What is the test for unexplained persistent failure to respond to communications from the Law Society of BC?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Farion (Re), 2016 LSBC 25 (CanLII):
In Law Society of BC v. Dobbin, 1999 LSBC 27, it was determined that: … it is the decision of the Benchers that unexplained persistent failure to respond to Law Society communications will always be prima facie evidence of professional misconduct which throws upon the respondent member a persuasive burden to excuse his or her conduct. ...
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have the Law Society of BC treated the issue of unexplained persistent failure to respond to communications by a member of staff? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the Respondent Respondent responded to an application for a change in parenting time? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a Respondent have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as a result of the Respondent's failure to attend the hearing? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a respondent respond to an application with a sur-reply responding to new issues raised in reply? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the fact that the respondent did not expect the respondent to pay for the domestic services provided by the Respondent have any impact on an unjust enrichment claim? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it essential for lawyers to respond to communications from the Law Society of BC? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it essential for a lawyer to respond to a Law Society communications? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for professional misconduct for failing to respond to communications from the Law Society of BC? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a Law Society of BC appeal against a decision that the Respondent failed to respond over a four-month period? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the fact that there is no provision that considers the respondent’s failure to perform his obligations in breach of contract preclude the applicant from seeking damages for non-performance of the contract? (British Columbia, Canada)
