ABSTRACT
Maurice Sychuk,1 a prominent Canadian lawyer, murdered his wife in a fit of rage, stabbing her 22 times. He served 10 years in prison for his crime. This chapter poses the question of why his name was struck from the roll (and further, why he was refused readmission 10 years later). Some would say that this was inevitable given the heinous nature of his crime. However, the debate around Maurice Sychuk’s application for readmission to the profession on having served his term of imprisonment touched on central issues regarding the nature and purpose of professional discipline. It showed that the reasons for striking from the roll in such cases are based on values other than the usual disciplinary justifications regarding the protection of clients from dodgy lawyers. Sychuk had rehabilitated himself and was a gifted oil and gas lawyer; there was no suggestion from any quarter of a risk of reoffending, let alone that he would misconduct himself in the course of legal practice. The striking off and refusal of readmission was based squarely on reputation, and in particular whether Sychuk’s conduct was so egregious that the only way to restore the tarnish he had brought to the profession was to continue to exclude him from it and to deny readmission.2
