[5] Mr Neinstein acknowledges imperfect conduct, but argues that his actions were designed to advance the interests of his primary client, Mike, and arose from his sense that (i) Mike’s primary attachment was to his spouse, Bessie, and (ii) Mike’s sisters and mother were pursuing their own self-interest in obtaining control of Mike’s assets rather than protecting Mike’s best interests. Mr Neinstein argues that he has had a long and distinguished career representing unfortunate accident plaintiffs, and that his mis-steps in this case are isolated incidents in an otherwise exceptional career.
[6] The Appeal Panel considered these general arguments at the end of its reasons:
We wish to specifically address the assertion that Mr Neinstein’s good work for his client at a reasonable fee should be a significant mitigating factor. This assertion is troubling. It is no answer to an allegation of conflict of interest to assert that one client’s interests are being zealously advanced when the other client’s interests are being impaired. It is no answer to an allegation to a failure to serve a client that another client is being well-served. Misleading the court and the PGT can never be justified on the basis of zealous client representation. Indeed, any such suggestion fails to reflect the obligations of counsel to the administration of justice. As to the breaches of court orders and the attempt to preclude a complaint to the Law Society, these had nothing to do with advancing Mike’s interests.
Lawyers, as professionals, must honour their obligations to all of their clients at the same time as honouring their obligations to the administration of justice and to the Law Society. It misconceives fundamental obligations to suggest otherwise. (Appeal Panel Decision, paras. 140-141)
I agree. Mr Neinstein’s conduct here was well outside the range of behaviour that may be explained on the basis of excessive client loyalty. Mr Neinstein’s seniority at the bar makes his conduct all the more troubling: a lawyer of Mr Neinstein’s experience should know better than to behave so unprofessionally. And this was no momentary slip or isolated departure from professional standards. It was a pattern of persistent misconduct that went on for years, and displayed a studied indifference to standards of civility and professional obligation.
[7] The reasons of the Appeal Panel are thorough, persuasive, and address all the points raised on this appeal. Certainly its decision is reasonable. Therefore, for the following reasons, despite Mr Greenspan’s and Ms Lutes’ very able written and oral arguments, the appeal is dismissed.