A Law Society of 小蓝视频 panel has determined Langley-based lawyer Merle Evelyn Campbell committed professional misconduct by speaking to her client’s spouse in the absence of the their lawyer.
The case against Campell is a reminder of an important aspect of the administration of justice, the panel noted.
The code of conduct for lawyers “expressly prohibits a lawyer from approaching, communicating, or dealing with a party who is represented by counsel, or attempting to negotiate or compromise directly with them,” the panel noted, citing a past case. “It is ‘a clear rule that exists in order to protect public interest in the administration of justice.’”
The Dec. 19 administrative decision against Campbell means a disciplinary hearing will be held in the near future, barring an appeal.
Since 2002, Campbell has practiced as Merle Campbell Law Corporation, the ruling noted.
Campbell’s client was in a “family law proceeding” with his spouse over conflicting opinions on what to do with a pre-sale townhouse purchase.
“The Parties needed to have financing in place by December 13, 2022 to complete the purchase of the townhouse, or exercise the option of not completing, with the $60,000 deposit being returned to them,” the decision read.
“The Client preferred to complete the purchase of the townhouse, as there was the possibility of immediately reselling it for a significant profit. Despite negotiations, the Parties were unable to reach an agreement about the townhouse.”
The two parties went to 小蓝视频 Supreme Court on Dec. 2, 2022 to hash out the plans.
Campbell testified she had tried everything possible to negotiate with the client’s spouse’s lawyer ahead of time but had been “brushed off,” the panel stated.
The spouse attended court with an articling law student. Campbell first attempted to negotiate financing terms for the townhouse with the articled student. Campbell later approached the spouse outside the court room and spoke with her.
The spouse recorded the conversation Campbell had with her later using the audio in a complaint to the society.
“You’re gonna take a hundred thousand dollars of your children’s money, that they could get, just because you won’t cooperate? This is money that would go to your family and you are making sure that you’re both losing it and your children lose it,” Campbell admitted to telling the spouse.
“I have never met anybody that’s that angry, that’s that vindictive, this is, what a way to get revenge, but you’re getting the revenge against your children.”
The spouse then asked Campbell to put a mask on because Campbell was speaking very close to her. The recorded conversation continued with some background noise, the ruling stated.
The Law Society submitted that an enhanced forensic recording demonstrates that the conversation continued as follows:
“Respondent: Umm, yeah, good luck with your life.
Complainant: Oh, thank you Ms. Campbell
Respondent: No wonder you’re ill.
Complainant: Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
Respondent: It’s the karma.”
Campbell denied saying those things specifically but admitted to making a deliberate choice to engage in conversation with the spouse as the matter was urgent.
The panel ultimately ruled Campbell to be “discourteous” and having acted against the code.
The panel used the case to encourage people to speak out if they feel wronged by a lawyer.
“There is an important public interest in encouraging those who are concerned about a lawyer’s conduct to report incidents to regulatory bodies and provide evidence without fear of embarrassment and unnecessary broadcasting of personal information,” it said.
.jpg;w=120;h=80;mode=crop)
