Mark Surchin

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law amid ongoing investigations into allegations of misappropriation of trust funds, participation in mortgage fraud, and abandonment of practice.

The Law Society presented unchallenged affidavit evidence detailing multiple real estate transactions where millions of dollars in trust funds were unaccounted for and mortgages were fraudulently discharged.

The respondent consented to the order without admitting the allegations.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and ordered the immediate interlocutory suspension of the respondent's licence.

The Law Society Tribunal held a penalty hearing after finding the respondent lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by failing to account to a client, failing to be transparent about fees, and failing to pay a $15,000 default judgment obtained by the client.

The Tribunal imposed a two-month suspension, noting the misconduct was serious but involved a single dispute with a single client.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the Compensation Fund up to $15,000 for any claim paid to the client, and to pay $6,000 in costs to the Law Society.

The applicant Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent licensee engaged in conduct unbecoming by committing the criminal offence of assault against his former spouse, and professional misconduct by failing to report the charge.

The licensee admitted the allegations and the parties proceeded on an agreed statement of facts.

The tribunal found that intimate partner violence is inherently incompatible with the professional responsibilities of trust and integrity, warranting a suspension.

Acknowledging the licensee's significant rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior discipline, the tribunal ordered a two-month suspension and costs.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by being wilfully blind to a fraud and money laundering scheme.

The lawyer argued for a suspension, citing powerful mitigating factors including difficult personal circumstances, the isolated nature of the transaction, strong community support, and six years of unblemished practice since the incident.

The Tribunal held that wilful blindness to fraud is tantamount to knowledge, triggering a presumptive penalty of revocation.

Finding that the mitigating factors did not explain why the misconduct occurred or amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of the lawyer's licence and costs of $24,000.