CEF: Former District RA Counsel Called Before Law Society

Counsel Allan Garber was retained by the original District Subcommittee as counsel for their  Representative Action.  He resigned as counsel after a legal kerfluffel and now he’s being called before the Law Society to explain himself in what seems to be an unrelated matter – specifically:

1. It is alleged that Allan Garber acted in a conflict or potential conflict of interest without obtaining his clients’ consent or in circumstances where it was not in the best interests of his clients, and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
2. It is alleged that Allan Garber engaged in a business transaction with his client(s) without recommending independent legal advice and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
3. It is alleged that Allan Garber failed to conscientiously serve his lender client and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
4. It is alleged that Allan Garber breached the accounting rules of the Law Society and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
5. It is alleged that Allan Garber failed to comply with trust conditions and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
6. It is alleged that Allan Garber misled another lawyer, D.S., and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
7. It is alleged that Allan Garber failed to be candid with the Law Society and that such conduct is deserving of sanction;
8. It is alleged that Allan Garber breached the accounting rules of the Law Society and that such conduct is deserving of sanction; and
9. It is alleged that Allan Garber failed to discharge his duties as the responsible lawyer of his trust account and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.

If the allegations are true as charged – imagine the damage that could happen if the behavior continued to take place and the Law Society didn’t do anything about it? And if the allegations are not true – the harm to Mr Garbar could also be substantial. Irrespective of the decision, both Mr Garbar and the general public need a clear decision on the matter.

This illustrates why we have governance policies and Boards to carry them out – to ensure that people follow proper procedure, stay within the bounds of what the rules allow,  encourage / ensure good and proper conduct, and apply corrective action when someone steps outside its bounds.

This is also why “the rules” that an organization operates by need to be taken seriously and enforced appropriately. Letting offenders continue in their behavior is not “being nice” but an abuse of the people on the receiving end of the mistreatment, the offender who continues to think what they’re doing is right and proper, and the people that see that what the church tolerates in its midst is clearly different from what it says it stands for.

This is part and parcel why the Commission on Adjudication’s official “get out of jail free” card is such a problem – when issues come before them the plaintiff, defendant, and the church needs a clear and decisive answer on the matter. A “no answer – figure it out for yourselves or go to court” not only does these people harm, it also means that the church is in danger of falling into the time of the judges –

 In those days there was no king in Israel.
Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25