Why oh why?

Good Day Readers:

The Public Eye has posted the following Law Society of Manitoba Discipline Case Digest.

Truth To Power (www.accesstoinfo.blogspot.com; vicpopuli1@gmail.com)

Upon reading this Digest one is left to ponder after working so hard and spending so much money to earn a law degree why on earth would someone throw it all away with a child pornography possession and distribution conviction? At this stage in life where and what kind of job can a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record hope to find? Sad, really sad!

Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 29, 2011
Disbarred Manitoba Lawyer Gary Dolovich

DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST - LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA
__________________________________________________
Case 10-08

Member: Gary Philip Dolovich

Jurisdiction: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Called to the Bar: June 20, 1991

Particulars of Charges: Conduct Unbecoming (1 count):

- Breach of Chapter 1 of the Code of Professional Conduct [breach of Sections 163.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code of Canada – possession and distribution of child pornography]

Plea: Not Guilty

Date of Hearing: October 7, 2010

Panel:
- D. Bedford (Chair)
- E. Leibl, Q.C.
- M. Browne

Counsel:
- K. Dangerfield for The Law Society of Manitoba
- Member/Counsel for the Member did not appear

Disposition:
- Disbarment
- Costs of $2,086.56
__________________________________________________

Conduct Unbecoming
__________________________________________________

Facts

On March 31, 2009 Mr. Dolovich was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography contrary to sections 163.1(4) and 163.1(3), respectively, of the Criminal Code of Canada. The criminal convictions did not relate directly to any contact or conduct with clients. Mr. Dolovich was charged with conduct unbecoming for failing to discharge with integrity his duties to clients, the court, the profession and the public.

Plea

The member chose not to attend the proceedings and no plea was entered by him. Accordingly, the panel proceeded as if a plea of not guilty had been entered.

Decision and Comments

The panel was satisfied that the Committee was properly convened, had the appropriate quorum, had the jurisdiction to hear the Citation against Mr. Dolovich, and that Mr. Dolovich had proper notice of the proceedings. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

With respect to Mr. Dolovich’s criminal convictions, the panel determined that Mr. Dolovich’s conduct was inconsistent with his role as a lawyer and would cause both the other members of the profession and the public to seriously doubt whether he had the integrity to act as a lawyer in accordance with his duties. Though Mr. Dolovich’s convictions were not related to any client matters, they represented private conduct of such an egregious nature that they risked undermining public trust in the legal community as a whole. The panel was satisfied that Mr. Dolovich had failed to discharge with integrity the duties owed to clients, the court and the profession in regard to the matters in question. The panel found that the Law Society had met the onus upon it and found Mr. Dolovich guilty of conduct unbecoming.

Penalty

The panel considered Mr. Dolovich’s plea of guilty at the criminal trial, and that he had sought and responded positively to treatment by the time of his criminal sentencing. While these factors were construed generally in Mr. Dolovich’s favour, the nature of the offences was such that they did not mitigate conduct which was in violation of the criminal laws Mr. Dolovich was required as a member of the profession to uphold.

The panel ordered that Mr. Dolovich be disbarred and struck from the Rolls of the Society. In addition, it ordered that Mr. Dolovich be required to pay costs in the amount of $2,086.56.