LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: March 26, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 26H-017
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario Applicant
- and -
Luigi Ciotoli Respondent
Before: Malcolm M. Mercer (Chair), Neha Chugh, Sabita Maraj Heard: February 17, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances: Ian McKellar and Megan Phyper, for the applicant Respondent, self-represented
Summary: CIOTOLI – Interlocutory Motion – The Law Society has commenced five investigations into the Lawyer’s conduct, including concerns regarding misappropriation, failure to account, and abandoning his practice – The panel found reasonable grounds to believe that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public if the Lawyer was permitted to continue to practise law – On consent of the parties, the panel ordered an interlocutory suspension of the Lawyer’s licence.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTIONS
1Malcolm M. Mercer (for the panel):– The Law Society seeks an interlocutory suspension of Luigi Ciotoli’s licence to practise law. On consent, we so order for the following reasons.
2Our authority to order an interlocutory suspension or restrictions comes from s 49.27 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8. Section 49.27(2) provides that we must be satisfied that:
there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public, or to the public interest in the administration of justice, if the order is not made.
3Even if we find we have authority to order an interlocutory suspension or restrictions, doing so is not required. We must exercise discretion in deciding whether or not to make an interlocutory order and what order to make: Law Society of Upper Canada v Ejidike, 2016 ONLSTH 69 at para 12.
4The Law Society has adduced evidence of the following. Mr. Ciotoli has not challenged this evidence. He has not submitted any evidence. Recognizing that it is for another panel to make determinations of misconduct, if an application is ultimately brought, and that our determinations are only for this limited purpose, we find that:
The Law Society has initiated five investigations into Mr. Ciotoli’s conduct.
While the investigations remain ongoing, it appears on the evidence before us that:
a. Mr. Ciotoli misappropriated $22,000 in settlement funds from a client (Client A) in October 2025 and made misrepresentations to the client with respect to those funds.
b. Mr. Ciotoli has failed to account to Client A with respect to the initial $5,650 monetary retainer.
c. Mr. Ciotoli misappropriated $16,500 in settlement funds received from another client (Client B) in 2024. The opposing party obtained judgment against Mr. Ciotoli in October 2025.
d. Mr. Ciotoli has failed to account to a third client (Client C) with respect to the initial $5,000 monetary retainer paid in 2021 and has entirely failed to serve Client C.
e. Mr. Ciotoli abandoned his office and his client files after his lease was terminated in June 2025 for non-payment of rent.
f. Mr. Ciotoli has failed to co-operate with the Law Society in its investigations.
5The evidence of misappropriation, failure to serve, failure to account, abandonment, and failure to co-operate provides reasonable grounds to believe that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public if Mr. Ciotoli is permitted to continue to practise law. Whether the underlying cause is a failure of integrity or some other reason, the unchallenged evidence of past misconduct of this nature establishes a significant risk of future misconduct.
6We conclude that we have the authority to order an interlocutory suspension. We also conclude that we should do so given Mr. Ciotoli’s consent, the absence of any explanation, and the seriousness of the apparent conduct.
7For these reasons, we ordered on consent that:
Commencing immediately, the respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended on an interlocutory basis.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society’s Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this order.
The costs of this motion are reserved to the panel presiding at the hearing of any application to which the motion relates.