‘Repeated pattern’: multiple instances of misconduct, incompetence lead to disbarment for city lawyer

A Winnipeg lawyer has been disbarred after admitting to six counts of professional misconduct and two counts of providing incompetent service involving eight clients.

The career-ending decision marks the sixth time Gisele Champagne has been disciplined by the Law Society of Manitoba since she was called to the bar in 1992.

“Disbarment is the appropriate remedy when a lawyer has demonstrated a repeated pattern of conduct that violates professional standards,” a law society panel said in a written decision released Wednesday.

“A lawyer who has been unable to learn from past discipline proceedings to fulfill his or her obligation to provide ethical and high-quality legal services must at some point lose the privilege of practising law.”

Champagne did not contest the charges or argue for a lesser penalty.

The charges of incompetence “are particularly concerning,” the panel wrote, noting the service she provided in an estate matter was so poor two different judges ordered costs against her. In a second family law matter, Champagne either failed to file documents or filed documents so poorly drafted they were rejected by the court and “virtually abandoned” her client by failing to file a closing argument.

With respect to other clients, Champagne admitted to failing to keep current records, failing to provide courteous, timely service, failing to act with integrity, and issuing post-dated trust account cheques, a violation of law society rules.

“The offences to which she has pleaded guilty continue to show that she cannot practise in a manner that meets the society’s standards of competence and professionalism,” the panel said.

Champagne has a disciplinary history dating back 25 years.

Most recently, Champagne admitted in 2020 to professional misconduct for incidents reported in 2019 and 2020.

In the incident reported in 2019, Champagne made changes to a joint document that a Crown attorney had already signed, without her consent, and filed it in court, in a sentence appeal for a client who had pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges. At issue was the trial judge not taking into account the man’s pre-trial custody at sentencing.

The Crown later discovered the legal brief had been altered and the court did not accept the improperly revised document. The Crown ultimately prepared a final revised document that Champagne signed and the joint appeal was granted.

In the 2020 citation, she admitted to breaching legal accounting rules in how she used general and trust accounts in 2014 and 2015. The breach did not result in any losses to her client.

On a joint recommendation, she was fined $4,000 and ordered to pay $4,000 in court costs.

The law society disciplinary panel said in a written decision it would have gone for a harsher punishment, if not for the joint recommendation, and warned that Champagne should expect punishment more severe than a fine if she ever faces discipline again.

In 2018, Champagne pleaded guilty to professional misconduct, after taking instructions from a developmentally delayed youth to plead guilty to a robbery, with no input from the boy’s guardian.

Champagne agreed to no longer represent youth clients, and was ordered to pay $4,000 in fines and court costs.

In a similar case from 2012, Champagne pleaded guilty to failing to serve her client in a diligent and efficient manner, after taking a cognitively delayed youth’s instructions to agree to an adult sentence without ensuring he knew the consequences of his decision or his options.

She was reprimanded and ordered to practise under supervision for 18 months.

In 2001, Champagne pleaded guilty to failing to act with integrity after admitting to providing false information on her application as a student in the bar admission program. She was fined and ordered to pay court costs totalling $2,000.

That same year, she pleaded guilty to failing to serve her client after approving a witness whose testimony she knew would be damaging to her client’s case. The law society reprimanded Champagne and ordered her to practise under supervision for one year.

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca