Jeff Rath’s Privilege: Attorney-Client vs Self

WHO?

Rath being interviewed by an influencer last week. - Why is it CC in Chinese? I HAVE NO IDEA…

The Law Society of Alberta wrapped up its disciplinary hearing against Calgary lawyer Jeffrey Rath in record time. What was scheduled as a three-day marathon ended in a single day, presumably so Rath could get back on the road, canvassing and petitioning for Alberta separation. The judge thanked everyone, asked no further questions, and promised to deliver a decision at some unspecified future date. For now, the only certainty is that the collective eye-rolling reached new heights.

Rath spent much of the morning defending himself with a logic that could only charitably be described as creative. He insisted that he was acting personally when he sent letters threatening criminal prosecution, including murder and war crimes charges, to government officials. Rath’s defense boiled down to, “I wasn’t acting for a client, so technically I wasn’t really lawyering at the time I threatened Trudeau with first-degree murder.” Even by tribunal standards, that is a bold claim.

The letters themselves were vivid. Rath wrote that officials should

“be on notice that the vaccine will kill children… in the event that a child dies; we will pursue charges of first-degree murder.”

Rath later admitted these letters were written in a tumultuous period and that he “used strong language.” He also confirmed that his goal was to stop the rollout of vaccines entirely. All of this happened on Rath & Company letterhead, signed Barrister and Solicitor, with phrases like “doctors I represent.” Rath later explained that he only meant ivermectin.

“Tumultuous times”

TLDR; his argument is that he shouldn’t lose his law license because when he wrote a demand letter to the government about Pfizer vax, naming people who would be tried for murder - he wasn’t working for any clients or benefiting in any way. Even though he used his law firm’s company letterhead and said “MY CLIENTS”

He accepted responsibility for one citation, unprofessional and discourteous communication, but vigorously contested the others. His argument was that since he had no formally retained client, the threats of murder and war crimes somehow fell outside the Code of Conduct. Law Society counsel Will Cascadden, KC, was not impressed. He pointed out multiple precedents showing that threatening criminal prosecution, even for personal or firm benefit, is very much a professional no-no.

The tribunal also noted Rath’s continued contact with a physician after being told she was represented by counsel. It did not matter if Rath claimed he misunderstood the term “counsel of record.” His messages were clear:

“don’t contact her, she’s MY CLIENT.”

The tribunal’s takeaway was that Rath knew exactly what he was doing, whether or not he wanted to call it free expression.

Despite the serious subject matter, the day had a faintly absurd feel. Here was a man publicly threatening government officials with murder charges, defending himself with the argument that he wasn’t technically a lawyer at the time, and somehow still managing to excite the separatist crowd. Rath had previously won applause at the UCP AGM for his separatist fervor, a reminder that charisma and legal competence are not always the same thing.

By the end of the day, the tribunal was adjourned, Rath’s ego intact, and the rest of us left marveling at the spectacle. One day in court, three citations, hundreds of emails, and a defense that could have doubled as a late-night comedy sketch. The judge will issue a ruling eventually, but the real verdict — eye rolls, muttered exasperation, and a sense of surreal theatre — was delivered long before Rath left the room.