Hubert Elrington Loses Appeal Against Professional Misconduct Finding

Senior Counsel Hubert Elrington has lost his appeal against a finding of professional misconduct in his handling of a former client’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the General Legal Council’s decision that Elrington was negligent and breached the Legal Profession Code of Conduct while representing Bruce Cho.  Cho filed a lawsuit in 2016 alleging assault and false imprisonment, but Elrington did not file the witness statements, disclosures or evidence required by the court’s case management orders. The lawsuit was dismissed for lack of evidence, and Cho was ordered to pay twelve thousand, five hundred dollars in costs.  Elrington argued that he had chosen to rely on legal arguments and could conduct the case without his client’s input. The Court of Appeal rejected that explanation, finding that failure to comply with court orders was not a legal strategy.  No disciplinary penalty has been decided yet. Elrington now has until November 30 to tell the General Legal Counsel in writing why sanctions should not be imposed.  News archives show that there were warning signs in Cho’s case recorded by a judge years before the complaint reached the General Legal Counsel.  In May 2017, Justice Sonya Young refused an application by the defendants to strike out Cho’s claim before trial. She said Elrington had not conducted the case properly or shown serious regard for the court’s orders. He had sought neither an extension nor relief from the restriction on calling witnesses. Cho’s case was later dismissed for lack of evidence, and he was ordered to pay twelve thousand, five hundred dollars in costs. Cho subsequently complained to the General Legal Counsel. In 2024, it found Elrington guilty of professional misconduct over his handling of the case. The Court of Appeal has now unanimously upheld that finding. This is not Elrington’s first rumble with the General Legal Counsel as there was a complaint by former client Orpha Martinez. In November 2025, the Council suspended Elrington for six months and ordered him to repay Martinez six thousand dollars after finding that he had failed to file her claim or keep her informed. The Court of Appeal upheld that suspension earlier this month. A separate High Court judgment concerning the Lightburn estate was also referred to the Council for consideration of possible disciplinary action.