Fay B. Chang Rhule

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

Angella Smith appealed the Disciplinary Committee's decision that attorney Fay Chang Rhule had not breached Canon I(b). The attorney had acted in the sale of jointly-owned property relying on powers of attorney presented by her client Ms Alexander, including one purportedly executed by the appellant, and paid the proceeds to Ms Alexander. The appellant said she never signed the power of attorney. The Committee found the documents valid in form and substance with no risk factors requiring further enquiry. The Court of Appeal held the Committee was plainly wrong: there were sufficient red flags (non-disclosure of the appellant's interest, belated production of the power, claim of incarceration, common witness) that imposed a duty to investigate the authenticity of the power of attorney. The Court did not find dishonesty on the attorney's part (the fraud was perpetrated by Ms Alexander) but found a breach of the standard of the profession. The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, the attorney found in breach of Canon I(b) and guilty of professional misconduct, and the matter remitted for a sanction hearing. Costs awarded to the appellant, to be taxed if not agreed.

Duties found breached:

• Personal probity and fitness to practise

Aggravating factors:

• The breach was compounded by payment of the proceeds of sale to Ms Alexander in suspicious circumstances
• Multiple red flags ignored (non-disclosure of appellant's interest, belated production of power of attorney, claims of incarceration, common witness on both powers)