Law Society Ruling

November 12th, 2017

In October of last year, we filed with the Law Society of Upper Canada to initiate an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Robert Falconi, who was at that time the General Counsel of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).

Our abridged filing is included at the bottom of this article.  The short version of the argument reads like this;

Robert Falconi was in charge of legal affairs at CSA.  In this capacity, Falconi authorized the selling of legislative influence, including specific votes, at legislative committees.  Influence peddling of course, is quite illegal.  It’s also a massive breach of Law Society regulations.

On this basis, we argued that “The actions of Mr. Falconi in authorizing the sale and provision of unlawful influence over amendments to, and drafting of, domestic legislation appears to be incompatible with the Society’s Rules 2.1-1, 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.2-7 and 3.2-8.”

Further, the “actions of Mr. Falconi appear to violate both the substance and the spirit of the Rules and the Act.  Specifically; 

1) as the nature of Mr. Falconi’s conduct has been, and remains, the debasement of law in compromising the integrity of amendments to those laws, and the de-legitimization of democratic legislative processes purposed to develop those amendments, and;

2) as these laws are the basis for the existence and purpose of the Society specifically and for the legal profession in general;

It therefore appears that Mr. Falconi ‘may have engaged in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer’ and / or he ‘lacks the capacity to meet any of his […] obligations as a lawyer’.”

It’s pretty clear and simple; the law is unambiguous, and Falconi’s conduct was admitted.  This should’ve be a cake-walk.  But it wasn’t.

Mr. David Cass works at the Law Society, he’s their Intake Counsel.  That means he receives filings like ours and sorts and sifts them, giving them a preliminary review and routing them to the appropriate investigative body within the Law Society. 

In mid-October, I contacted Mr. Cass to verify receipt of our filing and to confirm the timeline for processing.  Apparently Mr. Cass was a bit behind in his paperwork, he said he couldn’t review the file for another four or five days.  He advised that I should call back next week and he’d have it all done by then.

And I did call, but he didn’t have it done.  He asked me to call him late the following week and by then he’d have it sorted.

Next week he was out, apparently.  I left a voicemail.  Every time I called from that time onward, Mr. Cass was out of the office.  Apparently.  It went on like this with one-sided regular voicemails, and at regular intervals, for about three months. 

Unable to convince him to answer his phone or return a voicemail, I put the inquiry in writing.  On Dec. 21, 2016, I wrote as follows;

“I am inquiring on the status of the Oct. 13, 2016 Falconi filing, subsequently assigned Law Society intake number 2016-197783, as below.  In previous discussions with you in late October and again in mid-November, you advised on both occasions that you were about a week away from reviewing this filing for referral to begin formal investigation.  Could you kindly advise whether this filing has now been referred for investigation?”

On January 3, 2017, David Cass responded, saying;  “That [one week] estimate has proven to be inaccurate because of a very heavy caseload.  I now hope to reach your file for review by the end of January, 2017.”

Remember his first estimate;  4 - 5 days?  The end of January, 2017 is about 90 days from filing.  David Cass’ estimate was out by 2,250%.

At the end of January….

“Good morning David;  As below, could you kindly advise of the status of the Oct. 13, 2016 Falconi filing?”

On February 1, 2017, Mr. Cass responded curtly, his one-line email was;

“Your complaint file is in my queue for review on a first-in, first-out basis.”

So, for clarity, the handful of files he was working on back in October still weren’t sorted?  I mean, how big were these files?  They’d have to be bloody enormous to monopolize all of his time for that many months on end.  And that must’ve been shocking for him, for he clearly had no idea that these few files on his desk -the ones that would only take 4 - 5 days to process- would be so astoundingly complex as to submerge him in paperwork for that long.

Right, well, I waited another month.  Then, on March 2, 2017;

““Good morning David;  As below, could you kindly advise of the status of the Oct. 13, 2016 Falconi filing?”

This time there was no response at all.  So, after another month, on March 23, 2017;

“Good morning David;  As below, could you kindly advise of the status of the Oct. 13, 2016 Falconi filing?”

Again, no response.  It was like trying to call him, the chances of response were just as slim.  This guy must be amazingly busy to be so consistently unable to answer his emails.  Or his voicemails.  Apparently.

On April 16, 2017, I tried again, saying;

“Good morning David;  As below, could you kindly advise of the status of the Oct. 13, 2016 Falconi filing?”

Nothing.

While we were waiting and while Mr. Cass was apparently working, interesting things were afoot.  As we reported in early February 2017, Robert Falconi was “retired” from CSA at the end of January.  That’s a polite way of saying it.  The high school I attended was very proud that they’d never expelled anyone, instead difficult students were “asked to leave.”  That’s polite too, but we all knew where the duds went.

Anyway, Falconi was still a member of the Law Society after his punting from CSA.  He was still legally a lawyer, he just wasn’t practicing.

Then, in mid-April, six months after being told the Society would take “4 - 5 days” to process our filing, we received a letter from David Cass.  It was all formal, written like a lawyer writes things when writing for lawyers in hopes of wowing legal colleagues with jaw-dropping lawyer-like lawyering. 

“Further investigation,” he wrote “is not warranted at this time [and] consequently, I have closed the file.”

Well, why so?

Under the heading “Reasons for Closing,” the first line begins with;  “Because you have made publicly known your complaint to the Law Society….”  And it goes downhill from there.  It seems that the Law Society is only comfortable dealing in secret.

Worse, Mr. Cass admitted that he had been contacted by “the law firm representing” Mr. Falconi, had engaged in some communications with them and had exchanged documents with them.  I don’t know what documents these were, Mr. Cass declined to specify them, but it seems that Falconi’s lawyers were lobbying the Law Society to drop the investigation, their argument being that RestoreCSA is a troublemaking website, Gordon Knight being a troublemaking troublemaker, and there is no basis to any of the defences that our side has made in Court, so Mr. Falconi is therefore pure as the driven snow.

The Law Society did not interview me, nor any witnesses available.  They only communicated with Falconi’s lawyers.  The Society and the suspect agreed between them that the Society wouldn’t investigate the suspect. 

It’s not supposed to work that way.  How can the Law Society hold conference with only one side in a dispute, and then between them decide not to investigate conduct that the accused had already admitted? 

Their own regulations defy their own decisions.  It’s as though their regulations, and the law itself, doesn’t matter.  Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law is respected in abrogating responsibilities for compliance and enforcement.  Frankly, if the law itself doesn’t matter, if all that matters is the will of whomever has money and power, then we’re embracing by degrees those despotic tendencies more closely associated with the developing world.

Think that’s reactionary?  Too harsh? 

Consider that this same Law Society was outed in the summer for foisting a new and alarmingly undemocratic regulation affecting all of their members (these being lawyers).  The Society decided to force its members to express agreement with the officially sanctioned opinions of the Law Society.  They’re actually engaging in compelled speech and controlled beliefs.  It’s true, and they’ve even announced “compliance measures” to ensure that all lawyers under their power are expressing the correct thoughts.  Of course, as the National Post noted, “the compliance measures are undefined [and the Society] will engage in reactive measures only when necessary.”

You see?  Laws only get in the way.  If you spell out what people can and can’t do, then the people with the power are as bound by law as the lesser peoples they wish to control.  The Law Society regulations that we cited in the filing against Falconi got in the way too, so the Society just ignored them, but ignoring things can be embarrassing.  Instead, granting the power to coerce, while declining to state the parameters of enforcement, gives the Law Society total power over the profession.  The Society then, retains the power of “interpretation” of its deliberately vague regulations, interpreting the regulations to mean whatever they want, whenever it pleases them.  In the words of the Post, that’s “totalitarian.”

So, in our filing, the Law Society cooked the result, dropped an investigation into one of their own in defiance of their own regulations and their own code of professional conduct.  There’s no recourse, the Law Society is a law unto itself. 

In the last half decade of litigation, I have learned a lot about the legal system.  I now know that in Court the law doesn’t matter much, and justice isn’t the goal of the judicial process.  What really matters is money and power; the pursuit of it, the protection of it, and the denial of it to others.  That’s not democratic folks, not at all.  But here we are.

The solution is sunlight.  Nothing sanitizes like sunlight.  So spread the word, shine some light on these people.

 

 


Abridged text of the RestoreCSA Law Society Complaint

This is the complaint of Dr. Gordon Edward Knight, CEO of P.S. Knight Co. Ltd., hereinafter called the Complainant.

Pursuant to Sec. 49.3(1) and (2) of the Law Society Act, the Complainant states that a practicing lawyer in Ontario registered with the Law Society of Upper Canada, Mr. Robert Joseph Falconi, the General Counsel of CSA Group (dba / aka; the “Canadian Standards Association” or “CSA”), hereafter referred to as “CSA”, at Mississauga Ontario, during the third and fourth quarters of 2014 and continuing to the present, willingly, knowingly, and with intent; 

- Did manage the technical data within his control, characterized as draft text and related working papers in areas of electrical installation and application, electrical engineering, and public safety, used in Canada in legislative deliberation in the process of amending domestic Federal and provincial electrical laws, and did authorize, permit and facilitate the transfer of this technical information and data to foreign entities and their representatives, and to citizens of foreign countries, without Government authorization on an ongoing basis, and;

- Did furnish influence and control over the drafting of domestic legislation, including amendments to existing legislation and drafting new regulations for inclusion within existing legislation, to foreign entities and their representatives, and to citizens of foreign countries, without Government authorization on an ongoing basis.

The transfer of technical information and data used in legislative deliberation, and the transfer of influence and control over legislative processes, to non-citizens are violations of sections 46.2(b) and (e), 46.3(b), 46.4.4, 120, 121(1), 122 and section 463 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Basis for Complaint

The Complainant asserts the particulars outlined beginning at Sec. 1.0 below on the following provisions of the Law Society Act (the Act);

Sec. 49.3(1) – “The Society may conduct an investigation into a licensee’s conduct if the Society receives information suggesting that the licensee may have engaged in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a licensee”

Sec. 41 – “A licensee fails to meet standards of professional competence for the purposes of this Act if;  (a) there are deficiencies in (i) the licensee’s knowledge, skill or judgment, [or] (b) the deficiencies give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the quality of service to clients may be adversely affected”

Sec. 42(1) – “The Society may conduct a review of a licensee’s professional business in accordance with the by-laws for the purpose of determining if the licensee is failing or has failed to meet standards of professional competence,” and;

Sec. 33 – A licensee shall not engage in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a licensee.

The above noted provisions of the Act reference and are interpreted by the Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Complainant asserts the particulars outlined beginning at Sec. 1.0 below on the basis of the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules);

Sec. 2.1-1 - “A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.

Relevant excerpts from the Society’s Commentary within the Rules document;

2 – “Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

3 –“Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a client’s trust in the lawyer, the Law Society may be justified in taking disciplinary action.

4.1 – “A lawyer has special responsibilities by virtue of the privileges afforded the legal profession and the important role it plays in a free and democratic society and in the administration of justice, including a special responsibility to recognize the diversity of the Ontario community, to protect the dignity of individuals, and to respect human rights laws in force in Ontario.”

Sec. 3.1-1 - “In this rule, ‘competent lawyer’ means a lawyer who has and applies relevant knowledge, skills and attributes in a manner appropriate to each matter undertaken on behalf of a client including;
(a) knowing general legal principles and procedures and the substantive law and procedure for the areas of law in which the lawyer practices,
(b) investigating facts, identifying issues, ascertaining client objectives, considering possible options, and developing and advising the client on appropriate courses of action,

(f) applying intellectual capacity, judgment, and deliberation to all functions;
(g) complying in letter and in spirit with all requirements pursuant to the Law Society Act”

Sec. 3.1-2 – “A lawyer shall perform any legal services undertaken on a client’s behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer.

Relevant excerpts from the Society’s Commentary within the Rules document;

1 – “As a member of the legal profession, a lawyer is held out as knowledgeable, skilled, and capable in the practice of law.

2 – “Competence is founded upon both ethical and legal principles. This rule addresses the ethical principles. Competence involves more than an understanding of legal principles; it involves an adequate knowledge of the practice and procedures by which such principles can be effectively applied.

14 – “A lawyer who is incompetent does the client a disservice, brings discredit to the profession and may bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In addition to damaging the lawyer’s own reputation and practice, incompetence may also injure the lawyer’s partners and associates.

15.1 - “The Law Society Act provides that a lawyer fails to meet standards of professional competence if there are deficiencies in
(a) the lawyer’s knowledge, skill, or judgment”

Sec. 3.2-7 - “A lawyer shall not knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct or instruct a client or any other person on how to violate the law and avoid punishment.”

Relevant excerpts from the Society’s Commentary within the Rules document;

1 – “Rule 3.2-7 which states that a lawyer must not knowingly assist in or encourage dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct, applies whether the lawyer’s knowledge is actual or in the form of wilful blindness or recklessness. A lawyer should also be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client or persons associated with such a client or any other person.”

Sec. 3.2-8 – “A lawyer who is employed or retained by an organization to act in a matter in which the lawyer knows that the organization has acted, is acting or intends to act dishonestly, fraudulently, criminally or illegally, shall do the following, in addition to their obligations under rule 3.2-7:
(a) advise the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions and the chief legal officer, or both the chief legal officer and the chief executive officer, that the conduct is, was or would be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal and should be stopped;
(b) if necessary because the person from whom the lawyer takes instructions, the chief legal officer or the chief executive officer refuses to cause the conduct to be stopped, advise progressively the next highest persons or groups, including ultimately, the board of directors, the board of trustees, or the appropriate committee of the board, that the conduct was, is or would be dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or illegal and should be stopped; and
(c) if the organization, despite the lawyer’s advice, continues with or intends to pursue the wrongful conduct, withdraw from acting in the matter in accordance with rules in Section 3.7.”

Relevant excerpts from the Society’s Commentary within the Rules document;

1 – “The past, present, or intended misconduct of an organization may have harmful and serious consequences, not only for the organization and its constituency but also for the public, who rely on organizations to provide a variety of goods and services.

2 – “This rule speaks of conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal

5 – “[…] If the organization, despite the lawyer’s advice, continues with the wrongful conduct, the lawyer shall withdraw from acting in the particular matter in accordance with rule 3.7-1. In some but not all cases, withdrawal means resigning from their position or relationship with the organization and not simply withdrawing from acting in the particular matter.”

Complaint Particulars

1.0 Background and Discovery

1.1 The CSA filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court alleging copyright violation by P.S. Knight Co. Ltd. (“PSK”), during Q2, 2012.

1.2 Since inception in 1967, the only business activity of PSK has been the publication of electrical guidebooks covering instruction and compliance with Canadian electrical laws.  These electrical laws are referenced and quoted within PSK publications.

1.3 Since its founding in 1917, the CSA has drafted and amended Federal and provincial legislation in areas of electrical wiring, electrical engineering, and public safety.  Since 1927, the CSA has coordinated the drafting of electrical laws in Canada, these being the laws referenced and quoted by PSK in their instructional publications.

1.4 Mr. Robert Joseph Falconi has been since at least 2003, and remains currently, the General Counsel of CSA.

2.0 Particulars of Unprofessional Conduct

2.1 The influenced law is the Canadian Electrical Code, being the body of text passed into law in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada as well as by the Federal Government, in regular and scheduled amendment cycles uninterrupted since 1927.  These amendments to law are routine and ongoing, the various amendments being grouped for publication every three years.  The most recent amendment to electrical law was released in Q1 of 2015.

2.2 On seventeen pages of CSA’s 2015 publication of electrical law, numbered X – XXVI, the CSA lists the persons and entities to whom they have furnished influence and control over the legislative drafting process during the amendment cycle completed in that year (see Appendix I).

2.3 Among those influencing and directing legislative processes during the 2012-15 amendment cycle, there are 48 non-citizens of Canada and those representing foreign corporate interests, special interest groups, or governments.  These non-citizens and foreign entities are resident in the Bahamas and in 13 different States of the United States of America (see Appendix II).

2.4 The influence at issue includes both amendments to existing text of domestic law and the drafting of entirely new regulations for inclusion within existing domestic law.

2.5 In our research, we could find no government authorization for CSA to furnish this influence over legislative processes.

Sec. 46.2(b)

2.6 Quoting Sec.46.2(b); “Every one commits treason who, in Canada, […] without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character [that] may be used […] for a purpose prejudicial” to Canada. 

2.7 All private working papers (documents, notes, articles, etc.) related to legislation controlled by the CSA are necessarily available to the foreigners on the committees that amend those laws.  The laws in question are electrical laws, dealing with matters of electrical engineering and are therefore scientific and technical in their nature.  Moreover, the laws controlled by the CSA are, in the main, laws governing the safety of the Canadian people.  Further, foreign commercial interests are intrinsically at variance with Canadian commercial interests, inasmuch as our corporations compete against theirs.  In this, it appears that every component category within Section 46.2(b) is met in CSA conduct.

Sec. 46.2.(e)

2.8 Quoting Sec.46.2.(e); Every one commits treason who “conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in [Sec.46.2.(b), as above] or forms an intention to do anything mentioned [above] and manifests that intention by an overt act.” 

2.9 The four persons identified in this action were responsible for authorizing the process of amending electrical law, including the persons influencing or controlling those amendments, and for managing the process of amending electrical law, including the management of foreign persons drafting those amendments.

Sec. 46.3.(b)

2.10 Quoting Sec.46.3.(b); Every one “commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in [Sec.46.2.(b), as above].”

2.11 The CSA has offices worldwide.  There is no assurance that the CSA’s arrangements for provision of influence over domestic law were made entirely within Canadian territory.

Sec. 46.4.4

2.12 Quoting Sec.46.4.4; “Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.” 

Sec. 120

2.13 Quoting Sec. 120; “Every one is guilty of an indictable offence […who] directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent (i) to interfere with the administration of justice”.

2.14 Electrical law is enforced throughout Canada and violations thereof are punishable at law in both civil and criminal proceedings.  Amendments to domestic electrical law alters what is, and what is not, legally enforceable.  Large multi-year construction projects may be governed by multiple amended versions of electrical law.  In this, furnishing influence over electrical law alters the profile of legal culpability in construction projects while those projects are underway.

 


Sec. 121(1)

2.15 Quoting Sec. 121(1)(c);  “Every one commits an offence who (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official.”

2.16 There is no evidence that CSA has at any time received “consent in writing” for their practice of accepting “commission, reward, advantage or benefit” in trade for furnishing influence over domestic legislation.

2.17 Quoting Sec. 121(1)(d);  Every one commits an offence who “having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv)”.

2.18 The CSA rightfully and publicly claims influence with the government in that their role in drafting legislation is longstanding (since 1927) and uninterrupted (89 years).

Sec. 122

2.19 Quoting Sec. 122;  “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.”

2.20 The CSA’s Government mandated role in drafting legislation and its Government charter necessarily makes CSA “an official” of Government. 

Sec. 463

2.21 Sec. 463, “Attempts & Accessories,” markedly broadens the net and may also be applied in this context.


4.0 Awareness of Offences

4.1 At the time of the 2014 alleged offences, the CSA had been made aware, through two years of litigation processes, of the illegality of furnishing influence over legislation to foreigners.  Further and in addition, we had published extensively on the illegality of CSA practices on the RestoreCSA.com site.

4.2 Specifically, and in example, on March 8, 2014, we reported that;

“The Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”) has been providing influence over the drafting of Canadian law to a variety of foreign governments, foreign owned companies and to the citizens of foreign countries” (see Appendix XIV).

4.3 Quoting within the article our correspondence with the Department of Justice, we noted that;

“Given the recent wave of unauthorized disclosures of sensitive, technical and classified information in the United States and elsewhere, we are urgently aware of the increasing, relatable value of sovereignty over national legal statues and the validity of existing legal statutes, and their enforcement, in safeguarding the primacy and continuity of Canadian control of Canadian law.  We are aware that disuse is, by precedent, discontinuance by degrees, a nullification of a critical defensive statute of our democratic society.”

4.4 We also noted the legal consequences of the CSA’s then current trajectory, as;

“Section 46 of the Criminal Code is Canada’s treason law.  Quoting Sec.46.2(b); “Every one commits treason who, in Canada, […] without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character [that] may be used […] for a purpose prejudicial” to Canada.”

4.5 On May 19, 2014, we reported as follows (see Appendix XV);

“The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has for years been allowing foreigners to draft Canadian laws in trade for money.  RestoreCSA reported on this activity earlier this year.”

4.6 In this article, we specifically identified some of the persons to whom CSA had given influence over Canadian legislation.  For example;

“Then there’s Watts Reliant, Inc., whose Engineering Manager, a man named Dustin Allcorn, was also given influence over the 2012 Code.  He’s from Springfield, Missouri.  Mr. Dave Clements is another author, and he lives in Richardson, Texas.  And it goes on like this, the CSA routinely lets foreigners draft Canadian laws.”

4.7 We also noted that CSA was aware that its legislative practices are violations of Section 46, as we noted;

“The CSA knows that its not supposed to be giving influence over Canadian law to foreigners, much less selling that influence.  They know this, they’ve admitted this internally.  […]  From the CSA minutes, read carefully;  ‘In reply to a question […], although [the CSA page] does not cover the question of membership nationality, it is necessary that all members of the […] Committees should be residents of Canada because of possible conflicts that may arise during the voting on international drafts.’

4.8 Throughout the 2014 – 15 years, the RestoreCSA.com site featured an Issues section which reads, as excerpted (see Appendix XVI);

“the CSA has been providing direct and material influence over the drafting of Canadian law to a variety of foreign governments, foreign owned companies and to the citizens of foreign countries. In these actions, the CSA appears to be in violation of Section 46 of the Canadian Criminal Code.”

“Unauthorized provision of influence or control over Canadian law to foreign powers appears to be a prima facie act of treason against the Crown.”

“The CSA’s Canadian Electrical Code publication lists the memberships of each committee, including the foreign governments, foreign companies and foreign citizens who have paid to influence the drafting of legislation. Far from having to prove CSA actions, the CSA itself has published them.”

“We believe that CSA’s conduct is actionable and we intend to pursue legal correction.”

4.9 In this context, it is difficult to argue that CSA was unaware of the legal implications of its legislative actions during the third and fourth quarters of 2014.


5.0 Application

5.1 The actions of Mr. Falconi in authorizing the sale and provision of unlawful influence over amendments to, and drafting of, domestic legislation appears to be incompatible with the Society’s Rules 2.1-1, 3.1-1, 3.1-2, 3.2-7 and 3.2-8.

5.2 The actions of Mr. Falconi appear to violate both the substance and the spirit of the Rules and the Act.  Specifically; 

1) as the nature of Mr. Falconi’s conduct has been, and remains, the debasement of law in compromising the integrity of amendments to those laws, and the de-legitimization of democratic legislative processes purposed to develop those amendments, and;

2) as these laws are the basis for the existence and purpose of the Society specifically and for the legal profession in general;

It therefore appears that Mr. Falconi “may have engaged in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer” and / or he “lacks the capacity to meet any of his […] obligations as a lawyer”.