Disbarred for having dipped into the fund


Source: Secretary-inc.

Daniel Cash began his purgatory on March 15 for having for more than two years contravened section 50 of the Accounting Regulation and section 94 of the Code of Ethics.

According to the disbarment notice published by the Barreau du Québec on April 26, Daniel Caisse “appropriated the total sum of $34,277.50 entrusted to him by his clients”, in addition to having failed to deposit these same sums in a trust account.

The disciplinary decision, rendered on March 15, recounts a series of events that occurred between 2015 and 2017. More than fifteen offenses were thus committed during the execution of three mandates carried out for two clients.

Daniel Caisse pleaded guilty to eight counts of not having deposited the sums in trust, and eight other counts of appropriation of funds. Each of the counts taken individually totaled some 75 months of radiation.

From the outset, the respondent admitted his guilt, notes the Disciplinary Council of the Bar, which also notes that Daniel Caisse testified “to have reimbursed all of the amounts received and for which he did not render professional services, that is, the sum of $13,727.50 to Mrs. A and that of $3,300 to Mrs. B”, her clients whose identity is protected by the disciplinary tribunal.

One of the two lawyers who pleaded the cause of Daniel Caisse, Me Jean El-Masri, explains that “we pleaded all the elements” during negotiations with the syndic to agree on a joint recommendation on the sanction. Me Walid Si Mahdi also defended Daniel Caisse.

The fact that guilt was admitted from the outset, which made it possible in particular to avoid the complainants having to testify, made it possible to reach an agreement on the sanction so that the sentences imposed for each of the 16 counts purged concurrently, believes Me El Masri.

The Council also notes mitigating factors such as the admission of the facts, the plea, the absence of a prior record, we read in the decision on guilt and on the sanction.

However, the decision mentions certain aggravating factors, namely the “fact that not only did the respondent have more than 30 years of experience at the time of the alleged facts, but he had already been the subject of two warnings concerning his ethical obligation to keep the sums received as advances”, in 2011 and 2012.

That being the case, the assistant syndic Me Marie-Claude Thibault considers the risk of recurrence low.


Leave a Comment