hong guo and complaints
【海外华人直播】的朋友们，大家好。今天是2020年01月 19日。【海外华人直播】播报 1则新闻: Hong Guo - Complaints 。 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表海外华人直播的立
场！
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The table below shows the status of all current citations and related discipline hearings.
Discipline Cases
| Hong Guo |
August 23, 2018
Issued: September 4, 2018
|
Hearing:
Feb. 3-14/20 |
Hearing scheduled
| ||
| Hong Guo |
December 6, 2018
Issued: December 12, 2018
|
Hearing scheduled
| |||
| Hong Guo |
October 24, 2019
Issued: November 1, 2019
|
Citation issued
|
/////////////////////////
In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning HONG GUO
https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/lsbc/apps/hearings/viewreport.cfm?hearing_id=1374&t=Guo-Decision-on-Rule-4-38-Preliminary-Question-Application
2019 LSBC 41 Decision issued: November 22, 2019 Citation issued: December 12, 2018 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning HONG GUO RESPONDENT DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT’S DESIGNATE TO SET ASIDE A NOTICE TO ADMIT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OR TO EXTEND THE TIME TO RESPOND Written Submissions: November 13, 2019 President’s Designate: Philip A. Riddell, QC Discipline Counsel: Alison L. Kirby Counsel for the Respondent: Craig E. Jones, QC INTRODUCTION [1] On October 31, 2019 the Respondent filed an application under Rules 4-28(5) and 4-36 for an order that the Notice to Admit delivered by the Law Society on October 25, 2019 (the “Notice to Admit”) be set aside as an abuse of process or, in the alternative, an extension of time to respond to the Notice to Admit. [2] The hearing of this matter on Facts and Determination is scheduled to commence on December 16, 2019 and continue through to December 20. [3] A review of the timeline shows the following: (a) The Notice to Admit was delivered to the Respondent on October 25, 2019, 51 days prior to the scheduled date for the hearing to begin. Rule 4-28 requires that a Notice to Admit be served no less than 45 days prior to the 2 DM2546137 commencement of the hearing. The respondent must respond within 21 days of the Notice to Admit being delivered; and (b) Under the Rules, the date by which the Respondent was to respond was November 15, 2019. PRELIMINARY MATTERS [4] The hearing of this application was scheduled for 9:00 am on November 19, 2019 by telephone conference. At the commencement of the hearing, I canvassed counsel to ensure that I was in receipt of all the materials of the Law Society and of the Respondent. Having confirmed this I asked counsel if there were any further submissions. Both counsel indicated that there were no further submissions. I advised that I would make an oral ruling with reasons to follow. I dismissed the Respondent’s application to have the Notice to Admit set aside, and extended the time to reply to the Notice to Admit to November 22, 2019. [5] At that point, counsel for the Respondent stated that he thought he would be able to make further oral submissions prior to a ruling being made. Counsel for the Law Society stated her view that, as she understood it, a ruling would be based on the written materials. [6] I indicated that there was now an issue since I had made a ruling in the absence of hearing full submissions from the Respondent. Counsel for the Respondent stated that he was in a position to waive any issue of “bias”, and that he was comfortable with me continuing to hear the Respondent’s application. The matter was rescheduled for continuation at noon on the same day. [7] At the commencement of the continuation: (a) Counsel for the Respondent confirmed that he continued to waive any issue of “bias” and that I should continue as the President’s Designate; (b) Counsel for the Law Society confirmed that there was no issue with my continuing; (c) Counsel for the Respondent would commence with oral submissions. Counsel for the Law Society would then have an opportunity to make oral submissions. Counsel for the Respondent would then have a right of reply; and (d) I would rely on the previously filed materials in making my decision. 3 DM2546137 POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [8] The Respondent sought to have the Notice to Admit set aside as an abuse of process, or in the alternative, to extend the time to respond from 21 days to 63 days, and for an Order that Discipline Counsel provide to counsel for the Respondent the source of each document listed in the Notice to Admit and the location of the original document. [9] It is noted that the Respondent did not make an application to adjourn the hearing. [10] The Law Society agrees to extending the time for the Respondent to respond to the Notice to Admit to November 22, 2019. [11] The Respondent sought to set aside the Notice to Admit on the basis that the delivery of the Notice to Admit constituted an abuse of process. The basis for the claim of abuse of process is set out in the Respondent’s Notice of Application as: The huge size and last-hour delivery of the Notice to Admit in this case suggest that Discipline Counsel may be taking tactical advantage of the rules to prejudice Ms. Guo in her response to Citation. Even if this outcome were not intended, however, the prejudice in the circumstances requires that Ms. Guo be granted the relief she seeks. [12] The Respondent has not presented any evidence in support of the allegation of an improper motive on behalf of Discipline Counsel. [13] To determine if the time for the Respondent to reply to the Notice to Admit should be extended beyond the November 22, 2019 date proposed by the Law Society, the Notice to Admit has to be examined: (a) Authenticity of 199 documents is sought. Upon a review of the descriptions of the documents, the overwhelming majority are cross-referenced to the disclosure index provided by Discipline Counsel to counsel for the Respondent on July 15, 2019; and (b) There are 239 paragraphs setting out factual statements. The Law Society seeks admissions of the truth of those facts. A review of these paragraphs shows that the majority of them include references to documents that contain facts that the Law Society seeks to have the Respondent admit. Many of the paragraphs that do not have document references appear to contain information that might be within the knowledge of the Respondent, such as the identity of the signatory to her practice accounts or the Respondent’s year of call. 4 DM2546137 [14] The Law Society provided disclosure to Respondent’s counsel on July 15, 2019. That disclosure consisted of 66 documents, indexed as documents 1 to 66, delivered in a banker’s box. Counsel for the Respondent indicated that they amounted to approximately 2000 pages, which he described as a “document” dump that was not organized. [15] In the course of submissions, counsel for the Law Society indicated that documents 1 to 66 were numbered on the first page of each document with the document number that corresponded to the document disclosure index. As counsel for the Law Society described it, what was required was to insert an index tab before the first page of each document to create a binder or binders consisting of the 66 paper documents. It would appear that, prior to the hearing of this application, counsel for the Respondent made no effort to contact counsel for the Law Society to ask how documents 1 to 66 were organized in the banker’s box. [16] Document disclosure by the Law Society on July 15, 2019 also contained two 8- gigabyte encrypted thumb drives. Counsel for the Respondent did not request the password to access the thumb drives until the day of the hearing of this application – November 19, 2019. [17] The Notice to Admit attaches the 199 documents concerning which the Law Society seeks admission of authenticity. Counsel for the Law Society advised that the electronic versions of the documents were indexed in a manner in which Bates numbering of the pages constituting the document were incorporated into the document file name on the applicable thumb drive. [18] Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Respondent must be given a reasonable period of time to respond. He pointed to the number of documents involved in the request for admissions. He pointed to the fact that the Respondent is also dealing with two other Law Society matters that require her attention and to the fact that the Respondent has been in China attending the criminal trials of two persons who are related to her impugned actions. It was not clear if the Respondent was required to attend those proceedings, although mention was made to a process in which the complainant to an offence must participate in the resolution of charges with some consideration being given to restitution being made. The details of this process were not provided with any degree of precision. The Respondent’s absence is said to have created difficulty in preparing a response to the Notice to Admit. [19] The Respondent does not seek an adjournment of the hearing, but Respondent’s counsel has stated that, if the matter is adjourned due to the currently scheduled hearing dates being lost due to the extension of time to respond, the Respondent would waive any delay caused by the adjournment. 5 DM2546137 [20] In dealing with the Notice to Admit, the Respondent relies on Ceperkovic v. MacDonald, 2016 BCSC 939 at para. 36, to support the proposition that, in order to be effective in fulfilling its objectives, a notice to admit must be reasonably capable of evaluation within the time required for response. ANALYSIS [21] The Respondent seeks to have the Notice to Admit set aside on the basis that its use in this case constitutes an abuse of process. The time frames for when a Notice to Admit can be delivered and when a response must be provided are set out in Rule 4-28. There has been no evidentiary basis presented by the Respondent to support this basis to set aside the notice. [22] The Respondent claims that the use of the Notice to Admit creates prejudice to the Respondent, and the argument is based upon the inability of the Respondent to analyze the Notice to Admit and to respond. The Respondent states that this prejudice can be dealt with by providing the Respondent with more time to respond than the 21 days set out in Rule 4-28. [23] The Respondent’s submission rests on the argument that, given the volume of material both in the number of documents for which the Law Society seeks admissions of authenticity and in the number of facts for which the Law Society seeks admissions as to their truth, more time is required to respond. Specifically, the Respondent says she needs a reasonable time to respond. [24] In considering what constitutes a reasonable time to respond, I must examine the actions of the parties in providing the Notice to Admit, the discipline file disclosure, and steps taken by the Respondent to analyze the Notice to Admit and prepare a response. [25] The Law Society delivered the discipline disclosure to Respondent’s counsel on July 15, 2019. This disclosure included all of the documents the authenticity of which is sought, and the documents from which many of the admissions of facts are drawn. The Notice to Admit was delivered to Respondent’s counsel on October 25, 2019. Rule 4-28 required the Respondent to furnish a response by November 15, 2019. (The Law Society has agreed to extend the time to respond to November 22, 2019.) [26] The Respondent states that she is unable to respond because of other Law Society matters she is involved in, the volume of material dealt with in the Notice to Admit and due to her being in China with regard to the criminal proceedings against other persons. 6 DM2546137 [27] The Respondent’s efforts in responding to the Notice to Admit must be examined: (a) The Respondent filed this application on October 31, 2019; (b) Respondent’s counsel did not obtain the passwords to access the two
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hearings are open to the public although some portions may need to be closed to protect confidential client information.
Law Society discipline hearings usually take place in the hearing room at the Law Society's office in Vancouver and generally start at 9:30 am. Hearings typically take one to two days. Before you attend a hearing, confirm that the hearing is on schedule by contacting the Hearing Administrator. Members of the media are asked to contact the Communications Department if you plan to attend a hearing.
Discipline hearings calendar
| April 27 - May 8/20 | Hong Guo | Richmond | Citation | Facts and Determination |
Citation issued: September 4, 2018
Hong Guo
Citations are authorized by the Law Society of BC's Discipline Committee and list allegations against a lawyer that will be considered at a discipline hearing. Please note that allegations in a citation are unproven until a discipline hearing panel has determined their validity.
Nature of conduct to be inquired into:
Breach of Accounting Rules
1. Between approximately January 2014 and October 2016, you failed to maintain accounting records in compliance with the provisions of Part 3, Division 7 of the Law Society Rules and in particular you did or failed to do one or more of the following:
(a) between January 2014 and March 2016, you did not prepare monthly trust reconciliations of your pooled trust accounts, within 30 days of the effective date of the reconciliation or at all, in one or more of the eighty-five (85) instances set out in Schedule “A” to this citation, contrary to Rule 3-73;
(b) between January 2014 and April 2016, you failed to retain all supporting documentation for your trust accounts including bank statements, cancelled cheques, and bank deposit slips, contrary to Rule 3-67, including some or all of:
(i) [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] cancelled cheques for January 2014 to April 2014, August 2014 to December 2014 and December 2015 (1,039 missing cheques);
(ii) [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] deposit slips for January 2014 to January 2015, and March 2015 to April 2016 (153 missing deposit slips);
(iii) [Bank 2] Trust Account No. [number] (“[Bank 2] Trust Account”) deposit slips for June 2015 to December 2015 (47 missing deposit slips);
(iv) [Bank 3] Trust Account No. [number] (later renamed [Bank 3] Trust Account No. [number]) cancelled cheques for June 2014 and August 2014;
(v) [Bank 3] USD Trust Account No. [number] (later renamed [Bank 3] Trust Account No. [number]) deposit slips for June 2014, April 2015 and June 2015;
(vi) [Bank 4] Trust Account No. [number] cancelled cheques for March 2014 to May 2014 and November 2015;
(vii) [Bank 4] Trust Account No. [number] deposit slips for February 2014, November 2014 and December 2014;
(viii) [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] (“Old [Bank 1] Trust Account”) cancelled cheques for January 2014 to April 2014, December 2014 and December 2015;
(ix) [Bank 1] Trust USD Account No. [number] cancelled cheques for August 2014 to December 2014 and July 2015;
(x) [Bank 1] Trust USD Account No. [number] deposit slips for February 2014 to December 2014;
(xi) [Bank 3] General Account No. [number] (later renamed [Bank 3] Trust Account No. [number]) deposit slips for August 2014 to March 2015, June 2015 and December 2015;
(xii) [Bank 2] General Account No. [number] deposit slips for September 2014 to August 2016;
(xiii) [Bank 1] General Account No. [number] deposit slips for July 2014; and
(xiv) [Bank 1] General Account No. [number] deposit slips for April 2016.
(c) in one or more of thirty-nine (39) instances set out in Schedule “B”, you withdrew trust funds from your [Bank 2] Trust Account when there were insufficient funds held to the credit of the client, contrary to Rule 3-64(3)(b);
(d) you failed to report to the Executive Director a trust shortage greater than $2,500.00 in one or more of thirty-four (34) of the thirty-nine (39) instances set out in Schedule “B”, contrary to Rule 3-74;
(e) in one or more of four instances between July 10, 2015 and March 31, 2016, you failed to report to the Executive Director that your [Bank 2] Trust Account was overdrawn by more than $2,500.00, contrary to Rules 3-63 and 3-74;
(f) in one or more of seventeen (17) instances set out in Schedule “C”, you withdrew trust funds from your Old [Bank 1] Trust Account when there were insufficient funds held to the credit of the client, contrary to Rule 3-64(3)(b);
(g) you failed to report to the Executive Director a trust shortage greater than $2,500.00 in one or more of fourteen (14) of the seventeen (17) instances set out in Schedule “C”, contrary to Rule 3-74;
(h) between April 4, 2016 and April 11, 2016, in one or more of in ten (10) instances set out in Schedule “D”, you withdrew or authorized the withdrawal of a total of $1,870,123.08 in trust funds from your [Bank 2] Trust Account by way of debit memo, contrary to Rules 3-64(4) and (7);
(i) between approximately February 2016 and March 2016, you gave a non-lawyer one or more of 112 pre-signed blank trust cheques for your [Bank 2] Trust Account, contrary to Rule 3-64 and rule 6.1-3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia (the “BC Code”);
(j) between March 11, 2016 and March 30, 2016, you permitted a non-lawyer to issue one or more of ninety (90) trust cheques drawn on the [Bank 2] Trust Account totaling $44,731,730.65 without proper supervision, contrary to contrary to Rule 3-64 and rule 6.1-3 of the BC Code;
(k) on or about March 11, 2016, you gave a non-lawyer one or more of five pre-signed blank trust cheques for your Old [Bank 1] Trust Account, contrary to Rule 3-64 and rule 6.1-3 of the BC Code;
(l) between March 15, 2016 and March 30, 2016, you permitted a non-lawyer to issue one or more of five trust cheques drawn on the Old [Bank 1] Trust Account totaling $8,426,333.41 without proper supervision, contrary to Rule 3-64 and rule 6.1-3 of the BC Code;
(m) in or about March, 2016, you gave a non-lawyer one or more of three pre-signed blank trust cheques for your [Bank 3] Account No. [number] and [Bank 1] Trust USD Account No. [number], contrary to Rule 3-64 and rule 6.1-3 of the BC Code; and
(n) commencing January 2016 onwards, you failed to maintain sufficient funds on deposit in your [Bank 2] Trust Account and Old [Bank 1] Trust Account to meet your obligations with respect to funds held in trust for your clients, contrary to Rule 3-63.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct or a breach of the Act or Rules, pursuant to section 38 of the Legal Profession Act.
Failure to Supervise/Improper Delegation
2. Between approximately January 2016 and March 2016, you failed to properly supervise your bookkeeper JL or improperly delegated your trust accounting responsibilities to him, or both, thereby facilitating the misappropriation of a total of $7,506,818.00 from [Bank 2] Trust Account No. [number] (“[Bank 2] Trust Account”), contrary to Rule 3-64 of the Law Society Rules or rule 6.1-3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, or both.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct or breach of the Act or rules, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
Misappropriation/Improper Withdrawal
3. Commencing in April 2016, you misappropriated, or improperly withdrew client trust funds from your [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] when your trust accounting records were not current and there were insufficient funds on deposit to the credit of the clients on whose behalf you made the withdrawals, contrary to one or both of Rule 3-63 or Rule 3-64 (3) of the Law Society Rules, on one or more of the following occasions:
(a) between April 11, 2016 and July 26, 2016, you withdrew trust funds totaling $1,909,198.02 on behalf of your client TZ (Matter #160406 and #160353) when you held only $1,270,508.59 to the credit of that client resulting in a trust shortage of $638,689.43;
(b) on or about June 8, 2016, you withdrew trust funds of $5,250.00 on behalf of your client YS (Matter #160354) when you held no funds to the credit of that client resulting in a trust shortage of $5,250.00; and
(c) between approximately April 8, 2016 and April 11, 2016, you withdrew trust funds totaling $744,454.40 on behalf of your client HL (Matter #160402) when you held only $738,970.59 to the credit of that client resulting in a trust shortage of $5,483.81.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct or breach of the Act or rules, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
Breach of Undertaking to Law Society
4. Between approximately April 20, 2016 and August 17, 2016, you breached your undertaking dated April 19, 2016 to the Law Society of British Columbia (the “Undertaking”), contrary to rules 7.1-1(f) and 7.2-11 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, by doing one or more of the following:
(a) failing to immediately open a new trust account for new client matters, contrary to paragraph 1(d) of the Undertaking;
(b) depositing trust funds totaling $196,613,345.22 into [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] in connection with one or more of 165 new client matters, contrary to paragraph 1(d) of the Undertaking; and
(c) between June 8, 2016 and July 12, 2016, withdrawing trust funds totaling $7,269,159,28 by way of one or more of thirty (30) cheques that had not been signed by a second signatory, contrary to paragraph 1(e) of the Undertaking.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct, pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
Breach of Law Society Order
5. You failed to comply with an interim Order made by Three Benchers on August 17, 2016 (the “August Order”), contrary to rule 7.1-1(e) of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, by doing one or both of the following:
(a) between August 18, 2016 and September 20, 2016, depositing trust funds totaling $24,446,106.29 into [Bank 1] Trust Account No. [number] in connection with one or more of twenty-eight (28) new client matters, contrary to paragraph 1(l) of the August Order; and
(b) on or about December 14, 2916, making a $80,000.00 payment to M. Inc., a client affected by a shortage in your [Bank 2] Trust Account No. [number], without the knowledge or consent of the custodian, contrary to paragraph 1(d) of the August Order.
This conduct constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to s. 38(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
//////////////////////////
Summary of Decision of the President’s Designate on an Application to Set Aside a Notice to Admit or to Extend the Time to Respond
Hong Guo
Called to the bar: May 4, 2009
Citation Issued: December 12, 2018
Written submissions: November 13, 2019
President’s designate: Philip Riddell, QC
Decision issued: November 22, 2019
Counsel: Alison Kirby for the Law Society; Craig E. Jones, QC, for Hong Guo.
BACKGROUND
Hong Guo applied to set aside a Notice to Admit or, failing that, to extend time to respond to the notice. The Law Society opposed the application.
On July 15, 2019, the Law Society provided disclosure to Guo’s counsel, including 66 documents in a banker’s box, numbered one through 66, with each number corresponding to the document disclosure index. The Law Society’s disclosure also included two encrypted thumb drives. Guo’s counsel characterized this disclosure as an unorganized “document dump.”
On October 25, 2019, a Notice to Admit was delivered to Guo, including 199 documents, the authenticity of which the Law Society was seeking confirmation. All of these documents were included in the July 15 disclosure, as were the documents from which many of the admissions of facts were drawn. Guo contended that the Notice to Admit constituted an abuse of process due to its “last-hour” delivery and the large number of documents referenced.
The President’s designate found no evidence that Guo made reasonable efforts to respond to the Notice to Admit but needed more time. Guo’s counsel did not contact counsel for the Law Society to determine how documents in the disclosure had been organized, and Guo’s counsel did not seek the passwords to the encrypted thumb drives until the day of the hearing of this application.
The President’s designate concluded that Guo’s conduct does not portray a party who has been acting diligently to respond to the Notice to Admit, but has been unable to do so as a result of factors cited in the application.
DECISION ON APPLICATION
The application to set aside the Notice to Admit was dismissed. The application to have discipline counsel deliver a document setting out the source of each document listed in the Notice to Admit was dismissed. The application to extend the time to provide a response to the notice admit was dismissed. Guo was required to respond to the Notice to Admit by 11:59 pm on November 22, 2019.
////////////////////////////////////
//【海外华人直播】的固定播出时间 早上7点，晚上7点半 。非常感谢各位朋友观看我们的频道。若您喜欢我们本期视频的节目，拜托你订阅、点赞、转发或者打赏。您的支持行动和订阅是我们制作出下一期节目的动力。
文章来源:
评论
发表评论