Hanky-Panky Judge Surrenders Law License After Offering Favourable Ruling In Exchange for ‘Favours’

“Justice delayed is justice denied.”

— Unknown dude who waited too long for justice

Imagine fleeing South Korea in terror, escaping an awful situation that could lead to grave bodily harm or death. You arrive in Canada, praying for safe haven. You meet a powerful man. He’s an ex-Toronto city councillor who now sits as a refugee judge. This man has the authority to keep you in Canada, to keep you safe from the terrors you fled.

This influential man graciously offers you a chance to stay in Canada, a chance to save your life—if you’ll sleep with him. If you sexually gratify him, he will rule in your favour and you can remain in Canada.

Go back to South Korea—maybe die. Sleep with the judge—live.

Can you say “corruption”?

That’s what happened to Ji Hye Kim in 2006. She fled South Korea to escape her father’s abuse and to flee from threats by gang members seeking to recover money her father owed them.

She met refugee judge Steve Ellis, who at some point made overtures that he might be inclined to help her out, if she helped him out—if you know what I mean. Kim’s boyfriend, Brad Tripp, decided to pull a sting operation. He rigged up a hidden camera, which caught Ellis giving his “you scratch my back, I scratch your back” proposition on tape.

Ellis got busted as a result.

The good news: Kim got to remain in Canada and marry her gallant boyfriend, Brad.

Good news #2: Steve Ellis was convicted of breach of trust and bribery and spent several months in jail. He also faced a disciplinary hearing at the Law Society of Upper Canada, who, at the conclusion of the case last week, allowed Ellis to surrender his license (rather than be stripped of it).

Here are my takeaways from the case. First off, if any of you lawyers feel inclined to engage in corrupt practices, don’t. If it helps, remember the advice I once got from that sage CHCH weatherman, Bill Lawrence. He said, “Always assume a microphone is on.” In other words, don’t say anything into a microphone you don’t want people to hear—even if you think the microphone is off.

That was 20 years ago, before the explosion of smartphones. There are tiny cameras everywhere today. So, let’s update Bill’s advice. You should always assume you are being recorded. Thus, if your moral compass won’t keep you straight, the fear of getting caught should. With all the smartphones in the world, isn’t it prudent to govern yourself as if anything you say could be caught on camera?

For those nodding your head, it’s a rhetorical question. You don’t have to answer it.

Had Ellis taken this advice, would it have prevented the whole terrible ordeal? Maybe. Maybe not. It appears Ellis was suffering from an undiagnosed bipolar II disorder at the time he propositioned Kim. A psychiatrist testified that when in his hypomanic states, Ellis essentially felt above the law. He understood the implications of his actions, but felt invulnerable. Thus, Ellis could understand he was doing something wrong when he propositioned Kim, but didn’t feel he was at risk of negative consequences for his actions.

Reminds me a lot of The Donald and his mouth. Hmmmmm? I digress…

Mental health and the legal profession is a topic for another column. It’s an important issue, one that affects lawyers from coast to coast and something we have to be sensitive to. But, even with bipolar disorder I’m glad Steve Ellis is no longer eligible to practice law. He lost that privilege by engaging in despicable conduct he knew was wrong. The Law Society put it thusly:

The public’s confidence in the legal profession would be diminished if Mr. Ellis continued to be licensed to practise law. His illness’s impact on his inhibitions and feeling of grandiosity are not sufficient to overcome the lack of integrity in the choices he made.

Well said. But, what about fostering the public’s confidence in how lawyers discipline other lawyers? Did the Law Society live up to that ultra-important goal in this case?

Because, one of the many things that disturbs me about this matter is the length of time it took to resolve. The initial proposition happened in 2006. The Law Society did not convene a disciplinary hearing until October 2015—nine years after the incident. During that period, Ellis was convicted for his crimes and engaged in a several appeals. Those appeals were exhausted in 2014. That’s when the Law Society finally stepped in to convene its own disciplinary process.

Nine years is wrong. It undermines confidence in the legal profession. The public interest requires quick discipline. Nine years is not quick, IMHO.

I know if I call the Law Society for an explanation, its spokesperson will remind me there is great benefit to having all the evidence from the criminal case (which takes time to resolve, of course). There is also a benefit to waiting for the defendant to exhaust all his appeals, so there is no doubt as to the legal guilt of the person facing discipline.

But, Ellis had his license to practice for almost a decade after he was caught on tape selling a favourable ruling for sex. The evidence was clean enough that he was convicted, and the conviction stood up on appeal.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

It is inexcusable; it undermines public confidence that lawyers should be in charge of disciplining lawyers when it takes nearly a decade to discipline a corrupt judge who propositioned a vulnerable young lady on video tape.

The Law Society has to do better. The public interest demands it.

That’s the View From Up North. Have a great week (and remember cameras are everywhere).

---

Steve Dykstra is a Canadian-trained lawyer and legal recruiter. He is the President of Steven Dykstra Law Professional Corporation, a boutique corporate/commercial law firm located in the greater Toronto area. You can contact Steve at [email protected]. You can also read his blog at stevendykstra.wordpress.com, follow him on Twitter (@Law_Think), or connect on LinkedIn (ca.linkedin.com/in/stevedykstra/).