A Winnipeg lawyer has been indefinitely suspended from practising in Manitoba after he asked a former client for money, failed to show up for court three times and was unresponsive during the provincial law society’s investigation into his conduct last year, a disciplinary panel says.
But Chad Sutherland, 43, still has the chance to attempt to persuade the Law Society of Manitoba to reverse his suspension — if he communicates and shares relevant evidence with them.
He was given an indefinite suspension and a $6,000 fine at a Jan. 22 hearing, after a law society disciplinary panel found him guilty of professional misconduct, says a written decision by the panel dated Feb. 18.
Though he was notified of his disciplinary hearing, Sutherland did not attend and did not appoint someone to represent him, the decision says.
Sutherland was called to the bar in Manitoba in 2018, had no previous discipline history with the law society and is not a member of any other society, the panel said.
Sutherland “breached his obligation to act with integrity, had failed to treat the Court of King’s Bench courteously and had failed in his obligations to the society in the course of its investigations into his conduct,” the decision says.
‘Cheating’
The law society revoked Sutherland’s certificate to practise law in Manitoba in April, after he failed to comply with conditions previously imposed by the society, the decision says. The conditions were not specified in the decision.
In June, Sutherland encountered a former client on a Winnipeg street, the panel said.
“Over the course of two days, he repeatedly asked her for money, telling her that the amounts he was seeking were a substantial reduction from what she owed for work he had done for her when associated with a law firm in Winnipeg,” the decision says.
The woman declined to pay Sutherland, reminding him that she had offered to pay him directly in the past, but he declined and told her to make payments for his legal services to the firm where he was working.
His “persistent efforts” to get the woman to pay him were “dishonest” and amounted to “cheating” his former law firm, which clearly undermined public confidence in his profession, the panel wrote.
Sutherland missed three pretrial conferences at the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench last year, including one date that a judge said was “imperative” that he attend, the disciplinary decision says. (Chelsea Kemp/CBC)
From February to April 2025, Sutherland represented a client facing criminal charges but didn’t show up to three pretrial conferences at the Court of King’s Bench as directed, even though the judge in that case said it was “imperative” that he appear.
Sutherland did not give notice or an explanation why he didn’t appear at two of those hearings, but gave late notice to request that the other appearance be changed to a virtual one, which the panel said “obviously inconvenienced” everyone involved.
Courts cannot work efficiently when lawyers repeatedly fail to attend conferences, especially when judges urge them to, the panel said, but acknowledged that Sutherland’s colleague attended the hearings.
The law society reached out to Sutherland about its investigations into his conduct 10 times from May to December last year, but he did not respond, the panel said.
The law society cannot fulfil its duty to protect the public interest when lawyers do not respond to their requests for communication during an investigation, the panel said.
While Sutherland’s misconduct was serious, the panel said his actions were not of the same magnitude as those that have resulted in the disbarment of other members, and he never received any money from the former client, the panel said.
Sutherland has been a member of the law society for seven years and is not a “junior” member of the bar, but there was an “absence of any details” about where he’s practised over the years, the panel said.
The indefinite suspension will allow Sutherland to communicate with the society, if he chooses, to submit relevant evidence that might persuade the disciplinary panel to rescind the suspension order.
“In the meantime, he is prohibited from practising law, which in fact protects the public,” the panel said.