been denied a third shot at the profession after a hearing panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada decided he was not of good character.
Dennis-Gwyn Gross told a hearing panel he had turned his life around since serving a five-month jail term in 2000 for defrauding various members of the public.
His younger girlfriend left him after his arrest and he had been working as a material handler at a Niagara Falls Value Village since his release. He also looked after his mother in the home they shared until her death at the age of 98 in 2011.
Gross told the panel his low wages had prevented him from paying restitution to his victims or obtaining a pardon for his conviction, but aimed to remedy both if allowed to return to practice in the area of criminal law.
“I believe I can be a lawyer again and contribute meaningfully to society,” Gross said at his hearing in November.
Gross first ran into trouble with the law society in the mid-1980s when he was given permission to resign his student membership during his articling year after being found guilty of misconduct for attempting to remove a file from his articling firm for himself and providing legal services without supervision.
In 1987, a new panel decided he could be called to the bar as long as he promised not to practise as a sole practitioner for at least a year afterwards.
Then in July 2000, Gross pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud, including against clients. He received an eight-month conditional sentence in addition to the five months he had spent in jail awaiting trial. He was also disbarred in that year, after the law society found he had misappropriated almost $10,000 from the trust funds of 13 clients.
A more lucrative scam involved transferring the title of his mother’s home to himself and then registering a series of mortgages and forged discharges on the property. Mortgagees claimed more than $400,000 in civil actions against Gross, while the judge in his criminal trial ordered him to pay restitution of $300,000. Gross managed to raise $200,000 of that total from the sale of the house and other property.
Gross then made his application for readmission in 2007, admitting that he hadn’t been able to afford any formal continuing legal education in the intervening years. According to the panel’s decision, he told them he “occasionally read the Ontario Reports and some legal decisions on the Internet.” Gross admitted he was not competent to practise criminal law without some more CLE, but said he was willing to work under a mentorship agreement.
The panel was impressed by Gross’ “emphatic and heart felt remorse,” but expressed concerns about his rehabilitation. He only began treatment in June 2011 after the death of his mother, and his doctor was unable to provide assurances on how Gross might react if faced with future temptation. The panel also noted Gross’ lack of effort to repay the money he still owes to the financial institutions he defrauded.
“While we are of course sympathetic to his financial situation since his disbarment . . . the fact remains that there is no evidence of any effort to repay even nominal or small amounts of the debts that were created by the applicant’s fraudulent conduct,” reads the decision.
“While a sufficient time span has elapsed to justify a reassessment of his character, and indeed he has expressed genuine remorse for his earlier actions, we have balanced those factors against the nature and extent of his previous misconduct and what we conclude is insufficient evidence at the hearing before us of rehabilitative steps and other actions on his part to satisfy us of his present good character. It may be that he will be able to make a stronger case at a later date.”
Dennis-Gwyn Gross told a hearing panel he had turned his life around since serving a five-month jail term in 2000 for defrauding various members of the public.
His younger girlfriend left him after his arrest and he had been working as a material handler at a Niagara Falls Value Village since his release. He also looked after his mother in the home they shared until her death at the age of 98 in 2011.
Gross told the panel his low wages had prevented him from paying restitution to his victims or obtaining a pardon for his conviction, but aimed to remedy both if allowed to return to practice in the area of criminal law.
“I believe I can be a lawyer again and contribute meaningfully to society,” Gross said at his hearing in November.
Gross first ran into trouble with the law society in the mid-1980s when he was given permission to resign his student membership during his articling year after being found guilty of misconduct for attempting to remove a file from his articling firm for himself and providing legal services without supervision.
In 1987, a new panel decided he could be called to the bar as long as he promised not to practise as a sole practitioner for at least a year afterwards.
Then in July 2000, Gross pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud, including against clients. He received an eight-month conditional sentence in addition to the five months he had spent in jail awaiting trial. He was also disbarred in that year, after the law society found he had misappropriated almost $10,000 from the trust funds of 13 clients.
A more lucrative scam involved transferring the title of his mother’s home to himself and then registering a series of mortgages and forged discharges on the property. Mortgagees claimed more than $400,000 in civil actions against Gross, while the judge in his criminal trial ordered him to pay restitution of $300,000. Gross managed to raise $200,000 of that total from the sale of the house and other property.
Gross then made his application for readmission in 2007, admitting that he hadn’t been able to afford any formal continuing legal education in the intervening years. According to the panel’s decision, he told them he “occasionally read the Ontario Reports and some legal decisions on the Internet.” Gross admitted he was not competent to practise criminal law without some more CLE, but said he was willing to work under a mentorship agreement.
The panel was impressed by Gross’ “emphatic and heart felt remorse,” but expressed concerns about his rehabilitation. He only began treatment in June 2011 after the death of his mother, and his doctor was unable to provide assurances on how Gross might react if faced with future temptation. The panel also noted Gross’ lack of effort to repay the money he still owes to the financial institutions he defrauded.
“While we are of course sympathetic to his financial situation since his disbarment . . . the fact remains that there is no evidence of any effort to repay even nominal or small amounts of the debts that were created by the applicant’s fraudulent conduct,” reads the decision.
“While a sufficient time span has elapsed to justify a reassessment of his character, and indeed he has expressed genuine remorse for his earlier actions, we have balanced those factors against the nature and extent of his previous misconduct and what we conclude is insufficient evidence at the hearing before us of rehabilitative steps and other actions on his part to satisfy us of his present good character. It may be that he will be able to make a stronger case at a later date.”
Canada
'Bachelor' TV show to be hit with class action discrimination suit, Reuters
Globe review finds 98% of federally appointed judges are white, The Globe and Mail
Federal Court orders new hearing for child welfare on reserves, Winnipeg Free Press
United States
Howard Stern's $330M Sirius suit dropped, Windsor Star
Appeals court says Arizona can demand voters show identification, Reuters
International
Norway mass murderer says he's being ridiculed in court, Canoe News
Britain to deport Bin Laden's 'right-hand man', Reuters
'Bachelor' TV show to be hit with class action discrimination suit, Reuters
Globe review finds 98% of federally appointed judges are white, The Globe and Mail
Federal Court orders new hearing for child welfare on reserves, Winnipeg Free Press
United States
Howard Stern's $330M Sirius suit dropped, Windsor Star
Appeals court says Arizona can demand voters show identification, Reuters
International
Norway mass murderer says he's being ridiculed in court, Canoe News
Britain to deport Bin Laden's 'right-hand man', Reuters
Canadian in-house counsel say their organizations value them most for providing risk management, followed by regulatory compliance advice and controlling external costs, according to a recent survey.
The 2012 In-House Counsel Barometer survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion and sponsored by Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg was presented yesterday in Montreal during the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association’s national spring conference.
The survey, completed by 411 Canadian in-house counsel, shows that providing value as in-house counsel is closely tied to managing or reducing risk with 84 per cent of participants citing risk management, followed by ensuring regulatory compliance (48 per cent), and controlling costs of external counsel (44 per cent) as the top ways they provide value in their organization.
The majority of in-house counsel taking part in the survey also say they feel the work they do is valued in their organization.
Participants were asked to indicate whether they feel the work they do is valued within their organization and 93 per cent said they feel they either valued or highly valued with an additional 28 per cent feeling they are moderately valued within their organization.
The majority of those surveyed — 82 per cent — who work for publicly traded companies reported that they work in an environment with strong support from management. Also, 68 per cent believe their organization would like to bring more work inside the organization, rather than outsource. However, three in 10 feel the organization they work for does not make appropriate use of their role.
A majority — 64 per cent — feels they often have internal clients who act without seeking legal advice, up 11 points from 2011.
The survey did show there was no connection between the type of law practised and whether an in-house counsel felt valued.
“There appears to be no relationship between the type of law you practice and feeling valued, it has more to do with the company you work for,” said Andrew Grenville, chief legal officer with Angus Reid Public Opinion who presented the findings.
The survey also revealed that key performance indicators are in place for two in five in-house counsel. Reviews of the implementation of KPIs for in-house counsel remain mixed, as they were in last year’s survey. Although the majority of in-house counsel working for an organization that has KPIs in place report they help prove the value of in-house counsel (58 per cent), a majority also feels KPIs are good in theory, but poor in practice (62 per cent). This is on par with findings from 2011, when KPIs were first evaluated.
In terms of hours worked by in-house counsel in Canada, those working for a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company work, on average, the most hours per week at 49 hours, followed closely by those who work for a public company at 48 hours or private company at 47 hours. In-house counsel working for not-for-profit organizations work an average of 45 hours, while those working in government work the fewest of all at 44 hours.
The hours in-house counsel are putting in apparently don’t allow for longer-term planning and pose the biggest challenge for them. New to the survey for 2012, participants were asked to rank eight challenges their profession faces. A majority (65 per cent) said the day-to-day workload leaves little time for “big picture thinking” or the development of initiatives which would benefit the organization as a whole.
The “lack of simple and inexpensive matter management software tools for smaller law departments” was identified by 15 per cent of in-house counsel in public companies as the most important challenge.
In-house counsel also appear to be loyal to their employers. The average number of years in-house counsel have worked for their current employer is six, down one from 2011.
 |
| (Source: 2012 In-House Counsel Barometer) |
The survey, completed by 411 Canadian in-house counsel, shows that providing value as in-house counsel is closely tied to managing or reducing risk with 84 per cent of participants citing risk management, followed by ensuring regulatory compliance (48 per cent), and controlling costs of external counsel (44 per cent) as the top ways they provide value in their organization.
The majority of in-house counsel taking part in the survey also say they feel the work they do is valued in their organization.
Participants were asked to indicate whether they feel the work they do is valued within their organization and 93 per cent said they feel they either valued or highly valued with an additional 28 per cent feeling they are moderately valued within their organization.
The majority of those surveyed — 82 per cent — who work for publicly traded companies reported that they work in an environment with strong support from management. Also, 68 per cent believe their organization would like to bring more work inside the organization, rather than outsource. However, three in 10 feel the organization they work for does not make appropriate use of their role.
A majority — 64 per cent — feels they often have internal clients who act without seeking legal advice, up 11 points from 2011.
The survey did show there was no connection between the type of law practised and whether an in-house counsel felt valued.
“There appears to be no relationship between the type of law you practice and feeling valued, it has more to do with the company you work for,” said Andrew Grenville, chief legal officer with Angus Reid Public Opinion who presented the findings.
The survey also revealed that key performance indicators are in place for two in five in-house counsel. Reviews of the implementation of KPIs for in-house counsel remain mixed, as they were in last year’s survey. Although the majority of in-house counsel working for an organization that has KPIs in place report they help prove the value of in-house counsel (58 per cent), a majority also feels KPIs are good in theory, but poor in practice (62 per cent). This is on par with findings from 2011, when KPIs were first evaluated.
In terms of hours worked by in-house counsel in Canada, those working for a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company work, on average, the most hours per week at 49 hours, followed closely by those who work for a public company at 48 hours or private company at 47 hours. In-house counsel working for not-for-profit organizations work an average of 45 hours, while those working in government work the fewest of all at 44 hours.
The hours in-house counsel are putting in apparently don’t allow for longer-term planning and pose the biggest challenge for them. New to the survey for 2012, participants were asked to rank eight challenges their profession faces. A majority (65 per cent) said the day-to-day workload leaves little time for “big picture thinking” or the development of initiatives which would benefit the organization as a whole.
The “lack of simple and inexpensive matter management software tools for smaller law departments” was identified by 15 per cent of in-house counsel in public companies as the most important challenge.
In-house counsel also appear to be loyal to their employers. The average number of years in-house counsel have worked for their current employer is six, down one from 2011.
Canada
B.C. man faces jail time for anti-tax crusade, CBC News
Mill workers lose longstanding court fight in B.C., Canada.com
Ont. judge grants motion against dating website scammer, The Vancouver Sun
United States
Top court hears Glaxo overtime case, Reuters
New Miss. law threatens only abortion clinic, Reuters
International
Saudi rights activist jailed for 4 years, Reuters
Dutch court approves bomb suspect's extradition to U.S., Reuters
B.C. man faces jail time for anti-tax crusade, CBC News
Mill workers lose longstanding court fight in B.C., Canada.com
Ont. judge grants motion against dating website scammer, The Vancouver Sun
United States
Top court hears Glaxo overtime case, Reuters
New Miss. law threatens only abortion clinic, Reuters
International
Saudi rights activist jailed for 4 years, Reuters
Dutch court approves bomb suspect's extradition to U.S., Reuters
Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP ranks as the top Canadian law firm brand, according to a new survey by legal market research firm Acritas.
While Oslers didn’t rank as highly for unprompted brand awareness, it did score first when it came to questions around which firms general counsel favour, the most used, and the most likely candidates for top-level work.
“Overall, Osler was not first for unprompted brand awareness. That was actually McCarthy,” says Elizabeth Duffy, vice president of Acritas US Inc.
Acritas carried out the survey by asking 250 Canadian-based general counsel which law firms come first to mind; which they most favour; and which they’ll consider when it comes to top-level mergers-and-acquisitions work, bet-the-company litigation, and high-value files. It also asked 302 general counsel elsewhere which Canadians firms they’d mostly likely use for their legal needs here.
The survey shows, among other things, that bigger isn’t necessarily better. On this score, it gave the example of Torys LLP. “The firm sits in third place on the index, but despite its smaller (in relative terms) size and not being one of the top choices for international buyers, it still has a stronger brand than other larger firms,” Acritas noted in announcing the survey results.
In addition, the survey noted the trend of business clients seeking greater value from their law firms, an issue Duffy says doesn’t always relate to price. “Clients are not price-sensitive but they are value-sensitive. It’s less so much about dollar amounts and what they feel they’re getting for it.”
The value equation, according to Duffy, comes down in part to communication and relationships. As a result, law firms need to ensure they tailor the work they do to the business context and involve the client in decisions, she says.
Another trend identified by Acritas is the shift in work to second-tier law firms. In response to the economic downturn and tightening budgets, “we are seeing a shift across the global legal market as clients use top tier firms less for high value work overall,” Acritas noted. “Instead, they are thinking more carefully about which firm will provide the appropriate quality for the right price. What is true of the global legal market also stands for the Canadian market.”
According to Duffy, that means companies aren’t necessarily using the top-paid legal specialists for all of their needs. “They’re looking at the context of each piece of work,” she says, a trend accentuated by the increased choices available as more global law firms pop up.
While Oslers didn’t rank as highly for unprompted brand awareness, it did score first when it came to questions around which firms general counsel favour, the most used, and the most likely candidates for top-level work.
“Overall, Osler was not first for unprompted brand awareness. That was actually McCarthy,” says Elizabeth Duffy, vice president of Acritas US Inc.
Acritas carried out the survey by asking 250 Canadian-based general counsel which law firms come first to mind; which they most favour; and which they’ll consider when it comes to top-level mergers-and-acquisitions work, bet-the-company litigation, and high-value files. It also asked 302 general counsel elsewhere which Canadians firms they’d mostly likely use for their legal needs here.
The survey shows, among other things, that bigger isn’t necessarily better. On this score, it gave the example of Torys LLP. “The firm sits in third place on the index, but despite its smaller (in relative terms) size and not being one of the top choices for international buyers, it still has a stronger brand than other larger firms,” Acritas noted in announcing the survey results.
In addition, the survey noted the trend of business clients seeking greater value from their law firms, an issue Duffy says doesn’t always relate to price. “Clients are not price-sensitive but they are value-sensitive. It’s less so much about dollar amounts and what they feel they’re getting for it.”
The value equation, according to Duffy, comes down in part to communication and relationships. As a result, law firms need to ensure they tailor the work they do to the business context and involve the client in decisions, she says.
Another trend identified by Acritas is the shift in work to second-tier law firms. In response to the economic downturn and tightening budgets, “we are seeing a shift across the global legal market as clients use top tier firms less for high value work overall,” Acritas noted. “Instead, they are thinking more carefully about which firm will provide the appropriate quality for the right price. What is true of the global legal market also stands for the Canadian market.”
According to Duffy, that means companies aren’t necessarily using the top-paid legal specialists for all of their needs. “They’re looking at the context of each piece of work,” she says, a trend accentuated by the increased choices available as more global law firms pop up.
Canada
Lawyers for accused to testify in Nortel trial, The Globe and Mail
Ont. woman charged with sister-in-law's murder, CBC News
Feds ask Iran to release Canadian on death row, Toronto Star
United States
Top court to hear copyright law case, Reuters
Supreme Court upholds ex-Enron chief's conviction, Reuters
International
Norway gunman pleads not guilty, Reuters
4 Turkish generals awaiting trial jailed over 1997 coup, Reuters
Lawyers for accused to testify in Nortel trial, The Globe and Mail
Ont. woman charged with sister-in-law's murder, CBC News
Feds ask Iran to release Canadian on death row, Toronto Star
United States
Top court to hear copyright law case, Reuters
Supreme Court upholds ex-Enron chief's conviction, Reuters
International
Norway gunman pleads not guilty, Reuters
4 Turkish generals awaiting trial jailed over 1997 coup, Reuters
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the following appeals this week:April 16 — Quebec — R. v. Carmelo Venneri
Criminal law: Carmelo Venneri and two others were convicted of trafficking drugs for a criminal organization. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Venneri’s appeal in part and found him not guilty on several of the charges.
April 17 — Federal Court — Cogeco Cable Inc. v. Bell Media Inc. (formerly CTV Globemedia Inc.), V Interactions Inc., Newfoundland Broadcasting Co. Ltd.
Administrative law: The Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission is seeking to impose a “value for signal” regime to allow a private local TV station to negotiate with cable TV service providers for the right to retransmit its signals. The CRTC argued the existing model doesn’t reflect recent changes to the broadcasting business environment so it asked the Federal Court of Appeal if it has the jurisdiction to impose this regime under the Broadcasting Act. The judges were unable to reach a consensus.
April 18 — Federal Court — Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.
Property law: This case relates to a patent dispute. Pfizer received a patent for compounds used in the manufacturing of Viagra. Teva applied for a notice of compliance to produce a generic version of Viagra, claiming the patent was invalid. The Federal Court judge ruled against Teva. The Federal Court of Appeal then dismissed the appeal. There is a sealing order in the case.
April 19 — Quebec — R. v. Suganthini Mayuran
Criminal law: Suganthini Mayuran was convicted of the second-degree murder of her sister-in-law. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to bring the defence of provocation to the jury’s attention.
At 9:45 a.m. on April 18, the SCC will also release its rulings in the following appeals, which all involve the law of jurisdiction:
1. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Anna Charron (Ont.) (Civil)
2. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Morgan Van Breda (Ont.) (Civil)
3. Richard C. Breeden v. Conrad Black (Ont.) (Civil)
4. Les éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp. (Ont.) (Civil)
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Master L.A. Smart fired off at two lawyers for their lack of civility in the courtroom after an hour-long squabble between the pair during questioning forced one client to leave.
In West Edmonton Mall Property Inc. v. International Stereo Centres Ltd., Smart wrote while it was impossible to determine whether Edmonton lawyer SandeepK. Dhir or E. Mark Keohane was to blame for initiating the squabble, he would resist the urge to award costs against each counsel under Rule 10.49, and instead directed the parties to bear their own costs.
“As one might expect, after reading the transcript, it is simply not possible to determine who is to ‘blame’ for the questioning to deteriorate to such a state that one of the parties felt it necessary to leave,” wrote Smart. “After hearing the arguments and complaints of both counsel, even if there was evidence provided, it is impossible to reconcile what transpired. Frankly, it is disappointing that counsel found it necessary to air their grievances with each other in open court before members of the public. It served only to potentially diminish the public’s respect for the administration of justice while diminishing respective counsel’s reputation and that of the legal profession generally.”
The issue first arose April 13, 2011, when the questioning of Alberta doctor Roger Watson denigrated into several confrontations between Keohane and Dhir.
According to Smart’s ruling, Dhir and Keohane spent nearly an hour in chambers that morning during which they made serious allegations against one another, numerous interjections and objections, statements that questioning was discourteous, and complaints about inappropriate facial gestures. Both also denied that such things were occurring and complained about the other’s ediotrialization of what happened.
The squabble eventually caused Keohane to leave with his client before the questioning was complete.
Shortly after, an application was brought to compel Dr. Roger Watson, and his wife Janet Watson to appear for questioning without further payment of conduct monies and an award of costs for the application. It also called for the costs of the uncompleted questioning to be thrown out on a solicitor client basis.
Keohane did not object to questioning continuing without additional conduct money and an order was given for the Watsons to attend at a date later agreed upon.
Still, Smart was quick to let his disapproval be known as he ordered both clients to bear their own costs.
“When two young children squabble and it is impossible to determine which of them is the culprit, the solution is often to send both to their room. It strikes me that I am dealing with an analogous situation . . . .” wrote Smart.
In West Edmonton Mall Property Inc. v. International Stereo Centres Ltd., Smart wrote while it was impossible to determine whether Edmonton lawyer SandeepK. Dhir or E. Mark Keohane was to blame for initiating the squabble, he would resist the urge to award costs against each counsel under Rule 10.49, and instead directed the parties to bear their own costs.
“As one might expect, after reading the transcript, it is simply not possible to determine who is to ‘blame’ for the questioning to deteriorate to such a state that one of the parties felt it necessary to leave,” wrote Smart. “After hearing the arguments and complaints of both counsel, even if there was evidence provided, it is impossible to reconcile what transpired. Frankly, it is disappointing that counsel found it necessary to air their grievances with each other in open court before members of the public. It served only to potentially diminish the public’s respect for the administration of justice while diminishing respective counsel’s reputation and that of the legal profession generally.”
The issue first arose April 13, 2011, when the questioning of Alberta doctor Roger Watson denigrated into several confrontations between Keohane and Dhir.
According to Smart’s ruling, Dhir and Keohane spent nearly an hour in chambers that morning during which they made serious allegations against one another, numerous interjections and objections, statements that questioning was discourteous, and complaints about inappropriate facial gestures. Both also denied that such things were occurring and complained about the other’s ediotrialization of what happened.
The squabble eventually caused Keohane to leave with his client before the questioning was complete.
Shortly after, an application was brought to compel Dr. Roger Watson, and his wife Janet Watson to appear for questioning without further payment of conduct monies and an award of costs for the application. It also called for the costs of the uncompleted questioning to be thrown out on a solicitor client basis.
Keohane did not object to questioning continuing without additional conduct money and an order was given for the Watsons to attend at a date later agreed upon.
Still, Smart was quick to let his disapproval be known as he ordered both clients to bear their own costs.
“When two young children squabble and it is impossible to determine which of them is the culprit, the solution is often to send both to their room. It strikes me that I am dealing with an analogous situation . . . .” wrote Smart.
Canada
4 Halton residents charged with $16M fraud, Toronto Star
SCC refuses to hear man's appeal in wife's murder, Calgary Herald
Lawyers seek access to info at inquiry into soldier's suicide, Ottawa Citizen
United States
Banker accused in hate crime against cab driver, Reuters
Calif. court paves way for Brinker employees' class action, Reuters
International
Indian court orders land clean-up in iron ore case, Reuters
Italian court releases Ukrainian opposition politician, Reuters
4 Halton residents charged with $16M fraud, Toronto Star
SCC refuses to hear man's appeal in wife's murder, Calgary Herald
Lawyers seek access to info at inquiry into soldier's suicide, Ottawa Citizen
United States
Banker accused in hate crime against cab driver, Reuters
Calif. court paves way for Brinker employees' class action, Reuters
International
Indian court orders land clean-up in iron ore case, Reuters
Italian court releases Ukrainian opposition politician, Reuters
Subscribe to Legal Feeds
By RSS: 
Delivered by FeedBurner
Archive
Authors
-
Jennifer Brown
Recent items
-
Mallory Hendry
Recent items
-
Heather Gardiner
Recent items
-
Yamri Taddese
Recent items
-
Charlotte Santry
Recent items
-
Glenn Kauth
Recent items
-
Gail J. Cohen
Recent items
-
Karen Lorimer
Recent items