Ezekiel Peter Latimer

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The Court of Three Judges struck the Respondent off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors. The Law Society brought four charges arising from his conduct while acting for the Complainants (2016-2019). The Court upheld the First Charge (failure to disclose to Ms Thuy that the company she was to become a director of was in ongoing litigation, breaching r 5(2)(b) LPPCR), the Third Charge (failure to act with reasonable diligence and competence in MC 16562, breaching r 5(2)(c)) and the Fourth Charge (failure to keep clients informed of the progress of MC 16562, breaching r 5(2)(e)), all amounting to improper conduct under s 83(2)(b) LPA. It overturned the DT's finding on the Second Charge (conflict of interest arising from a personal undertaking). No dishonesty was found. However, the sustained pattern of misconduct across two matters over several years, combined with two prior suspension antecedents, revealed a character defect rendering him unfit to remain in the profession, making striking off the presumptive and appropriate penalty. Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the Applicant.

Duties found breached:

• No abuse of process or coercive powers
• Disclose material information to client
• No acting against a former client

Aggravating factors:

• Sustained pattern of offensive conduct across two distinct matters spanning several years
• Two prior disciplinary antecedents (three-year suspension in 2019 and two-year suspension in 2020)
• Persistent lack of understanding of and disregard for clients' interests, indicating a character defect
• No full restitution of losses suffered by clients
• Seniority of the Respondent (admitted 1996)
• Client (Ms Thuy) was a vulnerable layperson, not legally trained or well-versed in English

Mitigating factors:

• Misconduct did not involve dishonesty or misappropriation of funds
• Some compensation made to the Complainants for part of the costs following dismissal of MC 16562
• Respondent did not contest the DT's findings