Randi Druzin

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order and the Guidelines for suspended lawyers by failing to provide a compliance report.

The lawyer admitted the misconduct.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a one-month suspension and $3,889 in costs.

The Tribunal rejected the lawyer's request to apply the suspension retroactively, finding that the current misconduct was separate from the conduct that led to his existing suspension.

The one-month suspension was ordered to be served prospectively, and the lawyer was granted 12 months to pay the 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.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a conduct application against a suspended paralegal for misappropriating $17,835 from five clients, providing legal services while suspended, practising outside the permitted scope of a paralegal by taking on immigration matters, and failing to co-operate with five Law Society investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found all allegations of professional misconduct proven.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the respondent's ungovernability, and the absence of mitigating factors, the Tribunal ordered the immediate revocation of the respondent's licence, restitution to the clients and the Compensation Fund, and costs of $12,068.76.

Following the refusal of the applicant's application for a paralegal licence, the Law Society sought costs of $5,000.

The applicant consented to the quantum but requested a one-year period to pay, citing his responsibilities as a single parent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no documentary evidence of financial hardship and noted his senior leadership position within a police organization.

Balancing fairness to the professions with the applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal granted a limited extension of two months to pay the costs.