|
JULY 16 2004 Disciplinary Panel Refused to Disbar Lawyer The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jul 16, 2004. pg. A.1.Fro As it turned out, [Jamie Galt Martin] was lying to [Karen Chang]. And he created a web of lies to cover up the original falsehood: The farm property had not been sold and Martin had no money in trust for Chang. Martin had offered a $35,000 settlement for the collapsed condo deal. He said he would sell some shares to pay Chang. But Chang hasn't received a cent from Martin, who owns a $700,000 home in North Vancouver with his wife Judy. Chang's complaint led to the law society recommending disbarring Martin last year. But a discipline panel -- lawyers Peter Keighley, William Jackson and Ross Tunnicliffe -- found that while Martin's conduct constituted professional misconduct, disbarment was not necessary for public protection. Full Text (1169 words) Karen Chang was thrilled when her divorce lawyer advised her in 2001 that she was going to get $245,000 from the court-ordered sale of her ex-husband's Richmond blueberry farm, plus interest backdated to 1999, as part of a divorce settlement. At the time, Chang was living in a Vancouver subsidized housing co-op. She took the cheque to the bank to pay $200,000 cash for a three-bedroom Richmond townhouse. The 47-year-old Richmond educational assistant was excited about finally having a proper home for herself and her two children after her divorce in 1987. She was also relieved that she would have enough money left over to replace her aging car. But days before she was to move into her new home, the $245,000 cheque bounced for lack of sufficient funds. Her lawyer, Jamie Galt Martin, promised to issue another cheque for $204,000. He never did. Instead, he issued a cheque for $40,698. That one bounced as well. Again, for lack of sufficient funds. Martin offered various explanations for the NSF cheques: One of the bidders on the farm property had frozen the sale proceeds. The cheque had been frozen because his account had been garnisheed by another lawyer. As it turned out, Martin was lying to Chang. And he created a web of lies to cover up the original falsehood: The farm property had not been sold and Martin had no money in trust for Chang. The truth was, he had failed to reach a divorce settlement, despite working on the file for years. A law society disciplinary panel was told last year that Martin's lying stemmed from his addiction to cocaine and other drugs. Chang's stress level went through the roof when the townhouse purchase collapsed. She remembers with painful clarity the moment she told her children -- four days before her daughter was to begin her final year of high school. "My daughter said to me, 'This is supposed to be the best year of my life and now we've got nowhere to live,'" Chang said, fighting back tears. "We lost our subsidized housing and the place we wanted to buy," she explained. "It's been a living nightmare for the last four years. And the nightmare still isn't over. . . . I'm in debt up to my ying-yang." Martin had offered a $35,000 settlement for the collapsed condo deal. He said he would sell some shares to pay Chang. But Chang hasn't received a cent from Martin, who owns a $700,000 home in North Vancouver with his wife Judy. Chang launched a civil lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court. She was recently awarded a $35,000 default judgment against Martin, who never showed up to contest the legal action. She has registered the judgment against Martin's home. Revenue Canada, which is seeking unpaid taxes from Martin, also has a sizable judgment against the home. Martin, a successful lawyer for more than 25 years with a busy family law practice, was suspended for 18 months by the Law Society of B.C. last Sept. 5. "I think he should have been disbarred," Chang said. "This guy is nothing but a liar." It wasn't the first time Martin had been caught lying to a client. The lawyer had been disciplined twice before by the law society. In 1993, Martin told a female client he had arranged a U.S. court hearing, which had awarded her alimony. When she asked for a copy of the U.S. judgment, he promised to send her one. He also told the woman's son that a cheque stemming from the U.S. judgment would be sent. But, as in Chang's case, there was no cheque and no judgment. After more than half a dozen complaints, Martin was suspended for two months in 1997 by the law society and fined $10,000 for professional misconduct. The law society disciplinary panel considered, at the time of the events giving rise to the complaints, that Martin had a very busy workload and was suffering a marriage breakdown, resulting in a separation from his wife and six children. In 1999, the law society again cited Martin for professional misconduct, ordering him to pay a $1,000 fine and the $1,000 cost of the disciplinary hearing. That complaint involved Martin breaching an undertaking to place $123,1777 from the sale of a business in an interest-bearing trust account or Canadian government securities. Instead, he had placed the money in his pooled trust account, which resulted in no interest for his client, who was involved in a divorce. In 1999, Martin agreed to pay the woman $3,200 to compensate for the lost interest. Chang's complaint led to the law society recommending disbarring Martin last year. But a discipline panel -- lawyers Peter Keighley, William Jackson and Ross Tunnicliffe -- found that while Martin's conduct constituted professional misconduct, disbarment was not necessary for public protection. The panel heard psychiatric evidence that attributed Martin's behaviour to "poly-substance" abuse -- he was a heavy cocaine user and a life-long marijuana smoker. The panel also considered that Martin had abstained from drugs and alcohol since September 2002, when he entered a drug treatment program. "It appeared more likely that he had procrastination problems that he sought to conceal with lies," the panel observed in a discipline digest published by the law society. "It was unclear whether Mr. Martin's conduct resulted from a character deficiency or a treatable illness, and the panel fixed a penalty that would allow him to establish that it is the latter," the panel concluded. Before Martin resumes his law practice, he must satisfy a board of examiners that his competence is not adversely affected by drugs or alcohol. He can only resume practising as a partner in a law firm or as an employee of another lawyer. Chang still feels the law society should have paid her the $35,000 owed by Martin. "They're saying they won't compensate me because he didn't steal the money," she said. Her lawyer, Bob Mostar, has been told by the law society that it will not pay the $35,000 owed by Martin because it is outside the bounds of the law society's responsibility. "You'd think they'd step up to the plate and pay her," Mostar said Thursday. "They're wringing their hands over this." Brad Daisley, the law society's public affairs manager, said the society's insurance lawyer has had discussions with Chang's lawyer about the $35,000 owed by Martin. "Those discussions have not yet concluded and the matter is not yet resolved," he said. Mostar said the sad thing is that Martin was a very well- respected family lawyer who was very good at his job, when he was doing it properly. "It was a totally inexplicable, evil thing that he did," the lawyer added. He has met with Martin, who told him he doesn't have any money. "I believe him," Mostar said. "He's delivering phone books in North Vancouver." |