An Alberta Law Society disciplinary hearing against Jeffery Rath was held on Tuesday, as he faces three allegations of professional misconduct. Rath, a 61-year-old lawyer who heads Rath & Company and serves as legal counsel to the Alberta Prosperity Project, is facing his third hearing in the past 12 months, this time on three additional allegations. The allegations are that he threatened criminal charges to benefit a client, emailed someone already represented by a lawyer, and communicated in an unprofessional tone. .Threatened criminal charges to benefit a client"It is alleged that Jeffrey R.W. Rath threatened criminal charges, including for murder, in an attempt to gain a benefit for a client and that such conduct is deserving of sanction."The ALS alleges that Rath, while looking to prevent the COVID-19 vaccines from being rolled out to children 5-11 years old, threatened criminal charges against members of the federal and provincial government, including then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Jason Kenny. The statements in question came in a letter that Rather sent to the RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, to which he cc'd Trudeau and other federal officials. As well as a letter sent to Kenney and other provincial officials. "Pfizer's own data and the attached complaint provide clear scientific evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds is far more likely to kill children injected with that product than it will prevent children from dying from COVID-19," reads the letter sent to Alberta officials. "Please be on notice that if the Government of Alberta proceeds with the rollout of this vaccine in Alberta, that Pfizer's own evidence proves that the vaccine will kill children while having only a theoretical benefit. We have yet to have a single child under the age of 18 die from COVID-19 in the Province of Alberta. In the event that any child is either harmed with this product or alternatively dies from the injection of this product, all legal options will be pursued against the recipients of this letter, including the filing of criminal charges, including pre-meditated first degree murder." .Key discussions in this allegation were the definitions of a "client."In the letter, Rath states that he is acting as a concerned parent and "on behalf of our clients."At the time, Rath did not have any clients on retainer for these cases, although he was receiving inquiries from individuals concerned about the vaccine being administered to children.Rath's team argued that he mispoke when saying "on behalf of our clients." He had no clients and was acting solely as a concerned parent.Will Cascadden, the counsel for ALS, argued that the rule in question does not require a formal retainer and that Rath's wording qualifies him to act as a lawyer in this situation.Additional arguments debated Rath's role as a public-interest advocate or self/client-beneficiary, and whether Rath's remarks were a clear threat or a strongly worded statement that crimes would lead to charges. .Emailed someone already represented by a lawyer"It is alleged that Jeffrey R.W. Rath sent correspondence directly to an opposing party when he knew or ought to have known that person was represented by a lawyer, and that such conduct is deserving of sanction."This allegation concerns emails that Rath sent to AHS CEO Dr. Verna Yiu in 2022.At the time, Rath was representing a group of doctors who were pursuing legal action against AHS regarding its COVID-19 vaccine mandate. At the same time, on Jan. 25, 2022, Rath sent an unrelated email to Yiu and two other Alberta medical leaders regarding whether the province had approved the use of Fluvoxamine as an alternative treatment for COVID-19. Following this initial email, Rath was sent a notice from the lawyer representing Yiu in his case against AHS, asking him not to contact his client. After receiving the notice from Yiu's lawyer, Rath sent an additional email to the recipients of the first email because they had not yet responded. And he did so without notifying or including Yiu's representative in the email. .Cascadden argued that in doing this, especially after receiving the notice from Yiu's lawyer, Rath was in violation of rule 7.2-8 of the ALS Code of Conduct, which states..."If a person is represented by a lawyer in respect of a matter, another lawyer must not, except through or with the consent of the person’s lawyer:(a) approach, communicate or deal with the person on the matter; or(b) attempt to negotiate or compromise the matter directly with the person.".Rath's team argued that, although he sent these emails and was aware that the lawyer represented Yiu in the AHS vaccine mandate case, he did not believe that this representation extended to other matters.Additionally, they argued that the AHS vaccine mandate case and his question regarding Fluvoxamine were unrelated and therefore that he was permitted to communicate without her lawyer's consent.Furthermore, Rath stated that he did not send a copy of his email to Yiu's lawyer because he did not believe it would be courteous to burden the lawyer with documents unrelated to the case..Communicated in an unprofessional tone"It is alleged that, in the course of his professional practice, Jeffrey R.W. Rath sent correspondence and communicated in a manner that was discourteous, offensive or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of professional communication from a lawyer, and that such conduct is deserving of sanction."Rath admitted guilt to this allegation prior to the hearing; there were limited discussion regarding the matter on Tuesday. .The hearing committee, chaired by Cal Johnson, did not offer a ruling regarding the allegation on Tuesday. They informed the parties and the public that the committee members would discuss the case and then issue a written ruling to the parties involved at a later date.
