Lubomir Poliacik

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by using his trust account to convert cryptocurrency to Canadian currency for three individuals without providing legal services, in breach of Rule 3.2-7.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The lawyer admitted the transactions occurred but argued they were inadvertent due to a platform-linked routing error.

The Tribunal found that the lawyer set up his cryptocurrency wallet to route withdrawals directly to his trust account and continued to use it despite knowing the destination, establishing professional misconduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the lawyer's motion to convert the proceeding to an invitation to attend and ordered a two-month suspension of his licence, along with a requirement to complete a practice management program.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty and costs hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct.

The lawyer had acted dishonestly in family law litigation by using a disputed foreign divorce to remove a matrimonial home designation, assisting his client in defeating court orders, and misleading the court and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal determined that while presumptive revocation did not apply, the ordinary penalty analysis required revocation due to the serious and calculated nature of the dishonesty, which undermined public confidence in the profession.

The Tribunal declined to impose an additional fine but ordered the lawyer to pay $50,000 in costs.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to dismiss conduct and capacity applications issued against her by the Law Society, alleging abuse of process, bias, discrimination, and prosecutorial misconduct.

She claimed that the Law Society, its investigators, counsel, and Tribunal adjudicators discriminated against her as an Indigenous Christian woman and infringed her Charter right to freedom of religion.

The Tribunal reviewed the extensive evidentiary record and found no evidence to support the allegations of bias, discrimination, or improper motives.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or any conduct amounting to an abuse of process, and dismissed the motion.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a professional misconduct application against the respondent lawyer regarding his representation of three immigration clients.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to serve his clients to the standard of a competent lawyer, deposited trust funds into his general account before they were earned, falsified a client's signature on an application, and misled both clients and successor counsel.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's explanations, finding his credibility significantly impeached by his admitted falsification of documents.

All allegations of professional misconduct were established, and a penalty hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The respondent paralegal sought to summons ten witnesses for his conduct hearing regarding allegations of uncivil communications with tribunal and court staff.

The Law Society opposed the issuance of the summonses.

The Tribunal found that none of the proposed witnesses were in a position to offer possibly relevant evidence regarding whether the respondent's emails and social media posts were uncivil or unprofessional.

Leave to issue the summonses was denied and the summonses were quashed.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct, including money laundering, advance fee fraud, and misleading clients and the Law Society.

Following a finding of misconduct, a penalty hearing was held.

The Tribunal denied the lawyer's last-minute request for an adjournment.

Applying the Bolton principle, the Tribunal concluded that the lawyer's egregious dishonesty compelled the immediate revocation of his licence.

The lawyer was also ordered to pay $60,000 in costs to the Law Society and to reimburse the Compensation Fund for any related claims paid.

The Law Society brought an unopposed motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence.

Evidence indicated that at least $555,355 was missing from the lawyer's trust account, which had not been reconciled since 2021.

The lawyer claimed her identity was stolen and the account was compromised by fraudulent transactions, though bank records showed she approved at least one wire transfer.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe that allowing the lawyer to continue practising would pose a serious risk of potential harm to the public and the administration of justice, and ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of her licence.

The Law Society brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of clients and non-clients, breach of client confidentiality, failure to report criminal charges, failure to release a client file, and failure to co-operate with investigations.

The respondent, who was incarcerated and did not attend the hearing, was deemed to have admitted the facts.

The Tribunal found that the respondent egregiously abused his position of authority to take advantage of vulnerable clients and engaged in a lengthy pattern of misconduct.

The Tribunal revoked the respondent's licence to practise law and ordered him to pay $100,000 in costs.

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.

Following a finding of professional misconduct regarding syndicated mortgage transactions, the Law Society Tribunal considered the issue of costs.

The Law Society sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent lawyer argued for $25,000.

The Tribunal reviewed the principles of costs awards in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that while the profession should not bear all costs, reductions are appropriate to recognize cooperative conduct that shortens proceedings.

Given the lawyer's extensive cooperation, including agreeing to a comprehensive agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal reduced the costs award to $25,000.

In a conduct proceeding against a paralegal, the Law Society brought a motion to quash six summonses issued by the paralegal for two upcoming motions (a motion to dismiss and a vexatious litigant motion).

The Tribunal found that the paralegal failed to show that any of the summonsed witnesses, which included Law Society counsel, investigators, and Tribunals Ontario staff, were in a position to offer relevant evidence.

The Tribunal also noted that the summonses improperly sought privileged information and attempted to circumvent the disclosure process.

The motion to quash was granted.

The Law Society brought a conduct application against the respondent paralegal, alleging a failure to communicate with civility with staff at Tribunals Ontario and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent brought a motion for further disclosure of documents, including materials held by third parties such as the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to serve the third parties as required by Rule 10.4 of the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the respondent failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents to the conduct application, and the Law Society confirmed it had already disclosed all relevant documents in its possession.

The respondent paralegal issued five summonses to Law Society employees and former and current Treasurers to testify at his conduct hearing.

The Law Society brought a motion to quash the summonses.

At the outset, the respondent requested the adjudicator recuse himself based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias, which was dismissed as a bare allegation.

The Tribunal granted the motion to quash the summonses, finding that the respondent failed to establish that any of the proposed witnesses could offer evidence relevant to the professional misconduct allegations.

The respondent paralegal brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent alleged that the adjudicator materially misstated his position in a prior endorsement, made adverse procedural directions regarding summonses, and had a conflict of interest due to previously serving as a bencher on committees with a complainant.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no cogent evidence to displace the strong presumption of adjudicative impartiality.

The Tribunal noted that adverse rulings and prior service as a bencher do not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant lawyer brought a motion to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension of his licence, which had been imposed due to his involvement in alleged fraudulent syndicated mortgage transactions.

He argued that the Law Society's investigation had concluded without conduct allegations, a trusteeship application was dismissed, and he had fresh evidence including metadata and a custodian agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances that would likely result in different terms.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's use of artificial intelligence to generate a hallucinated factum, which compounded concerns about his integrity.

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the Licensee's licence due to a significant trust account shortage.

The Licensee requested an adjournment, which the Law Society did not oppose, but it sought an interim interlocutory suspension pending the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim suspension, finding that the threshold for significant risk of harm was not met given the early stage of the investigation, the Licensee's cooperation, and her execution of an undertaking not to practise.