Murray Klippenstein

The Law Society brought an application alleging the respondent lawyer misappropriated $85,230 in trust funds from a client during a mortgage transaction.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an agreed statement of facts.

The respondent sought permission to surrender his licence rather than face revocation, but failed to provide expert evidence or establish exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the presumptive penalty of revocation applied, noting that partial repayment of the misappropriated funds did not negate the presumptive penalty.

The respondent's licence was immediately revoked and he was ordered to pay the remaining restitution of $5,322.50.

The applicant applied for a licence to practise law and wrote the solicitor exam in November 2021.

The Law Society investigated allegations of widespread cheating on the exam and found that the applicant possessed and used unauthorized cheating materials.

During the investigation, the applicant repeatedly made false and misleading representations denying his involvement.

He later admitted to using the cheating materials and failing to be forthright.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made deliberately false and misleading representations, breaching s 8(2) of By-Law 4, and therefore deemed him not to have met the requirements for a licence, including the good character requirement.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's licence to practise law was retroactively revoked after the Tribunal found he made deliberately false and misleading statements regarding a prior criminal conviction on his application.

In this costs decision, the Law Society sought $25,000, while the applicant sought costs against the Law Society.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $12,500 in costs, noting his deliberate deception caused the Law Society to expend considerable effort and that he had no reasonable chance of success.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application against the respondent lawyer alleging professional misconduct, including misappropriation of trust funds, using trust accounts for non-legal purposes, assisting in fraudulent conduct, breaching an undertaking, and failing to cooperate with investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Law Society Tribunal found that the respondent misappropriated approximately $3.5 million, used her trust accounts to facilitate millions of dollars in transactions unrelated to legal services, and failed to respond to multiple investigations.

The panel concluded that all allegations of professional misconduct were proven and directed that a penalty hearing be scheduled.

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 applicant, a lawyer licensed in British Columbia, applied for a licence to practise law in Ontario.

The Law Society referred the application to a hearing, alleging the applicant was not of good character due to a prior finding of professional misconduct in British Columbia relating to the misuse of his trust account, as well as an unauthorized practice investigation in Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the Law Society did not meet its initial burden of establishing that good character was at issue, as the prior misconduct was based on a misapprehension of the rules and did not engage the applicant's integrity or trustworthiness.

The Tribunal further found that, even if the burden had been met, the applicant demonstrated he is presently of good character through his remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the passage of time.

The application for a licence was allowed.

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.

The Applicant applied for a licence to practise law in 2019 and was licensed in 2021.

The Law Society subsequently discovered that the Applicant had been convicted of a felony offence in Michigan in 2017 and had failed to disclose this conviction and the resulting sanctions on his licensing application.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant deliberately made false or misleading statements in his application, knowing they were false or misleading, or was reckless or willfully blind to their truth.

The application for licensing was dismissed and the Applicant's licence was retroactively revoked.

The Law Society sought an interlocutory suspension of the respondent lawyer's licence to practise law.

The lawyer had experienced difficulties with substance abuse and mental health, leading to failures to serve clients, potential misappropriation of trust funds, and misleading the Law Society investigator.

The lawyer argued that his health had improved and proposed practice restrictions instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe there was a significant risk of harm to the public and the administration of justice if an order was not made.

Given the lawyer's lack of candour and the absence of expert medical evidence supporting a treatment and monitoring plan, the Tribunal concluded that practice restrictions would not sufficiently mitigate the risk and ordered an interlocutory suspension.