Law Society Tribunal
Hearing Division
Date: March 11, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-085
Between:
Law Society of Ontario (Applicant)
- and -
Ryan Wheeler Wallace (Respondent)
Before: Brigitte Pilon (chair), Suzanne Clément, Jennifer Gold Heard: December 10, 2025, by videoconference
Appearances: Joshua Elcombe, for the applicant Respondent, not present or represented
Summary: WALLACE – Misappropriation – Failure to Serve – Failure to Co-operate – Proceeding in the Absence of the Licensee – Deemed Admissions – The Lawyer did not respond to the request to admit – Based on the undisputed evidence, the panel found that the allegations were made out and found that the Lawyer had engaged in professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a licensee – Misappropriation arising from dishonest is subject to the presumptive penalty of revocation – No evidence was given to rebut the presumption – Even if that were not the case, revocation would be the appropriate penalty – The Lawyer’s licence was revoked – He was also ordered to pay restitution to a client and pay costs of $16,000 to the Law Society.
Reasons for Decision
1Brigitte Pilon (for the panel):– Pursuant to a notice of application (NOA) dated July 2, 2025, the Law Society of Ontario (the LSO) alleged that Ryan Wheeler Wallace had engaged in the following acts of professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a licensee, detailed below:
Mr. Wallace misappropriated estate funds and assets from the estate of a former client and misled a beneficiary.
Mr. Wallace engaged in professional misconduct by delaying the administration of the estate and failing to respond to beneficiaries and their counsel in a timely and accurate manner.
Mr. Wallace failed to serve four clients to the standard of a competent lawyer.
Mr. Wallace misappropriated trust funds from two clients.
Mr. Wallace failed to provide a prompt and complete response to the LSO.
2The NOA included one other allegation which was withdrawn by amendment on December 10, 2025.
Background
3Mr. Wallace was called to the bar of Ontario in August 2020.
4From August 2020 until about March 2024, Mr. Wallace was a sole practitioner with an office in Toronto.
5In or around March 2024, Mr. Wallace moved to Virginia, USA.
6Mr. Wallace has been administratively suspended since April 2025.
7Mr. Wallace has no discipline history with the LSO.
The Hearing
8At the hearing the LSO brought an oral motion to proceed in the absence of Mr. Wallace. We so ordered.
9On the basis of the evidence of the LSO, we were satisfied that the allegations as contained in the amended NOA were established and found misconduct.
10We received submissions from the LSO on penalty and costs.
11The LSO sought revocation of Mr. Wallace’s licence to practise law, reimbursement to Clients C, and costs.
12Following the hearing, we deliberated and then made our order on penalty and costs.
13These are our reasons.
Proceeding in the Absence of Mr. Wallace
14Rule 6.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Tribunal Rules) provides that a hearing may proceed in the absence of a person who has been given proper notice of it. “Where notice of an appearance has been given to a party and the party does not attend or does not participate, the panel may proceed in the absence of the party or without the party’s participation. The party will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.”
15We were satisfied that Mr. Wallace had received notice of the hearing and chose not to attend or to have counsel attend in his absence. We found that Mr. Wallace must assume the risk of his failure to update his address. Notwithstanding his recent incarceration, we found that Mr. Wallace was aware of the seriousness of the allegations against him and made no adjournment request or arrangements to send counsel to act on his behalf.
16Accordingly, the matter proceeded in his absence.
Deemed Admission of Professional Misconduct
17The Tribunal Rules set out the procedure by which facts may be deemed admitted to by a party. Rule 11 states that a Request to Admit (RTA) served by one party must be responded to by the other party within a certain time period. Failing this, the RTA will become a deemed admission by the party who failed to respond, notwithstanding their non-attendance at the hearing.
18The RTA referenced in the affidavit of Ms. Dumont sets out the complaints received by the LSO with respect to Mr. Wallace. They include that:
- Contrary to Rule 2.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) Mr. Wallace engaged in conduct that tends to bring discredit upon the legal profession with regards to the estate of a former client, when he:
misappropriated at least $8,500 from the estate’s bank account;
misappropriated certain pieces of furniture from the estate;
misled a beneficiary regarding what had happened to the furniture; and
delayed the administration of the estate and/or failing to respond to the beneficiaries and their counsel in a timely and accurate manner.
Contrary to Rule 3.1-2 of the Rules, Mr. Wallace failed to serve Clients A, B, C, and D to the standard of a competent lawyer, by failing to respond to their communications and requests for status updates in a timely, effective manner and/or failing to promptly complete the services for which he was retained.
Contrary to Rule 2.1-1 of the Rules, and s 7 and/or s 9 of By-Law 9, Mr. Wallace misappropriated client funds when he:
failed to deposit into trust $2,000 that he had received from Clients B as a block fee for future legal services. Instead, he appropriated the money for himself without completing the services for which he was retained; and
withdrew from trust $1,130 that he had received from Client D as a block fee for future legal services. Instead, he appropriated the money for himself without completing the services for which he was retained.
- Contrary to Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules, Mr. Wallace failed to provide a prompt and complete response to the Law Society in the investigation relating to the estate of his former client and the investigations relating to Clients C and D.
19We find that the RTA was served on Mr. Wallace and that he is deemed to admit the alleged facts and the authenticity of the documents set out in the RTA.
The estate of a former client
20On October 22, 2022, a client for whom Mr. Wallace had prepared a will passed away. Mr. Wallace was named the sole executor and trustee of the estate. The beneficiaries of the estate included a daughter, a son, and four grandchildren.
21As estate trustee, Mr. Wallace had sole control of the estate’s bank account. In early 2023, the daughter requested a reimbursement for funeral expenses and $4,286.76 for expenses paid in connection with the deceased’s condominium. Mr. Wallace did not reimburse her.
22On June 23, 2023, Mr. Wallace received $695,308.21 into the estate’s bank account from the sale of a condominium. In or around June 2023, Mr. Wallace made a preliminary distribution of $20,000 to the deceased’s son.
23In late June 2023, Mr. Wallace ceased responding to the daughter’s communications. She retained a lawyer. Between July 12 and August 17, 2023, her lawyer wrote to Mr. Wallace four times to ask about the estate distribution and passing of accounts. Mr. Wallace responded on August 17, 2023, that he was waiting to receive the excess deposit funds of $7,455.50 held by the real estate brokerage and intended to provide a complete breakdown of all estate assets and expenses by the end of the week.
24In or around August 2023, Mr. Wallace made a preliminary distribution of $20,000 to the daughter by sending her a bank draft in that amount.
25On August 23, 2023, Mr. Wallace received the $7,455.50 from the real estate brokerage. On September 11, 2023, the daughter’s lawyer requested an update. On October 17, 2023, Mr. Wallace responded that he was now waiting for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to respond to a query about how to make distributions to the beneficiaries that were minors.
26After his correspondence of October 17, 2023, Mr. Wallace ceased communicating with the beneficiaries and the lawyer for the daughter.
27Further requests by the daughter’s lawyer for information went unanswered.
28As of November 2024, Mr. Wallace had not resigned as estate trustee. Aside from the distributions of $20,000 each to the daughter and the son, Mr. Wallace made no further distributions to the beneficiaries. He never provided the breakdown of the estate’s assets and expenses.
29The daughter submitted a complaint to the LSO against Mr. Wallace.
30It was subsequently revealed that through a series of transfers from June 2023 through March 2024, Mr. Wallace paid a total of $29,581.01 from the estate’s bank account to his general account. During this time period, the Licensee’s general account usually had a negative balance of approximately (-$16,000) to (-$20,000).
31The last transfer from the estate’s bank account to Mr. Wallace’s general account was on March 7, 2024, when he transferred $8,500 from the estate’s bank account to his general account, then out of his general account. The $8,500 transfer was not authorized, not for the payment of Mr. Wallace’s compensation or any other valid estate expense. Mr. Wallace did not account to the beneficiaries or the LSO for his handling of the estate’s funds.
32While acting as estate trustee, Mr. Wallace removed several pieces of estate furniture from the deceased’s condominium to his home. When asked about the furniture by the daughter, he falsely told her that he had already gotten rid of the furniture by disposing of it in a dumpster.
33We find that Mr. Wallace misappropriated estate funds and assets from the estate of a former client and misled a beneficiary and thereby engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee.
34We find that Mr. Wallace engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee by delaying the administration of the estate and failing to respond to beneficiaries and their counsel in a timely and accurate manner.
Clients A
35In July 2022, Clients A – a married couple – retained Mr. Wallace to represent them in a civil litigation proceeding in the Superior Court.
36In November 2023, Mr. Wallace stopped communicating with the clients.
37Between November 23, 2023, and February 27, 2024, the clients attempted to contact Mr. Wallace four times via email or text message to request an update. Mr. Wallace replied on February 27, 2024.
38After February 27, 2024, Mr. Wallace again stopped communicating with them.
39On March 9, 2024, the clients sent an email requesting an update and asked Mr. Wallace to “press forward with a sense of urgency”. Mr. Wallace did not answer the email.
40From March 9 through March 28, 2024, the clients tried to phone Mr. Wallace on multiple occasions and left him voicemails; Mr. Wallace did not answer the calls or respond to the voicemails.
41During this period the clients attempted to visit Mr. Wallace at his office on two occasions, but he was not present.
42On March 28, 2024, the clients sent an email to Mr. Wallace outlining the attempts to contact Mr. Wallace; urgently requesting an update about the case; and warning that if no response was received by April 8, 2024, they were considering other options. Mr. Wallace did not respond.
43Clients A subsequently retained other counsel and submitted a complaint to the LSO against Mr. Wallace.
44We find that Mr. Wallace failed to serve Clients A to the standard of a competent lawyer and thereby engaged in professional misconduct.
Clients B
45On or about January 30, 2024, Clients B – a married couple – retained Mr. Wallace to defend them in a proceeding before the Superior Court. On that date they provided Mr. Wallace with a retainer in the amount of $2,000. This was understood to be a deposit towards a block fee for preparing and filing their statement of defence. On that same date, Mr. Wallace deposited the $2,000 into a non-trust account and appropriated the money for himself. He had neither prepared nor filed the statement of defence and had not sent the clients a bill. He was not authorized to transfer the $2,000 from his trust account.
46On or about February 20, 2024, Mr. Wallace prepared, but never filed, a six-paragraph statement of defence.
47In February and early March 2024, the clients sent Mr. Wallace text messages and attempted to phone him multiple times to request an update regarding their matter. On March 7, 2024, Mr. Wallace sent an email in which he indicated that he had made five attempts to personally serve the statement of defence on the plaintiff, but no one answered the door at the plaintiff’s residence. He asked for the plaintiff’s work address; and indicated that he would attempt to serve the statement of defence on the plaintiff at her workplace the next day.
48The clients responded on March 7, 2024, indicating that the plaintiff was retired; they asked to arrange a phone call with Mr. Wallace. He did not respond. The clients followed up on March 11, 2024, but did not receive any response.
49Clients B contacted another lawyer to assist in obtaining a response from Mr. Wallace.
50On April 8 and 12, 2024, the clients’ lawyer contacted Mr. Wallace on their behalf. He received no response.
51On April 19, 2024, the lawyer informed Mr. Wallace that he was now retained to take over as counsel of record for Clients B in the Superior Court proceeding.
52Client B submitted a complaint to the Law Society against Mr. Wallace.
53On or about April 23, 2024, Mr. Wallace refunded the $2,000 to the clients.
54We find that Mr. Wallace failed to serve Clients B to the standard of a competent lawyer and misappropriated trust funds from them. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Wallace engaged in professional misconduct.
Clients C
55In 2020, Mr. Wallace participated in a charity auction by offering, as one of the items being auctioned, to draft two wills, two powers of attorney for property, and two powers of attorney for personal care.
56Clients C – a married couple – paid $760 to the charity auction for Mr. Wallace’s wills and powers of attorney service.
57On December 4, 2020, the clients retained Mr. Wallace to prepare their wills and powers of attorney.
58On May 13, 2021, the clients emailed Mr. Wallace that they wanted to have the wills and powers of attorney prepared sooner rather than later.
59In or around February 2023, the clients emailed Mr. Wallace to request an update.
60On February 19, 2023, without contacting the clients for specific instructions, Mr. Wallace emailed them incomplete draft copies of their wills and powers of attorney, which did not contain all the information relevant to them.
61After receiving the draft wills and powers of attorney on February 19, 2023, the clients promptly provided their comments regarding the drafts.
62By December 2023, Mr. Wallace had not sent the clients the completed wills and powers of attorney. The clients spoke with Mr. Wallace over the phone and received a promise from Mr. Wallace to complete the work within the next month or so.
63As of March 2024, Mr. Wallace had still not sent the completed wills and powers of attorney to the clients. The clients scheduled an in-person meeting with Mr. Wallace at his office on March 1, 2024. Mr. Wallace did not attend the meeting. Later, by telephone, Mr. Wallace promised to wrap this matter up quickly for them.
64After March 1, 2024, there was no further communication with the clients. Ultimately, Clients C paid another lawyer over $1,000 for the preparation of their wills and powers of attorney.
65Clients C submitted a complaint against Mr. Wallace to the Law Society.
66We find that Mr. Wallace failed to serve Clients C to the standard of a competent lawyer. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Wallace engaged in professional misconduct.
Client D
67On May 8, 2023, Client D retained and paid Mr. Wallace $1,130 in trust, as a deposit towards a block fee for preparing a separation agreement.
68On May 10 and 11, 2023, Client D sent Mr. Wallace documents and information required to complete the separation agreement.
69On or about June 5, 2023, prior to the preparation of the separation agreement, Mr. Wallace sent Client D an invoice for $1,130 and transferred that amount from his trust account to his general account.
70Mr. Wallace never completed or sent Client D any draft or finalized separation agreement. The transfer of the $1,130 from Mr. Wallace’s trust account to his general account was unauthorized.
71On June 26, 2023, Client D emailed Mr. Wallace and asked him whether he had prepared the separation agreement. She advised him that her situation was deteriorating and taking a toll on her and her sons.
72Mr. Wallace did not respond until October 2023. He apologized for not replying sooner, indicating that her matter had “slipped through the cracks”. He claimed that he had prepared a draft of the separation agreement for her review. Mr. Wallace did not send a draft separation agreement to Client D.
73On May 15, 2024, Client D sent an email to Mr. Wallace terminating the retainer and requested a refund of her retainer.
74On May 20, 2024, Mr. Wallace sent Client D an email in which he agreed to refund her retainer.
75On August 26, 2024, Client D submitted a complaint to the Law Society against Mr. Wallace.
76On September 11, 2024, Mr. Wallace returned the retainer.
77We find that Mr. Wallace failed to serve Client D to the standard of a competent lawyer and misappropriated trust funds from her. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Wallace engaged in professional misconduct.
Failure to co-operate with the Law Society investigations
78On July 23, 2024, the LSO sent Mr. Wallace a message through the Law Society’s communications portal (the portal) requesting the complete client file (including all correspondence) for Clients C and his written representations responding to Clients C’s complaint by no later than August 13, 2024. The portal shows that Mr. Wallace reviewed the requests in September and October 2024. He eventually provided the LSO with documents from Clients C’s file, but not the complete correspondence.
79On September 11, 2024, the LSO sent Mr. Wallace a message through the portal requesting the complete client file for Client D’s matter and his written representations responding to Client D’s complaint by September 18, 2024. He eventually provided the Law Society with documents from Client D’s file, but not the complete correspondence.
80To date, Mr. Wallace has not provided the LSO with his written response to either of the complaints as requested. There is no explanation for this failure.
81We find that Mr. Wallace engaged in professional misconduct by failing to provide a prompt and complete response to the LSO’s investigative request.
Findings
82Based on the undisputed evidence contained in the RTA, we found that Mr. Wallace engaged in conduct unbecoming a licensee and professional misconduct, as particularized by the LSO in the RTA, and other evidence tendered during the hearing.
Penalty
83The LSO sought revocation of Mr. Wallace’s licence to practise law, and reimbursement of $874.44 to Clients C.
84Given Mr. Wallace’s failure to attend or participate in the hearing, we received no submissions from him on the issues of penalty and costs.
Misappropriation
85Tribunal jurisprudence has established that misappropriation means “knowing unauthorized use of client property by a lawyer or paralegal for their own purposes, on the basis that knowledge may be actual knowledge, willful blindness or recklessness”: Law Society of Ontario v Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15 at para 82.
86In Wilkins, the Tribunal appeal panel upheld the principle that misconduct such as misappropriation arising from dishonesty is subject to the presumptive penalty of revocation. Departure from the presumptive penalty is subject only to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, none of which were submitted by Mr. Wallace: Wilkins, above, and Law Society of Ontario v O’Neil, 2024 ONLSTH 20.
87Mr. Wallace did not provide any evidence in mitigation. He has not shown that there are exceptional circumstances that justify any order other than revocation.
88In any event, the weight of the factors outlined in Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46 at para 12, requires revocation, given the nature and extent of the proven misconduct. The seriousness of the misconduct and the absence of any mitigating circumstances, and the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession, require Mr. Wallace’s licence to practise be revoked immediately: Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2009 ONLSHP 23.
89We were satisfied both that (i) presumptive revocation applies and that there are no applicable extraordinary circumstances and that (ii) revocation was appropriate in these circumstances applying the ordinary approach to the determination of penalty. The facts in the RTA clearly demonstrated multiple incidents of misappropriation and supported a finding that revocation was the appropriate penalty.
90Despite not acting in his professional capacity as a lawyer when acting as the executor of the estate of his former client, we find that a licensee who engaged in conduct such as taking assets from an estate without authorization violated the duties that he owed to beneficiaries. His actions were dishonest and compounded by him when he subsequently misled the daughter of the deceased by advising her that he had disposed of the assets. He further made unauthorized payments to himself from the estate account. These payments have not been accounted for, either to the estate beneficiaries nor the LSO.
91Mr. Wallace also failed to deposit $2,000 into his trust account that he had received from Clients B as a block fee for future legal services and withdrew from trust $1,130 that he had received from Client D as a block fee for future legal services. Instead, he appropriated these monies for himself without completing the services for which he was retained. The work Mr. Wallace was retained for with respect to Clients B and D was never completed.
92For these reasons, we ordered the immediate revocation of Mr. Wallace’s licence to provide legal services.
Reimbursement to Clients C
93We found that Mr. Wallace failed to serve Clients C when he did not complete the work that had he undertaken to provide as part of a charity auction. The fact that Clients C had not paid monies directly to Mr. Wallace was not material to a determination of this issue. Mr. Wallace had agreed to provide legal services to the successful bidder on the prize that he had offered, namely a set of wills and powers of attorney. When Clients C became the successful bidder and paid monies to the auction, they were entitled to receive the legal services promised by Mr. Wallace. His failure to complete the work left them with no option but to retain other counsel and pay a second time for the work to be completed. We found that this was a loss for which Mr. Wallace was responsible
94The unique issue in this case was that Clients C paid the monies to a charity and not to Mr. Wallace. We considered s 35(1) 21 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c. L.8, which provides that, a panel may make, “Any other order that the Hearing Division considers appropriate.” Mr. Wallace received the benefit of advertising exposure through the charity auction. The party bidding on the item he had promised to provide, was entitled to receive it. His failure to provide the promised legal service was unexplained and resulted in Clients C suffering a financial loss in the form of legal fees and disbursements paid to the solicitor who eventually drafted the wills.
95We found it essential for the maintenance of public confidence in the legal system, that Mr. Wallace reimburse Clients C for the monies they had spent for work that he failed to complete.
96For these reasons, we also ordered the immediate restitution in the amount of $874.44 with interest to Clients C.
Costs
97The LSO submitted that an appropriate amount for costs be assessed in the amount of $16,000. We accepted this submission as being appropriate considering the LSO’s submission and a review of the bill of costs.
Order
98For these reasons, we ordered:
Effective immediately, the respondent’s licence to practise law is revoked.
The respondent shall fully comply with the Law Society’s Guidelines for Former Lawyers Whose Licences Have Been Revoked or Who Have Been Permitted to Surrender Their Licences.
The respondent shall immediately pay restitution in the amount of $874.44 to Clients C, with interest accruing at the rate of 4% per year on any portion that remains unpaid.
The respondent shall immediately pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $16,000, with interest accruing at the rate of 4% per year on any portion that remains unpaid.