It has been determined that our client, Ishmael Shaw failed to co-operate with the LSUC investigators. After reviewing the three cases we located earlier and an additional relevant case, a likely penalty that our client will face has been determined.
Mr. Shaw is a licensed paralegal, who has done a lot of pro bono work for those who have disabilities. His mother fell extremely ill which led to him spending an abundant amount time taking care of her and consequently less time on his clients and practice. One client, Karen Knotts felt particularly neglected and filed a complaint to the LSUC. Ishmael did not respond to any correspondence or telephone calls that the LSUC made to get in touch with Mr. Shaw regarding this complaint.
Facts:
Mr. Shaw did not respond to either of the three letters from the LSUC or the four phone calls about the matter. Mr. Shaw’s explanation for neglecting his practice and failing to respond to the LSUC is that his mother’s condition was worsening and Mr. Shaw decided to prioritize her care rather than the LSUC investigations.
Issue(s):
1. In these particular circumstances, what is the appropriate penalty for Mr. Shaw’s lack of co-operation?
Law:
In the first case, …show more content…
He had a wrist fracture which he stated rendered him unable to respond to the Law Society. This is comparable to Mr. Shaw as his reason for not responding to the Law Society was due to his mother’s ill health. Mr. Gavris received six letters and a telephone call from the investigator whereas Mr. Shaw received three letters and four phone calls. It is to be noted that in both cases, no response was given to these letters or telephone calls except that Mr. Gavris requested an adjournment of the hearing. Another point of comparison is that Mr. Gavris has prior discipline history for failing to comply with CPD requirements whereas Mr. Shaw has no prior