Protecting the Public > Regulatory Meetings
Regulatory Meetings
Print Version
In circumstances where lawyer or paralegal conduct must be addressed but formal discipline proceedings are not warranted, the Law Society may authorize a Regulatory Meeting. At its conclusion, the Regulatory Meeting may be publicly noted.
April 11, 2018
RE: Shahen Armen Alexanian, 2004, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in fee-splitting with a non-licensee, failing to supervise staff and failing to assume complete professional responsibility for his law practice.
From 2008-2011, the Lawyer engaged the services of a non-licensee, who was remunerated for introducing clients to the Lawyer’s firm and processing their accident benefit files. The non-licensee also met with clients at a satellite office of the firm without the Lawyer’s direct supervision.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer acknowledged difficulties in being present to supervise his staff while running a busy litigation practice. The Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that it was improper for the Lawyer to have permitted a non-licensee to meet with clients at the satellite office of the Lawyer’s firm without his direct supervision. The Committee reminded the Lawyer that fee-splitting arrangements with non-licensees, however characterized, are prohibited.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Emma Seth /The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
March 6, 2018
RE: David Elias Preszler, 2008, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in improper advertising. The Lawyer is a managing partner of a law firm that engaged in a long-term marketing campaign in which a non-licensee employee was featured prominently in photos and videos. While those photos and videos did not identify the employee as a licensee, they did not identify him as a spokesperson either. The firm also marketed itself as the “Official Personal Injury Firm of the Toronto Blue Jays”. This was a sponsorship agreement. The firm never provided legal services to the Toronto Blue Jays.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicableRules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer fully cooperated with the Law Society investigation and advised the Proceedings Authorization Committee that the firm’s website now identifies the employee as a spokesperson and non-licensee. A similar disclaimer has been added to the firm’s television advertisements. The firm is in the process of editing videos to include a similar disclaimer, but this process has not yet been completed. He also advised that all TTC ads with the Blue Jays designation have been taken down and the references to the sponsorship in internet advertising (within their control) have been removed.
The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer of the prohibition against marketing that is misleading, confusing or deceptive or likely to mislead, confuse or deceive. They recognized that the Lawyer addressed the Law Society’s concerns immediately after being advised of the investigation, but reminded the Lawyer that the use of the employee and the sponsorship agreement with the Blue Jays might mislead, confuse or deceive.
The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the process made it unlikely that there would be marketing by the firm that might mislead, confuse or deceive in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Naomi Bussin / Counsel for the Lawyer, Neil Perrier)
March 6, 2018
RE: Andrew Duncan Gray, 2002, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have misled the Court, his client and the opposing party about various matters in a class action proceeding, to have failed to keep his client apprised of the status of the matter and to have acted without instructions. Over the course of approximately one year, the Lawyer repeatedly failed to advise his client of the status of the action, had bound the client to various timetables relating to documentary productions, and had consented to an Order and costs payable by his client. He also repeatedly failed to advise opposing counsel and the Court that he did not have instructions or authority to make the commitments he did on his client’s behalf.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations to be honest and candid in his professional dealings towards clients, opposing counsel and the Court. This duty requires him to inform clients of all information that may affect their interests, and seek appropriate instructions in a timely way. The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer to act with a higher level of professionalism, diligence, ethics and quality of service in the future.
The members of the Committee indicated their concern about the Lawyer’s conduct. They reminded him of his obligations to demonstrate integrity, respect and act competently towards his client, opposing counsel and the Court in the course of his duties. This includes effectively obtaining instructions, communicating all important steps and information in a timely way and ensuring there are no deficiencies in the Lawyer’s attention to client interests. The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer to ensure that he deliver effective, competent services to clients without undue delay, risk or expense.
The members of the Committee noted that the Lawyer had fully cooperated with the Law Society’s investigation, that he advised the Committee that he feels deep remorse for his actions, has taken full responsibility and has apologized to all affected parties, and that he has made efforts to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.
The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Adrienne M. Kirsh / Counsel for the Lawyer, Matthew Gottlieb)
January 30, 2018
RE: Charlotte Louise Murray, 1989, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have authored and sent uncivil communications respecting another lawyer, made ill-considered criticisms of the lawyer’s competence and conduct, made a misleading statement to other lawyers with respect to the manner in which one of the communications came to be written and sent, attempted to mislead the Law Society by stating another person was partially responsible for one of the communications when she alone was responsible, and failed to provide a complete and prompt response to a Law Society investigation.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable
Rules of Professional Conduct.
The members of the Committee reminded the Lawyer of her obligations to be courteous and civil and act in good faith with all persons with whom she has dealings in the course of her practice, and to not communicate in a manner inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer, and to avoid ill-considered criticisms of the competence and conduct of other lawyers, and to reply honestly, promptly and completely to any communication from the Law Society.
The Lawyer expressed embarrassment and regret and accepted responsibility for the communications and for misleading the Law Society. The Committee also received information indicating that the conduct was out of character and unlikely to be repeated.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Jill Cross/Counsel for the Lawyer, John Dent)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
January 30, 2018
RE: Zheng Lou, 2008, Toronto (Paralegal/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Paralegal was alleged to have provided legal services outside the scope of her license, behaved dishonorably, and failed to serve her client. In 2015, the Paralegal had carriage of an estate file. Throughout the carriage of the file, she was under the supervision of a lawyer. However, due to a malfunctioning stamp, the Paralegal was unable to complete the commissioning of an affidavit in the presence of the client. Rather, the affidavit was commissioned by a lawyer, who while in the same office, did not observe the client swear the affidavit.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Paralegal Rules of Conduct. The Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Paralegal that under no circumstances should a licensee commission an affidavit when she or he has not commissioned the oath. The Committee impressed upon the Paralegal that in requesting the lawyer to do so she was encouraging and participating in dishonourable behavior. Although the Paralegal was supervised by a lawyer, the Committee cautioned her that the provision of legal services with respect to estate matters is outside the scope of a P1 license. Paralegals are not permitted to give clients advice on an estates matter, or commission and draft documents relating to an estate matter. The Committee highlighted that such conduct is considered dishonourable and in performing these services, the Paralegal is considered not to have properly served her client.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Paralegal is unlikely to conduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Attending for the Society, Gerry McCleary, Division Coordinator/ Counsel for the Paralegal, Nadia Liva and the Paralegal appeared in person)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
December 5, 2017
RE: Deepak Paradkar, 1993, Pickering (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in improper advertising and public communications, the sole purpose of which were self-promotion or self-aggrandizement, and conduct which tends to bring discredit to the legal profession, with respect to content the Lawyer posted on his Instagram account and on his website.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer had posted content on his Instagram account and on his website that identified clients, promoted himself as having a qualitative superiority to other lawyers, raised expectations by referencing “winning” his cases, made uncritical reference to organized crime and various illegal drugs, included images of weapons of violence and ammunition, and included a photo of the Lawyer with a client which identified the location as the Superior Court of Justice with the caption “Cocaine_lawyer 2.5 kilos of cocaine charges dropped”. The posted content attracted media attention.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee were concerned about the content which the Lawyer posted online. The Lawyer acknowledged that the caption that accompanied the photo of him and his client was not appropriate. The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his duty to comport himself with integrity and to ensure that his advertising complies with the standards set out in the Rules, and that in offering legal services he shall not use means that are false and misleading or otherwise bring the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute. The Committee recognized that the Lawyer addressed the Law Society’s concerns shortly after being advised of the Investigation, but noted that the Lawyer, however, reasonably ought to have known that the content he posted to his Instagram account and website was improper.
The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Sarah E. Wolson / Counsel for the Lawyer, James W.I. Lockyer)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
November 23, 2017
RE: Kevin Raymond Hodge, 2011, Mississauga (Paralegal/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Paralegal was alleged to have provided legal services outside the scope of his license and to have failed to communicate with his client with respect to a construction lien matter.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Paralegal had accepted a retainer to act on a construction lien matter of some urgency, but was not initially aware that construction lien matters fall outside the scope of a paralegal licence. While the Paralegal was reviewing the file, he failed to respond to communications from his client. Upon realizing he could not act, the Paralegal withdrew from the retainer and later offered a refund to his client. The client was able to retain new counsel and was not prejudiced.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee drew the Paralegal’s attention to his obligation to know the limits and restrictions of his licence, because members of the public assume a legal professional is permitted to provide the legal services for which they have been retained. They also reminded the Paralegal of the requirement that he communicate with his clients in a timely and effective manner.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Attending for the Society, Gord Gregus, Investigator /The Paralegal was unrepresented and appeared in person)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
November 23, 2017
RE: Bayani Francisco Abesamis, 1994, Mississauga (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to comply with an Undertaking given to the Law Society and to have failed to maintain his books and records.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, the applicable By-Laws and the applicable sections of the Law Society Act. Following an investigation in 2008, the Lawyer gave an Undertaking to the Law Society to maintain books and records current and in accordance with By-Law 9 of the Law Society Act, and to provide monthly trust reconciliations for a period of one year commencing October 2008, which he did. In 2014, the the Law Society’s Spot Audit Department conducted a re-audit. A subsequent investigation found that the Lawyer had failed to comply with the Undertaking as monthly trust reconciliations and comparisons were not prepared monthly. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations to fulfil every undertaking he gives and to maintain his books and records as required by the Rules, the By-Lawsand the Act.
The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
Attending for the Law Society, Ken Doering, Team Manager, Enforcement / The Lawyer was unrepresented and attended in person)
_________________________________________________________________________________
November 23, 2017
RE: Alyson Margret Sweetlove, 2004, Hamilton (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have mishandled/misapplied trust funds in 2013, failed to comply with the joint retainer rule in 2011-2012, acted in a conflict of interest on one occasion in 2011, and failed to serve estate planning clients to the standard of a competent solicitor in the course of drafting wills and powers of attorney for spouses in 2011, during subsequent disputes regarding the care and finances of the surviving spouse and during the administration of each spouse’s estate and litigation regarding each spouse’s estate.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer that neither the Lawyer’s executor clients nor the Lawyer had authority to disburse funds from one estate for payment of expenses of another estate without the prior consent of the beneficiaries of the estate from which funds were to be disbursed. By making trust disbursements solely on the instructions of her executor clients, the Lawyer caused her clients to commit a breach of fiduciary duty and she caused her law firm to misapply trust funds. The Lawyer appeared not to have appreciated the level of risk to which she exposed not only the beneficiaries of one of the estates in question but also herself and her firm.
The members of the Committee advised the Lawyer to ensure her future compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning joint retainers in every matter in which she proposes to act for more than one individual, and that a lawyer cannot continue to act on a joint retainer where actual conflicting interests arise. Finally, the members of the Committee noted that the Lawyer failed to discharge her professional obligation to ascertain and substantiate her client’s capacity or incapacity to provide estate planning instructions.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Louise Christofolakos / Counsel for the Lawyer, Nadia Liva) ________________________________________________________________________________________
November 8, 2017
RE: Nigel Stewart Wright, 1991, London, United Kingdom (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issue
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a lawyer while holding public office. The Lawyer’s conduct while Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Harper was the subject of criticism in Justice Vaillancourt’s decision in R. v. Duffy, and was he was found by the federal Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner to have contravened the Conflict of Interest Act.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee were of the view that a Regulatory Meeting was required in light of the public comment about the Lawyer’s conduct in R. v. Duffy and the findings of the Conflict of Interest & Ethics Commissioner. The Committee noted that there had been no loss of public funds, that the RCMP had not laid charges against the Lawyer, and that he had paid a significant price for his actions already, including suffering public embarrassment and resigning from his position in the Prime Minister’s Office. The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
August 23, 2017
RE: Isaac Owusu-Sechere, 1994, Ottawa (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
While subject to a discipline suspension, the Lawyer was alleged to have failed to properly handle and divest himself of his trust account and failed to clearly inform his client that he was suspended and unable to provide legal services. The Lawyer was also alleged to have failed to accurately disclose receiving trust funds from his client on his 2015 Lawyer’s Annual Report.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. While he had informed his client of his suspension and referred him to another lawyer, the Lawyer acknowledged that the client likely did not understand what he told him due to a language barrier. The Lawyer acknowledged he should not have received money in trust while suspended, and the potential misleading statement regarding trust funds on his 2015 Annual Report, but indicated the statement was made in error.
The Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer that licensees who have been found to have engaged in professional misconduct and suspended must divest themselves of the trust funds they hold on behalf of clients in a timely fashion. Suspended licences must also inform their clients or prospective clients that they are unable to continue with or accept a retainer due to the suspension, while ensuring that any barrier to communication such as language is overcome and that the client fully and completely understands. The members of the Committee also noted that it is essential that licensees present accurate information in the Annual Report.
The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Attending for the Society, Christopher Wight, Forensic Auditor / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
August 3, 2017
RE: Susan Mabel Hare, 1995, M’chigeeng First Nation (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to serve clients with applications to the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat under the Independent Adjudication Process, and to have failed to be honest and candid with the clients regarding the status of their applications.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Lawyer acknowledged that she did not file applications for compensation with the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat for some of her clients, and that she did not submit required documentation necessary for the applications of some of her clients to be considered. She also acknowledged that she did not provide information with honesty and candour to some of her clients about the status of their applications.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer of her obligation to perform all functions conscientiously, diligently and in a timely and cost-effective manner, and in particular, the requirement that lawyers recognize limitations in their ability to handle a matter or some aspect of it, and take steps to ensure the client is properly served. The Committee also noted that the Lawyer’s duty of candour to her clients required her to inform her clients of information known to her that may affect the interests of the client in the matter.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful. In addition to the Regulatory Meeting, the lawyer undertook to surrender her licence effective August 15, 2017.
(Counsel for the Society, Margaret Drent / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
August 3, 2017
RE: Kenneth Charles Mitchell, 2009, Kinkardine (Paralegal/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Paralegal acted on two Small Claims Court collection actions. An unrepresented person owned a property to which one of the actions related, but was not a party to the action. The Paralegal was alleged to have improperly dissuaded the unrepresented person, who was a witness, from appearing in court, to have failed to make clear to the unrepresented party that he acted exclusively in the interests of his client, and that he failed to supervise his assistant and paralegal student who worked on the matter and who were not candid with the unrepresented person about settlement documents she was asked to sign.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Paralegal Rules of Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that it was improper in the circumstances for the Paralegal to have suggested that the unrepresented person did not have to appear in Court regarding one of the proceedings, because her evidence would have been necessary for the matter to proceed, and the opposing party had not removed her name from the witness list. The Paralegal was also reminded of his obligation to advise the unrepresented person that he did not represent her, and of his obligation to directly supervise his staff to whom he delegates particular tasks.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Paralegal is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Margaret Drent / The Paralegal was unrepresented and appeared in person)
December 4, 2012
RE: Roderick William Johansen, 1987, Thunder Bay (Lawyer /Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
During a break from a labour arbitration in February, 2012, the Lawyer, who acted for the employer, while the Lawyer was speaking with his client outside the hearing room, the union representative swatted the Lawyer’s arm with a rolled up Exhibit, and used vulgar language to call him a liar. The Lawyer grabbed the union representative by the collar and necktie and pushed him away, which resulted in the union representative falling onto a couch behind him. The Lawyer’s client pushed the Lawyer off the union representative.
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to be courteous and civil with a person with whom he had dealings in the course of litigation, to have failed to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, and to have failed to be courteous and civil with a person with whom he had dealings in the course of his practice, contrary to Sub-rules 4.01(6), 6.01(1) and 6.03(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place about the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer apologized for his conduct when the arbitration resumed and apologized directly to the union representative by letter the following day. He also acknowledged his misconduct in communications to the Law Society.
The Committee reminded the Lawyer that while arbitrations and other appearances before adjudicators can be stressful, a lawyer’s obligation is to maintain a civil and respectful demeanour at all times.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Adele Dyrczon / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
April 12, 2017
RE: Chayanika Dutta, 2007, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to comply with her personal undertaking to pay out and discharge a private mortgage following the closing of a commercial real estate transaction, contrary to Rule 7.2-11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer gave the undertaking and it was not fulfilled, and reminded her of her obligation under the Rules not to give an undertaking that cannot be fulfilled and to fulfil every undertaking given. They also directed the Lawyer to the Law Society’s Real Estate Practice Guide for Lawyers, which provides that lawyers should not give or accept personal undertakings respecting discharge after closing in the case of private mortgages, in the absence of any express provision to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
Counsel for the Society, Jordan Baum / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
June 29, 2016
RE: Zijad Saskin, 2009, Niagara Falls (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer acted for a client who was the defendant in a civil action. The client was not successful at trial, and was ordered to pay a substantial sum, plus costs, to the plaintiff. The client instructed the Lawyer to commence an appeal. The Lawyer has acknowledged that he advised his client that he would bring the appeal to give her time to sell her house in order to evade the Judgment against her.
The Lawyer was alleged to have encouraged his client to engage in dishonesty, fraud or illegal conduct, and to have advised her on how to violate the law and avoid punishment contrary to former subrules 2.02(5)(a) & (b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; to have failed to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the legal profession, in accordance with former subrule 6.01(1), and to have failed to comply with his obligation to represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law, contrary to former subrule Rule 4.01(1).
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the evidence showed that the Lawyer had behaved dishonourably by recommending that his client evade the Judgment against her.
The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligation to represent his client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law and that the Rules prohibit licensees from encouraging dishonesty, fraud, crime, illegal conduct or anything that the Lawyer considers to be dishonest or dishonorable. The Committee further reminded the Lawyer that the Rules state that a lawyer shall not advise a client on how to violate the law and avoid punishment. The Lawyer acknowledged that he had not dealt with the matter as he should have, and expressed his resolve to be mindful in future of his professional obligations.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Danielle Wilson / The Lawyer appeared in person)
August 18, 2015
RE: Rodolphe Alfred Vanier, 1981, Nepean (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer was alleged to have acted in a conflict of interest. He represented two clients in separate matrimonial matters. The two clients began a relationship with each other. The Lawyer represented both of them in drafting a cohabitation agreement.
The Lawyer was also alleged to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a lawyer, when, just prior to one of the clients making an assignment in bankruptcy, the Lawyer substantially increased the amount of the legal fees owed to him by the bankrupt client and allowed himself to be appointed an inspector in the bankruptcy in an attempt to maximize his own recovery in the bankruptcy, which would limit the recovery of the bankrupt client’s former spouse, who was also a creditor in the bankruptcy. The Lawyer’s conduct attracted adverse comment from judges who made decisions in the bankruptcy litigation.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the evidence showed that the Lawyer acted in a conflict of interest, and that the Lawyer’s conduct had attracted judicial criticism.
The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligation to be on guard against conflicts of interest. The Committee also reminded him of his obligations to conduct himself appropriately when his own financial interests are intertwined with those of his clients. The Lawyer acknowledged that he had not dealt with the conflict issues in the matrimonial matter as he should have, and expressed his resolve to be mindful in future of the need to balance his own financial interests with his professional obligations.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Louise Christofolakos / The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
June 18, 2014
RE: Eric Paul Polten, 1974, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
Two judges of the Superior Court of Justice made comments critical of the Lawyer's conduct in his representation of various clients in the course of a complex guardianship and estate matter. The Lawyer's fees were reduced from in excess of one million dollars to thirty-five thousand dollars.
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to serve his clients, to have acted in a conflict of interest, to have charged excessive fees, to have misled the Court and to have failed to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, contrary to Sub-rules 2.01(2), 2.04(1) & (2), 2.08(1), 4.01(1) and 6.01(1).
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the evidence showed that the Lawyer acted in accord with instructions received from his clients and, although he may have initially acted in a conflict of interest, he did not intentionally act to mislead the Court or behave dishonourably, and that the Lawyer had settled the costs awards to all parties out of his own funds.
The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations, particularly in guardianship and estate matters where vulnerable parties are involved, to be on guard against conflicts of interest and to ensure that his fees are fair and reasonable. The Lawyer expressed his resolve to be particularly mindful in future of the need to balance the duty to act with tenacity and diligence on behalf of his clients with the need to counsel and control his clients from persisting with unreasonable and improbable legal goals.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society,Stephen A. McClyment/ The Lawyer was unrepresented and appeared in person)
March 4, 2014
RE: Sophia Loraine Williams, 2004, Brampton (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
The Lawyer failed to appear in court on behalf of her client, a young offender. Neither the lawyer nor her client appeared on the next remand date.
The Judge then set a date for the hearing into the Lawyer's conduct.
The Lawyer was late when the Judge rendered judgment with respect to the Lawyer's conduct. The Judge's findings were critical of the Lawyer's deliberate failure to appear for judgment on time.
The Judge later discovered that the Lawyer had been appearing on behalf of clients elsewhere in the Courthouse at the time he rendered judgment.
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to treat the Court with courtesy and respect, to have failed to comply with a Court Order to appear, to have made ill considered criticisms of the conduct of another lawyer, and to have attempted to mislead the court, contrary to Sub-rules 4.01 (1), (2) & (6), 6.01, 6.01(1) and 6.03(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer had changed her practice when dealing with multiple court matters to ensure that the Court is aware of that she is present in the Courthouse and to ensure that she has agents to attend if she is unable and that duty counsel are aware if she unable to attend.
The Committee reminded the Lawyer of her obligations to the Court and her clients when she has multiple matters scheduled on the same day, and of her obligations to be courteous, forthright and respectful to the Court and other counsel at all times.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society,Elaine F. Strosberg/ Counsel for the Lawyer, David Midanik)
August 20, 2013
RE: Donald Richard Orazietti, 1970, Sault Ste. Marie (Lawyer/ Licensee)
The Regulatory Issue
The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to treat the Court with candour as required by Sub-rule 4.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
On a mandamus application to have a Justice of the Peace complete a trial after she had declared a mistrial, the Lawyer failed to advise the Judge hearing the application that he had filed a complaint against the Justice of the Peace with the Judicial Council. The application was granted. When the Justice of the Peace subsequently recused herself from the trial, the Judge hearing a second mandamus application found that if the Lawyer had disclosed his complaint to the Judge who heard the first application, that Judge would not have come the decision that he did.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Committee noted that the Lawyer had acknowledged that he failed to appreciate the difficult position his complaint created for the Justice of the Peace when he sought an order that she continue with the trial. The Committee reminded the Lawyer of his obligations to be candid with the Court and not to ask the Court, whether by omission or otherwise, to make a order without putting all the relevant facts before the Court. The Lawyer indicated that he regrets the entire incident.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Damienne Lebrun-Reid / Counsel for the Lawyer, Nadia Liva)
February 20, 2013
RE: Domenico Basile, 1993, Toronto (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issue
The Lawyer was an Assistant Crown Attorney who was alleged to have failed to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession, contrary to Sub-rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct when he became involved in providing assistance to an accused person facing sexual assault allegations.
During the winter and spring of 2009, the Lawyer gave advice to a friend, who in turn was helping the accused, who was facing sexual assault charges. Over the course of several months, the Lawyer had a number of conversations with the friend specifically regarding the criminal case. In one conversation, the Lawyer implied to his friend that he had influenced the assignment of a favourable judge to the trial, something he had not done. On the morning the verdict was to be rendered, the Lawyer allowed his friend and the accused to wait in his office in the Court House before Court opened. On one occasion, the Lawyer made telephone contact with a news reporter on behalf of counsel for the accused.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society's policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Committee noted that the Lawyer has acknowledged that he exercised poor judgment, that his behavior was inappropriate, and that it reflected poorly on him and on the office of the Crown Attorney. The lawyer has suffered both financially and reputationally. His conduct resulted in an investigation by the Ministry of the Attorney General during which time he was suspended from his position. The conclusion of the investigation was ultimately followed by the Lawyer's resigning as Assistant Crown Attorney, a position of which he was proud. The Lawyer's actions have had a considerable impact on his professional and personal life. The Lawyer recognized his failure to comply with his professional obligations and has accepted responsibility for his actions.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/Counsel for the Lawyer, Paul Cavalluzzo, LSM. Counsel in attendance for the Lawyer at the Regulatory Meeting, Nadia Liva)
October 18, 2011
RE: Elizabeth Anne Maguire, 1986, St. Thomas (Lawyer Licensee)
The Regulatory Issue
During the spring and summer of 2004, the Lawyer was the lead Assistant Crown Attorney in the prosecution of several co-defendants. The charges included substantive counts relating to drug trafficking, weapons and criminal organization/conspiracy offences. During the Preliminary Inquiry, the Lawyer had two ex parte discussions with the presiding Judge which were relevant to the proceedings. The Lawyer was alleged to have failed to disclose the fact of the meeting and the nature of the conversations to defence counsel, contrary to Rules 4.01(3) and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
At the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry, the presiding Judge discharged the defendants with respect to the charges of criminal organization/conspiracy. Approximately four months later, the criminal organization/conspiracy charges were reinstituted against some, but not all, of the defendants. The ex parte communications were not disclosed to defence counsel until approximately fourteen months after the communications took place and eleven months after the criminal organization/conspiracy charges were discharged.
The Judge hearing a stay application brought by defence counsel dismissed it after finding that the circumstances surrounding the Lawyer’s conduct and disclosure issues did not amount to an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings. However, the Judge made several negative comments about the conduct of the Lawyer. The Law Society became aware of the matter in April, 2009.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issue and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Lawyer acknowledged that she took part in two ex parte meetings with the presiding Judge, which were not disclosed to the defence during the Preliminary Inquiry. The Lawyer stated that it is now very clear to her that it was improper and a breach of her disclosure obligation as Crown Counsel not to have immediately disclosed the fact and content of the ex partecomments by presiding Judge to defence counsel.
The Members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee noted that the Lawyer’s conduct had been the subject of an investigation by the Ministry of the Attorney General which found that it was improper and a breach of the Lawyer’s disclosure obligation as Crown Counsel not to have immediately disclosed the fact and content of the ex parte comments to defence counsel. The Lawyer was disciplined in accordance with the Ministry of the Attorney General’s internal policies. The Lawyer also advised the Committee that her conduct has fundamentally shaken her professional reputation, has impacted on her family life and has been a source of tremendous regret and angst.
The Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, that the Lawyer has not misconducted herself similarly since 2004, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct herself similarly in the future. The Committee further noted that the Lawyer continues to be given responsibility commensurate with her experience as an Assistant Crown Attorney. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman/ Counsel for the Lawyer, Philip Downes. The Hon. Sydney L. Robins, Q.C., LSM attended as a Bencher at the invitation of the Proceedings Authorization Committee.)
April 21, 2011
RE: Martin Zenia Goose, 1973, Toronto, (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issues
On September 2, 2009, Mr. Goose refused to conduct his client’s trial before a presiding Judge because of his previous experiences appearing before that Judge. In open court, Mr. Goose submitted that the reason for his refusal was because the Judge had a history of treating his clients unfairly and had wrongfully convicted two of his former clients.
The Lawyer was alleged to have behaved dishonourably by failing to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect and failing to conduct himself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee reminded the Lawyer that a lawyer’s competing obligations – in this case, to his client and the Court – will sometimes be difficult to reconcile. However, the Lawyer could have met his obligations to represent his client resolutely and to treat the Court with courtesy and respect by advising the Court that notwithstanding that it was a trial date, a serious issue had arisen that necessitated that he bring a motion for the Judge’s recusal and that he needed an adjournment in order to prepare the motion.
It is not uncommon for last minute adjournments to be requested by the Crown or by defence counsel in criminal matters, and if the Judge had made further inquiries about the reasons for the adjournment, the Lawyer could have provided a sufficient response without
making the serious allegations that he did.
The Lawyer had apologized if any discourtesy was apprehended by the Judge. By participating in the Regulatory Meeting, the Lawyer expressed his willingness to be educated about the impact of his actions and to be held accountable for them. He committed himself to observing the principles of civility and treating the Court with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the Lawyer is unlikely to misconduct himself similarly in the future. The Committee concluded that having addressed the regulatory issue, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(The Lawyer was unrepresented and attended in person)
March 23, 2011
RE: Marcus Alexander Lennox, 1981, London (Lawyer/Licensee)
The Regulatory Issue
The Lawyer was alleged to have engaged in conduct unbecoming a lawyer licensee contrary to s.33(1) of the Law Society Actbecause he was convicted by Madam Justice Livingstone, in the Ontario Court of Justice for Ontario in London, Ontario on September 22, 2008 of twice breaching section 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act and twice breaching section 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act.
Regulatory Meeting Outcome
Pursuant to the Law Society’s policy on Regulatory Meetings, a discussion took place concerning the regulatory issues and the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Committee made reference to the fact that the Lawyer’s convictions under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole and tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Committee drew the Lawyer’s attention to sub-rules 6.11(3), 1.02 and 6.01(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee reminded the Lawyer that he has a duty as a senior member of the Bar to conduct himself in his professional and personal capacity in a manner consistent with the legal profession’s traditions of honesty, integrity and high ethical standards.
The Lawyer acknowledged that he conducted himself in a manner that was inconsistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, he acknowledged that his convictions under the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act reflect badly on the legal profession.
The members of the Proceedings Authorization Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and concluded that having addressed the regulatory issues, there will be no further action regarding this matter.
(Counsel for the Society, Janice Duggan/the Lawyer attended in person and was unrepresented)