Michelle Richards

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 brought a motion for an interlocutory order suspending or restricting the respondent lawyer's licence pending a conduct application.

The underlying application alleged the lawyer failed to respect human rights laws regarding a former employee and engaged in abusive communications and inappropriate social media postings.

The Tribunal found no evidence of current harm or significant risk of harm to the public or the administration of justice, noting that the passage of time had addressed previous concerns.

The motion was dismissed for lack of statutory authority under section 49.27(2) of the Law Society Act.

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 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 of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The Law Society presented evidence of the lawyer failing to attend court, appearing intoxicated during virtual hearings, failing to report criminal charges, and suffering from capacity issues related to mental health and substance addiction.

The respondent conceded that the evidence met the threshold for an interlocutory suspension.

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

No costs were ordered due to the respondent's cooperation.

The Law Society brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension against three paralegals, alleging their involvement in a scheme to file meritless appeals of Highway Traffic Act guilty pleas.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the paralegals had knowledge of the scheme.

The paralegals subsequently sought costs against the Law Society.

The Tribunal found that the Law Society's motion was unwarranted and doomed to fail, as it proceeded without any evidentiary foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the Law Society to pay costs to the paralegals totaling $53,000.

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.