The PEI Law Society’s Disappointing “Response” to my Billy Dow Complaint

I posted a blog article on April 2, 2019 titled, “Complaint Letter to the Law Society against Billy Dow,”   That followed another article in my e-gaming funding series which documented Dow’s involvement in that fiasco: “A Conspiracy to Commit Fraud: The Full Story on the E-gaming Loan.”

I’ve since received a decision letter from the Law Society Secretary-Treasurer, Susan Robinson.

When I filed my complaint, I expected I would receive a response from Dow. That’s the process mapped out on the PEI Law Society website :

“The lawyer involved will be sent your complaint and asked for a response within 2 weeks (or longer in appropriate circumstances). Once the lawyer’s response is received, a copy will be sent to you. Along with the lawyer’s response, you will be given an opportunity to make additional comments. At this point, you may be satisfied with the lawyer’s response. “

Well none of that happened.  Dow likely received a copy of my material and complaint letter, but I heard nothing from anyone until I received the decision letter in the mail.

My initial complaint letter explained how there were two separate issues I wanted addressed:

“As described in my articles, the nature of my complaint against Mr. Dow is two-fold: (1) that Billy Dow had a conflict of interest while representing the government on the e-gaming file; and, (2) that Billy Dow both acted and failed to act in ways that did not properly serve and protect his client, the PEI government, especially regarding his handling of the $950,000 e-gaming loan issued to the Mi’Kmaq Confederacy of PEI from the PEI Century Fund.”

Regarding my documented incidents in support of my #2 complaint that Billy Dow “acted and failed to act” in ways to protect his client regarding his handling of the $950,000 e-gaming loan, the Secretary-Treasurer for the PEI Law Society simply stated: “This office does not deal with a lawyer’s negligence or errors made.”  

Of course, the PEI Law Society could have chosen to investigate the mishandling of the e-gaming loan by Dow not from the perspective of “negligence” but how so many of the ethical provisions of the Law Society’s Code were violated by Dow which was well-documented in the material I supplied. However, the Law Society apparently had no interest in looking into those events and activity any further.

I expected as much regarding that part of my complaint.  But what I received in response to Part #1 of my complaint was totally unacceptable, and it’s the reason I’m writing this article to make this disgraceful “lack of response” to my complaint public information.

As I explained clearly in my complaint letter, my allegation that Billy Dow was in a “conflict of interest” had nothing to do with a previous complaint which Michael Redmond (when he was the leader of the NDP) filed with the PEI Law Society against Dow. That complaint had to do with Dow’s involvement representing Innovation PEI in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with “764” – a 100% owned subsidiary of Capital Markets Technology (CMT).  I wanted to be absolutely sure there was no confusion on this pont, so I wrote the following in my complaint letter:

“I am aware that a previous complaint alleging that Mr. Dow had a conflict of interest with his involvement in the e-gaming file was previously filed with the PEI Law Society by the former Leader of the PEI New Democratic Party (Michael Redmond), and resulted in a disciplinary committee ruling that Mr. Dow was not in a conflict of interest.

Redmond’s complaint related specifically to Mr. Dow’s involvement in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in the late summer/fall of 2012 between the PEI government and Trinity Bay Technologies (TBT) [a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital Markets Technologies (CMT)]. This issue is not the basis of my complaint.

New documents have recently come to light, as a result of filings with the PEI Supreme Court, revealing that Mr. Dow’s involvement in the e-gaming file did not begin with his involvement with the MOU in 2012, but that he was retained by the PEI government to act as outside counsel on the entire e-gaming project much earlier, in February, 2010. Mr. Dow continued to act in that capacity up to and beyond the date the PEI government ended the e-gaming project on February 24, 2012.

Despite my efforts to ensure clarity on this key issue, there was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to my complaint, which was treated as if it had been the same complaint made by Redmond. Unbelievable!  Read what Ms.  Robinson wrote, keeping in mind what I wrote in my letter and cited above:

“The allegation of conflict of interest has already been dealt with by this office and confirmed by a Discipline Committee in August, 2017. I repeat the findings here.”

And that’s what she did, but why?  Why “repeat the findings here” when they had  NOTHING whatsoever to do with my allegation of conflict of interest against Dow? My complaint alleged a conflict of interest more than a year earlier “before” he invested in the company.

I thought about pursuing this matter further with the PEI Law Society but decided against it. What would be the point given the blatant refusal to even acknowledge the complaint I made in writing?

The facts supporting the legitimacy of my complaint will eventually be known by all I’m sure.   I believe the evidence will show that Billy Dow purchased shares in a company involved with the e-gaming/financial transaction platform initiative while acting in his capacity as a lawyer for the PEI government on that same file.   

The simplest of checks which lawyers are required to make to eliminate potential conflict of interest situations with investments would have revealed exactly the connections between the company Dow invested in and CMT/FMT.  Was such a search not undertaken by Dow when he made the investment?

I believe Dow had personal “insider” knowledge of the company’s involvement with e-gaming.  Dow was legal counsel for the province on the secretive e-gaming file and was attending the clandestine e-gaming working group meetings at the time.  It was fully-known by members of that group that CMT had exclusive rights to deliver the financial services platform in North America owned by Simplex in the UK (CMT also owned 30% of the shares in Simplex).  

Look at the date and subject lines on the following email.  And don’t forget – Billy Dow was the e-gaming lawyer at this time and this was before he purchased shares in a venture of FMT (Financial Markets Technology – which was 100% owned by CMT)  and was set up on advice from the PEI government.   

[Note to John Eden: It’s probably not wise to refer to a “secret” gaming file as a “secret gaming file” in an email available to the public through Access to Information].

It was John eden who was listed as the contact person in the recruiting package which the PEI government put together to entice CMT/FMT to set up in PEI, making the following claim that CMT/FMT would have “first mover advantage”:

Judge Campbell says the MOU has nothing to do with CMT. FMT (764) was only set up as a 100%-owned subsidiary because CMT knew that was an expectation of the PEI government, as John Eden expressed on page 12 of the recruiting package:Yet Judge Campbell says CMT/FMT (764) had nothing whatsoever to do with e-gaming: “Neither CMT nor 764 were ever involved in any way with the so-called e-gaming project.”  

Baffling!

I can’t wait to read CMT’s appeal documents which I expect will be filed before too long with the PEI Supreme Court of Appeal.