And, of course, Gerry Laarakker was disciplined by the Law Society of British Columbia after making «discourteous and personal remarks» about another lawyer who was
sending shoplifting demand letters.
To my knowledge, no Canadian law society has publicly disciplined lawyers
sending shoplifting demand letters or publicly condemned the practice.
Not exact matches
In Santo Domingo, they are
sent to stay with relatives when the food runs out at home; in the States,
shoplifting and drugdealing supply material necessities and a bit of a thrill in an otherwise exhausting and frustrating existence.
To the extent that
shoplifting civil recovery letters advance spurious claims, the fact that a lawyer is used to
send these letters can be seen as an attempt to mislead members of the public.
In speaking about a
shoplifting civil recovery letter that had been
sent by a lawyer acting for a retailer to the parent of a teenager, Justice Jewers stated in a 1996 Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench decision (B. (D.C.) v. Arkin (1996), 138 D.L.R. (4th) 309):
If, for example, you are convicted of a misdemeanor
shoplifting offense, you could be sentenced to perform community service, placed on probation, assessed a monetary fine, or even
sent to county jail for up to 6 months.
The Ontario lawyer in question had
sent a letter to one of Laarakker's clients demanding that she pay for «losses» arising from a
shoplifting incident involving her daughter.
The practice at issue is the
sending of
shoplifting demand letters.
As I have written in a recent article on the topic of
shoplifting demand letters, when lawyers
send letters that mislead the public as to their legal obligations, there is a strong case that these lawyers are breaching rules of professional misconduct by, among other things, knowingly assisting their clients in dishonest conduct and violating their obligations to act in good faith and practice law with integrity.