Guo was disbarred last November after the BC Law Society deemed him “ungovernable” following numerous findings of professional misconduct.
Article content
A disgraced Richmond lawyer with a long disciplinary history dating back to 2012 has been disbarred for the second time.
Hong Guo was disbarred last November after a Law Society of British Columbia tribunal determined she was “ungovernable” due to numerous findings of professional misconduct and failure to cooperate with regulators.
Article content
Guo requested a review of that decision.
The society decided to proceed with a hearing to determine disciplinary measures arising from a July 2023 finding of professional misconduct set forth in five indictments.
Advertisement 2
Article content
According to the decision issued on February 23, Guo had reviewed a stock purchase agreement for a client who he knew would use that document to attract investors in China, who would, in turn, use that investment as part of an immigration application under of British Columbia provincial law. nominated program.
The agreement required the investor to deposit funds into Guo’s trust account, then Guo would act for the investor in his application for immigration status and against the first client in connection with the purchase of shares.
“In effect, he had a client who recruited other clients to act against him,” the decision said. “She testified that she did not realize that she was in a conflict.”
Guo was also found to have failed to comply with fiduciary accounting rules; he did not act as a guardian; he provided false answers to the law society; and did not respond to queries.
Given her prior disciplinary history, Guo’s conduct “in its entirety, reveals a lawyer who does not know or care about her professional responsibilities to clients or the law society’s rules and regulations regarding her,” the court said. court.
Sunrise
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
“We consider based on the defendant’s conduct that she has demonstrated an inability to rehabilitate herself. Her lack of insight and her inability to recognize his illicit conduct demonstrate that she will not even make a serious attempt to reform.”
As an example of Guo’s inability to rehabilitate, the court cited his behavior following the 2016 theft of $7.5 million from Guo’s trust account by his accountant.
The court said Guo repeated the same story in his submissions for the hearing, focusing on the details of the robbery, his efforts to seek justice in China, where the accountant and his accomplice fled, and his efforts to ensure his clients were not harmed. .
It noted that Guo has not acknowledged his role in facilitating the theft or that his efforts to prevent losses for his clients involved misappropriation of other clients.
Guo, who had responded to the ruling of his first disqualification with a online publicationShe told the court at this hearing that she was not “unruly” and would not jeopardize her license to practice law.
She said she did her best to answer questions, but was “overwhelmed” by the volume of questions from several simultaneous investigations, while also dealing with the fallout from the accountant’s theft.
Advertisement 4
Article content
He also stated that he has post-traumatic stress disorder from the trauma of the robbery and the stress of “relentless pursuit by more than a few malevolent criminals.”
The court said it found no medical evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder or evidence that his mental health affected his behavior.
In its decision handing down the second disbarment, the court said Guo has shown “complete disregard” for the regulatory processes governing her conduct as a lawyer and has obstructed the law society’s ability to regulate her practice in the public interest.
“The fact that she cannot be trusted to be truthful, accurate and responsive, and to show no insight that would enable her to rehabilitate herself, makes her unmanageable,” he said.
“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 an attorney in the future.”
The court also ordered Guo to pay $45,498 to cover the costs of the hearing.
Article content