Barbara J. Murchie

The Law Society appealed a hearing panel decision finding that the applicant did not cheat on her licensing exam and was of good character despite making an inaccurate statement during the investigation.

The Appeal Division allowed the appeal, finding the hearing panel erred in law by misinterpreting section 8(2) of By-Law 4 to require an intent to deceive, failing to consider the circumstantial evidence of cheating as a whole, improperly assessing credibility, and applying an elevated standard of proof.

The Appeal Division substituted its own decision, concluding the applicant knowingly made a false representation in connection with her application and therefore deemed her not to meet the requirements for licensing.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty and costs for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by knowingly facilitating a client's fraud, breaching trust account rules, and failing to serve a client.

The Tribunal revoked the lawyer's licence immediately, finding that revocation is the only appropriate penalty for knowing participation in fraud to maintain public confidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the lawyer to pay $30,000 in costs to the Law Society, taking into account his impecuniosity and a reduction for inordinate investigative delay.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension or practice restrictions against the respondent lawyer, who practices primarily in family law.

The Law Society received multiple complaints alleging conflict of interest, breach of client confidentiality, and failure to provide competent legal services.

The Tribunal found strong evidence that the lawyer breached client confidentiality to the detriment of her clients, possibly with retaliatory motives, and acted in a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe her conduct presented a significant risk of harm to the public and the public interest.

However, balancing the interests, the Tribunal determined that an interlocutory suspension was not required and that public protection could be achieved through an order requiring strict supervision of the lawyer's practice by another approved lawyer pending a hearing on the merits.

The Law Society brought a motion for interlocutory suspensions of two lawyers, Ms. Nejal and Ms. Laguisan, due to irregularities in their firm's mixed trust account, specifically the failure to pay out mortgages on closing.

Ms. Nejal, the firm owner, was found to have failed to maintain books and records and there was strong evidence suggesting a lack of integrity and possible complicity in the mishandling of funds.

The Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Nejal's licence.

Ms. Laguisan, a newly-called associate who was left in charge during Ms. Nejal's prior suspension, was found to have been unaware of the delayed payouts and there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The motion for an interlocutory suspension of Ms. Laguisan's licence was dismissed.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty hearing following findings that the respondent paralegal engaged in extensive practice misconduct, including failing to serve 11 clients, and integrity breaches, most notably licensing dishonesty by articling without a required Certificate of Qualification.

The Tribunal found the misconduct to be egregious and protracted.

Despite the respondent's remorse and a 20-month interlocutory suspension, the Tribunal concluded that his deliberate licensing dishonesty went to the heart of his professional obligations.

The respondent's licence was revoked, and he was ordered to pay $2,147.50 in restitution to three clients and $150,000 in costs to the Law Society.

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by failing to co-operate in two investigations regarding complaints of misappropriation and failure to serve.

The paralegal did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the paralegal committed professional misconduct by failing to respond to communications and produce requested documentation.

Given the paralegal's history of similar misconduct and failure to participate in the regulatory process, the Tribunal found him ungovernable.

The paralegal's licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay $5,055 in costs.