Disgraced Vernon lawyer misappropriated $116K from elderly client with dementia<\/p>\n
Published 6:00 pm Friday, October 9, 2026<\/p>\n
A former Vernon lawyer has been found to have misappropriated $116,000 from an elderly client who suffers from dementia \u2013 the latest in what has become a series of professional transgressions in recent years.<\/p>\n
Leonard Hil Marriott had already been banned from practicing law for 10 years due to past findings of professional misconduct when the BC Law Society published this latest finding Sept. 24. <\/p>\n
Misappropriation is a legal term which essentially means stealing. The Law Society says it is \u201ctantamount to theft.\u201d <\/p>\n
After misappropriating the $116,000, Marriott used the funds to buy himself a condo in Vernon. <\/p>\n
On top of that, he had the elderly client transfer half of the ownership of her condo to him, and had her will changed to make him the beneficiary of 75 per cent of her estate. <\/p>\n
\u201c(Marriott\u2019s) dealings with his client lacked integrity and is clearly professional misconduct,\u201d the Law Society said in its decision. \u201cAs an attorney (Marriott) had duties to the client including to act to the benefit and in the best interest of the client, and not to benefit or profit personally from (his) dealings with the client\u2019s property.\u201d<\/p>\n
The case goes back to 2017, when Marriott was representing the client who was then 84 years old, with whom Marriott said he developed a \u201cclose, familial-like relationship.\u201d<\/p>\n
The client was suffering from progressive dementia, and by 2022 the dementia had become severe. The decision says by mid-2023, Marriott believed the client was unable to understand or manage her affairs and lacked capacity. <\/p>\n
Marriott became the client\u2019s power of attorney in 2018, giving him authority to make decisions on her financial affairs. <\/p>\n
Some time around July 2021, Marriott observed signs of the woman\u2019s cognitive decline and had concerns about her capacity. That month, he prepared a retainer agreement with the client for the purchase and sale of her condo, which had an estimated value of $385,000, and gave himself 50 per cent ownership. He had an inexperienced associate who is unnamed in the decision sign as a witness. <\/p>\n
Following this, Marriott\u2019s former spouse filed a charge on the title of the condo over unpaid child support. The Family Maintenance Enforcement Act charge was removed almost two years later, in March 2025. The decision doesn\u2019t say how much child support Marriott owed. <\/p>\n
The client\u2019s family filed a complaint to the Law Society in 2023 and filed a civil suit against Marriott in B.C. Supreme Court the following year. <\/p>\n
According to the decision, Marriott admitted to almost all of the facts of the case, except he argued his misconduct should be considered \u201cimproper withdrawal of trust funds\u201d instead of misappropriation. <\/p>\n
The Law Society disagreed, saying it was in fact misappropriation. <\/p>\n
Marriott also argued that funds transferred to him from his client were loans for the purpose of investing the client\u2019s funds. The Law Society said this was in any event contrary to Marriott\u2019s duty of loyalty and his responsibility to not use his position for personal advantage. <\/p>\n
The Law Society found that Marriott \u201cmust have known that the transfers were not within his legal authority under the power of attorney and were therefore for a purpose unauthorized by the client.\u201d<\/p>\n
The already banned lawyer, who resigned from his practice in 2025, will have his sanctions decided at a later date. <\/p>\n
Marriott received the 10-year ban on practicing law<\/a> around the time he announced his retirement, when the Law Society sanctioned him for multiple instances of professional misconduct. <\/p>\n In February 2025, the Law Society found that Marriott had made a \u201clitany of mistakes\u201d<\/a> in a fairly straightforward property transfer in which he ended up accidentally severing a client\u2019s joint tenancy after her husband had passed away. That decision also found that he\u2019d knowingly filed false information to the courts.<\/p>\n