Eye On Regulation

• Maya
  Gordon

  Maya
  Gordon

  view bio

the case

Substance abuse can be significant in the performance of a professional’s duties.  In the recent decision of Law Society of Alberta v Roth 2024 ABLS 27, the Law Society of Alberta (LSA) addressed an articling student with a substance abuse issue. 

In this case, the articling student Mr. Roth had received his Juris Doctorate in 2021 and as articling with a large firm in Calgary.  In September and October 2021, the Law Society was investigating another student who identified Mr. Roth as someone who located cocaine for that student.  As a result, the Law Society opened an investigation into Mr. Roth’s conduct.

During the hearing, counsel submitted a Statement of Admitted Facts and Admission of Guilt, and heard joint submissions on sanctions as well.  Factually, the Hearing Committee found that Mr. Roth had failed to admit to cocaine use in his application to become a student-at-law, lied to the LSA investigator about recent cocaine use, lied to the LSA investigator about not taking a hair follicle test when in fact he had attended and failed that test, and denied receiving funds from a third party related to the purchase of drugs when in fact, he had received the funds.

The Hearing Committee in this decision does an excellent review of the law on joint submissions on sanction, including citing the leading case of Law Society of Alberta v. Farrell, 2024 ABLS 11 and the more recent decision of Law Society of Alberta v. Woo, 2021 ABLS 31.  Both cases reaffirm the deference that Hearing Committees must provide to joint submission and confirm that they must only be interfered with in the rarest of case.   

Ultimately, the Hearing Committee ordered a one-month suspension and $4,000.00 in costs, agreeing with the joint submission of the parties.  As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Roth was listed as an inactive articling student and had not been called to the bar.

While Mr. Roth had sought treatment and made progress in recovery, the Hearing Committee underscored its concerns over his repeated dishonesty, raising broader questions of governability. This case highlights the delicate balance regulators must strike—supporting rehabilitation while maintaining public trust and professional integrity.

Eye on Regulation is RMRF’s monthly newsletter for the professional regulatory community. Each month we offer:

• A Case: a brief summary of a recent and relevant case;
• Our Two Cents for Free: practical insight inspired by the files on our desks right now; and
• A Question: something to get you thinking about ways to enhance your work.

This newsletter is for information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Would you like to receive this Newsletter directly to your inbox each month?

Sign up here