We did not strictly follow this procedure, insofar as the chair did not circulate reasons to the other Panel members prior to those members indicating their agreement with his decision not to recuse himself. This deviation was justified because neither party was alleging bias and, as described below, the arguments against recusal were compelling. This somewhat summary procedural approach is similar to that taken in Law Society of BC v. Rea, 2012 LSBC 22, at paras. 2 to 7. In any event, the chair’s written reasons for concluding that no reasonable apprehension of bias exists, with which the other Panel members agree, are set out in the remainder of this section of our reasons.
"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.