A Richmond lawyer who has been at the center of the Law Society of BC’s disciplinary proceedings for years has been disbarred for the second time.
Hong Guo was deemed “unruly” and expelled from the bar last year, with a law society tribunal panel citing her long disciplinary record and lack of cooperation with regulators.
“The defendant has requested a review of that decision,” reads a new disciplinary decision aired last week and posted online Tuesday.
“As a result, the law society, consistent with past practice, has decided to proceed with this hearing to obtain a second deposition.”
The latest decision stems from five allegations of misconduct the law society made against Guo in a subpoena issued in October 2020.
The panel completed in July 2023 that those allegations, specifically that Guo had “acted in a conflict of interest,” “acted contrary to trust accounting rules,” “allowed his trust account to be misused,” “made false or misleading statements to the law firm ” and “Has not responded to the law of society” – has been proven.
In its decision on sanctions in the case, the panel considered not only the details of the misconduct itself, but also Guo’s “extensive history of professional conduct,” dating back to 2012.
A central incident in that record is the theft of $7.5 million in client trust funds by Guo’s former accountant in 2016.
The law society has consistently maintained in disciplinary decisions involving Guo that she “facilitated” that theft by failing to adequately supervise her employee, failing to fully comply with the society’s fiduciary accounting rules, and leaving signed blank checks in the care of your accountant.
In her own version of events, posted on Clearway Law’s website last year, Guo claims the law firm “publicly accused” her of participating in the theft and funneling the funds to an offshore account.
She says she did no such thing and notes that she spent several years tracking down and prosecuting the perpetrators of the theft in China. She also says she went to great lengths to ensure that the $7.5 million shortfall was covered and that no clients lost their funds as a result of the theft.
Guo claims the law society “twisted and distorted the facts” and has damaged her mental health with its “prolonged persecution” of her.
The law society’s latest decision does not accuse Guo of keeping the funds, nor does it claim that clients were not compensated after the theft. Rather, it reiterates that Guo did not follow the rules of legal society and notes that he has repeatedly failed to acknowledge his role in allowing the theft to occur.
“In the defendant’s direct evidence at the fact and determination hearing in this matter, she described in detail the details of the robbery, her efforts to seek justice in China against the accountant and his accomplice, and the efforts she made to ensure that her clients were not harmed,” the decision reads.
“She repeated the same story during her presentations at this hearing. At no point did she refer to the fact that she had facilitated the theft. Nor did she acknowledge that her efforts to prevent losses for her clients involved misappropriation of other clients, breach of a given commitment to law society and failure to comply with an order (law society rule) 3-10.”
Guo’s continued refusal to acknowledge her past misconduct, coupled with the panel’s findings on the five allegations that led to the latest decision, led the panel to once again declare her “unruly.”
“The fact that she cannot be trusted to be truthful, accurate, and responsive, and that she does not display any insight that would allow her to rehabilitate, makes her ungovernable,” the decision reads.
“The totality of the numerous findings made against her for conduct spanning more than a decade show that she cannot be relied upon to fulfill her obligations as a lawyer in the future.”
Disbarment is the “necessary” consequence for any lawyer found unruly, according to the panel’s decision.
The panel also considered the misconduct itself, independently of the question of ungovernability, and determined that – in light of Guo’s record of professional conduct and the seriousness of his misconduct – the appropriate consequence would be disbarment even if it were not declared ungovernable.
“The public interest requires that the defendant not be permitted to practice law,” the decision reads.
In addition to its finding of ungovernability and its order disbarring Guo for a second time, the panel also ordered him to pay the law society $45,497.95 toward the cost of the hearing.