LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: March 30, 2026
Tribunal File No.: 25H-003
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
- and -
James Douglas Stewart Bowie
Respondent
Before: Lubomir Poliacik (chair), Michelle Richards, Stephen Rotstein
Heard: December 1, 2025, by videoconference
Appearances:
Chad Skinner, for the applicant
Respondent, not present or represented
Summary:
BOWIE – Sexual Harassment – Client Confidentiality – Failure to Report Criminal Charges – Failure to Co-operate – Proceeding in the Absence of the Licensee – The Lawyer did not respond to the request to admit – The Lawyer sent multiple sexual messages to a client, who reported her allegations to the police – The Lawyer disclosed information about the client in an online forum – A second client and two other individuals complained about similar conduct, including sexual advances, sexual touching, and offers of drugs – He was charged criminally and failed to advise the Law Society of the charges.
He failed to release a client’s file after the termination of the retainer and did not reply to the newly retained counsel even after a court order required him to provide the file – The Lawyer failed to respond to Law Society requests for information – The panel found that the Lawyer took advantage of vulnerable individuals over a period of several years – His conduct greatly impacted the victims – The Lawyer’s licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay costs of $100,000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Lubomir Poliacik (for the panel):– In this application the Law Society alleges that James Douglas Stewart Bowie engaged in professional misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a licensee, in that he:
sexually harassed four individuals, two of whom were his clients;
breached the confidentiality of a client;
failed to report to the Law Society that he had been charged with Criminal Code offences;
failed to co-operate with Law Society investigations; and
failed to deliver his client file to new counsel after being discharged by the client.
2After reviewing the evidence and having heard the Law Society’s submissions, we found that the allegations of misconduct set out in the notice of application had been established and ordered that Mr. Bowie’s licence to practise law be revoked, effective immediately. We also ordered that he pay costs in the sum of $100,000, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
SERVICE
3Mr. Bowie is currently incarcerated and did not appear at this hearing. As the endorsements of the pre-hearing conferences confirm, Mr. Bowie participated fully in these proceedings until his conviction on criminal charges in late July 2025. At an October 6, 2025 proceeding management conference (PMC), the Chair directed that the endorsement of that PMC and the notice of hearing be sent to:
Mr. Bowie's email and physical addresses as provided by him to the Law Society and the Tribunal;
Mr. Bowie's criminal appellate counsel, recognizing that counsel is not retained for this matter; and
Mr. Bowie at the Joyceville Institution.
The service affidavit filed by the Law Society confirms Mr. Bowie was served with notice of this hearing in compliance with the PMC endorsement and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Tribunal Rules). We proceeded with the hearing in Mr. Bowie’s absence.
THE EVIDENCE
4The Law Society entered into evidence its request to admit and schedule B documents. Mr. Bowie had not responded to the request to admit and is deemed to have admitted the facts therein and the authenticity of the documents: Tribunal Rule 11.3.
Background
5Mr. Bowie was born in 1983 and was called to the bar of Ontario in 2015.
6Mr. Bowie’s licence to practise law in Ontario has been suspended since December 2022 by two separate discipline orders of the Tribunal after failing to co-operate with Law Society investigations.
7Prior to his suspension Mr. Bowie worked as a sole practitioner in Ottawa.
Client A
Sexual harassment
8Client A contacted Mr. Bowie in June 2022 seeking representation in criminal proceedings. In early August 2022, she advised Mr. Bowie that she had been denied certificate coverage by Legal Aid Ontario and asked Mr. Bowie if he was open to discussing a payment plan for a private retainer on her criminal charges as she had limited financial resources.
9Over the following weeks, in Facebook and Snapchat messages, Client A advised Mr. Bowie that she was experiencing significant financial and mental health difficulties and that a conviction on her criminal charges would result in the loss of her employment.
10The messages show that Client A advised Mr. Bowie that she:
was in therapy for the mental health concerns while her medications were being worked out;
was struggling with depression and was dealing with the impacts of the death of her former partner the previous year;
had difficulty coping with the stress of the criminal proceedings and recent breakup with her partner;
had chronic suicidal thoughts and couldn’t cope; and
wanted to try “shock therapy”, and if that wasn’t available, she wanted medically assisted suicide.
11Mr. Bowie’s messages to Client A during this period are appalling and distressing to read. In his messages, Mr. Bowie:
offered to accept oral sex from Client A in lieu of payment of his fees;
offered to “sweeten the deal” by offering to give Client A $200 cash per visit;
sent Client A an unsolicited photograph of his erect penis; and
asked Client A to consume alcohol and cocaine with him.
12Even though Client A repeatedly made it clear to Mr. Bowie that she was not interested in his offers, Mr. Bowie persisted, and on occasion sent Client A 20 to 30 messages in a single day.
13In early September 2022, Client A retained a new lawyer and filed a complaint with the Law Society regarding Mr. Bowie’s conduct. She also reported her allegations against Mr. Bowie to the Ottawa police.
14In November 2022, Client A reported her allegations against Mr. Bowie to the media. Articles about Mr. Bowie and Client A were published by CTV News and the Ottawa Citizen. On November 29, 2022, CTV News aired an online news segment about Mr. Bowie and Client A. Client A’s identity was not disclosed in the news reports.
Breach of Client A’s confidentiality
15On November 29, 2022, Mr. Bowie engaged in a public discussion on his online Discord channel where he discussed his interactions with Client A (the Discord Conversation).
16In the Discord Conversation, Mr. Bowie revealed confidential information about the private affairs of Client A, including:
identifying Client A by name;
revealing solicitor-client privileged information about Client A, including the details of criminal charges laid against Client A and her account of the events that led to those charges;
alleging that Client A was a drug user;
alleging that she had sent him intimate photos; and
alleging that they were friends who engaged in mutual flirting.
17During the Discord Conversation, Mr. Bowie answered questions from the public about Client A and about the Law Society complaint made against him. He asked his listeners to make supportive comments about him on Reddit posts associated with Client A’s complaint.
18On January 30, 2023, Client A filed a civil action against Mr. Bowie alleging defamation and breaches of fiduciary duty, confidence, and the Ontario Human Rights Code, based on the facts set out above.
19In the decision dated October 11, 2024, Justice H. J. Williams of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ordered Mr. Bowie to pay Client A:
$75,000 for breach of fiduciary duty;
$65,000 for her claim of sexual harassment damages under the Human Rights Code;
$30,000 in damages for defamation; and
$25,000 as an award for punitive damages.
Client B
20Client B filed a complaint with the Law Society against Mr. Bowie in December 2022, after seeing media coverage of Client A’s complaint.
21Client B retained Mr. Bowie on July 25, 2018 to represent her in a criminal matter.
22While their initial meeting took place in Mr. Bowie’s law office, the next two meetings, on July 27 and September 18, 2018 took place at Client B’s home at Mr. Bowie’s request.
23Client B felt uncomfortable having Mr. Bowie in her home and when Mr. Bowie arrived for the September 18 meeting, Client B asked if they could meet somewhere other than her home.
24Mr. Bowie took Client B to a pub restaurant to discuss her criminal charges and review videos associated with her arrest. Mr. Bowie and Client B reviewed the videos on his laptop computer while in a booth at the pub restaurant.
25While reviewing the videos Mr. Bowie would pause at times when Client B’s breasts were visible on camera, when she had to take off her shorts to use the washroom, and when her exposed body was visible on the screen.
26Client B told Mr. Bowie that she was uncomfortable reviewing the videos in a public space. Following the review of Client B’s videos, Mr. Bowie walked Client B back to her residence.
27While on opposite couches in her living room making small talk, Mr. Bowie asked Client B if she had security cameras installed inside the home.
28Upon hearing that Client B had not installed security cameras, Mr. Bowie moved to the same couch where Client B was sitting and put his arm around her.
29Client B got up from the couch to remove herself from Mr. Bowie’s embrace and invited Mr. Bowie to join her in the backyard so they would not be alone together inside.
30While in Client B’s backyard, Mr. Bowie made a number of comments and suggestions to Client B, including asking her if she would be interested in being “friends with benefits.” Client B declined the request.
31Mr. Bowie told Client B that he likes to use cocaine and asked Client B if she would do cocaine with him. Client B rejected the offer.
32He asked Client B if her breasts were real or implants and stated to Client B, “I bet you’re dynamite in bed.”
33While Client B was having a cigarette in her backyard, Mr. Bowie told her, “I could watch you smoke all day. Girls who smoke turn me on.”
34Mr. Bowie told Client B he liked her hair, the way she smells and how her body looks, and told Client B that she was the sexiest girl he’s ever seen.
35Mr. Bowie told Client B that he currently had a 19-year-old female client who had agreed to have sex with him in exchange for legal services.
36Mr. Bowie then asked Client B if anyone had ever masturbated in front of her and began rubbing his erect penis through his pants.
37When Mr. Bowie unzipped his pants and reached inside, Client B screamed and asked him to stop.
38After screaming at Mr. Bowie, Client B saw him back inside her residence so he could collect his belongings and leave.
39When inside the home, Mr. Bowie continued to touch his erect penis through the front of his pants and while Client B was attempting to get Mr. Bowie to leave her residence, Mr. Bowie grabbed Client B around her waist and pushed Client B into her bedroom.
40Client B told Mr. Bowie “No” and to “stop” when he pushed her into her bedroom, after which Mr. Bowie left Client B’s residence.
41Immediately following the incident with Mr. Bowie, Client B took a Lyft ride to her friend HC’s house for support and recounted her experience with Mr. Bowie to HC. Client B also recounted her experience with Mr. Bowie with her then-boyfriend, CR.
42In interviews with the Law Society investigator in February and March 2023, both HC and CR confirmed that Client B’s account that day of the events of Client B’s encounter with Mr. Bailey on September 18, 2018.
43On September 23, 2018, Client B attempted to commit suicide because of the trauma she experienced based on her interactions with Mr. Bowie.
44Client B retained new counsel, Bruce Engel; she reported her experience with Mr. Bowie to Mr. Engel on October 25, 2018.
45Mr. Engel kept detailed notes of Client B’s statements about Mr. Bowie and the notes, dated October 25, 2018, confirm much of Client B’s account of the events that took place on September 18, 2018.
46On November 2, 2018, Client B emailed Mr. Engel advising she was afraid of Mr. Bowie and asked if she could get a restraining order against him.
47The trauma inflicted on Client B by Mr. Bowie has left her with ongoing mental health issues for which she continues to receive treatment.
Sexual harassment of C & D
48On December 3, 2022, the Law Society received a complaint from SM alleging that Mr. Bowie had sexually harassed her 20-year-old daughter, C, and her daughter’s friend, D.
49SM filed the Law Society complaint on behalf of C and D, after C and D recognized Mr. Bowie in media reporting of the Client A complaint.
50Both C and D were employees of a company that had previously retained Mr. Bowie. C and D were working students of limited economic means.
51On November 24, 2021, Mr. Bowie visited the place of employment of C and D. He brought cocaine and tried to get C and D to consume it with him in a staff washroom. C and D both declined Mr. Bowie’s offer to do cocaine with him.
52Mr. Bowie told D that he likes to get women to perform oral sex on him in public bathrooms and asked her to perform oral sex on him to consume cocaine from off of his penis in the bathroom.
53After C and D declined Mr. Bowie’s offer, he went to the bathroom alone. Upon returning from the bathroom, Mr. Bowie advised C and D that he had done the cocaine by himself.
54Mr. Bowie invited C and D to join him at a nearby restaurant, The Bad Alibi. While there, Mr. Bowie touched D’s breast without her consent and repeatedly offered to pay C and D $250 to perform oral sex on him. C and D repeatedly declined Mr. Bowie’s offer of money for oral sex.
55Later the same evening, Mr. Bowie grabbed D and placed her hand on his pants above his crotch. While holding on to D, in front of C, Mr. Bowie attempted to kiss her without her consent.
56Following this interaction, C and D left the restaurant.
57Later that same evening, Mr. Bowie messaged C and D on Snapchat advising them that his offers to pay them for oral sex “still stands.”
58Mr. Bowie also offered C and D $2,000 a month each if they would agree to be his “sugar babies.”
59All of Mr. Bowie’s sexual advances and drug offers were declined by both C and D.
60Following the incident with Mr. Bowie at the bar, C texted her employer about what had happened. Both C and D reported their experiences with Mr. Bowie to C’s mother, SM.
Failing to report criminal charges
61On April 23, 2023, Mr. Bowie was charged with four indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada: criminal harassment, two counts of uttering threats to cause death, and extortion.
62The Law Society was advised of Mr. Bowie’s criminal charges by Client A’s new counsel on April 24, 2023.
63At no point has Mr. Bowie self-reported his criminal charges to the Law Society.
Failing to release file to new counsel
64On December 19, 2022, the Law Society received a complaint from counsel for Client E alleging service issues with Mr. Bowie.
65Client E retained Mr. Bowie in July 2022 in a civil matter. Client E terminated his retainer with Mr. Bowie on October 11, 2022 as he had grown unhappy with the quality of representation and service he was receiving and retained new counsel, Nathan Serratore, to assist him with his civil matter.
66On October 27, 2022, Mr. Serratore contacted Mr. Bowie seeking to collect Client E’s file. Mr. Bowie advised Mr. Serratore that he would not release the file as he was asserting a solicitor’s lien.
67On the same day, October 27, 2022, Client E paid Mr. Bowie in full for all invoices which had been provided to Client E by Mr. Bowie and satisfied the solicitor’s lien.
68On October 31, 2022, Mr. Serratore emailed Mr. Bowie to confirm that Client E had paid all outstanding accounts and requested that Mr. Bowie provide the contents of the Client E file to him. Mr. Bowie responded on November 2, 2022, advising that he would promptly provide the file as requested.
69On November 9, 2022, Mr. Serratore emailed Mr. Bowie again requesting Client E’s file, stating, “we require the contents of this file urgently.”
70Mr. Bowie did not respond to Serratore’s email of November 9, 2022 and continued to refuse to release Client E’s client file to Mr. Serratore.
71On November 11, 2022, Serratore sent a further email to Mr. Bowie, stating:
I am writing further to our emails of October 31, 2022 and November 9, 2022. We understand that our clients had previously retained you to assist them in respect of the judgment obtained against them on application that was unopposed. We expect you understand that there is urgency to this matter, as part of the test for setting aside a judgment in these circumstances is the speed with which the party acts. We may also be required to move for a stay of the judgment pending a hearing of the set aside motion, which further increases the urgency. The steps our clients took while with your office are crucial to the client’s position on the motion, and our office cannot prepare materials addressing the various elements of the test without reviewing your file. We are hopeful it will not come to this, but if the file is not forthcoming, we will have to advise our clients on the means available to them to compel production in order to protect their interests.
72On November 18, 2022, Mr. Serratore served Mr. Bowie with a notice of motion and on February 13, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice made an order that Mr. Bowie provide Client E’s client file to his new counsel within 10 days.
73Despite the Superior Court order, Mr. Bowie has refused to release the file to his new counsel.
Failing to co-operate with Law Society investigations
The criminal charges investigation
74On May 10, 2023, Mr. Bowie was sent a letter by a Law Society investigator, Zachary Firth, advising Mr. Bowie that the Law Society was aware that he had been charged criminally.
75In the letter, Mr. Firth requested that Mr. Bowie provide his written representations and any supporting documentation.
76Mr. Bowie did not respond to Mr. Firth’s letter dated May 10, 2023, and has not provided any information or representations as requested by the Law Society investigator in relation to his criminal charges.
The Client E complaint investigation
77In letters dated December 29, 2022, and January 13, 2023, Law Society Intake and Resolution Counsel asked that Mr. Bowie provide information and documents in relation to the Client E complaint. Mr. Bowie did not respond to the letters.
78On January 24, 2023, a Law Society investigator, Gord Gregus, sent a letter to Mr. Bowie seeking information, documents and representations in relation to the complaint made by Client E. Mr. Bowie did not respond to Mr. Gregus’ letter of January 24, 2023.
79On February 8, 2023, Mr. Gregus sent a further letter to Mr. Bowie, reiterating all previous requests for information and documents.
80On February 9, 2023, Mr. Gregus spoke with Mr. Bowie on the phone. Mr. Bowie acknowledged that his response was still outstanding.
81On February 27, 2023, Mr. Gregus sent a third letter to Mr. Bowie regarding the Client E complaint, reiterating all previous requests for information and documents.
82Mr. Gregus sent further emails to Mr. Bowie advising that the requested information and documents remained outstanding on March 15, March 28, and March 31, 2023.
83Mr. Bowie has not provided any of the requested information, documents or representations relating to the Client E complaint.
Sexual harassment
84Rule 6.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules) defines sexual harassment as follows:
6.3-0 In rules 6.3-1 and 6.3-3, sexual harassment is one incident or a series of incidents involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
(a) when such conduct might reasonably be expected to cause insecurity, discomfort, offence, or humiliation to the recipient(s) of the conduct;
(b) when submission to such conduct is made implicitly or explicitly a condition for the provision of professional services; ….
85The Commentary to Rule provides as follows:
1Types of behaviour that constitute sexual harassment include, but are not limited to,
(a) sexist jokes causing embarrassment or offence, or that are by their nature clearly embarrassing or offensive;
(b) leering;
(c) the display of sexually offensive material;
(d) sexually degrading words used to describe a person;
(e) derogatory or degrading remarks directed towards members of one sex or one sexual orientation;
(f) sexually suggestive or obscene comments or gestures;
(g) unwelcome inquiries or comments about a person's sex life;
(h) unwelcome sexual flirtations, advances, or propositions;
(i) persistent unwanted contact or attention after the end of a consensual relationship;
(j) requests for sexual favours;
(k) unwanted touching;
(l) verbal abuse or threats; and
(m) sexual assault.
FINDINGS
Acting without integrity and sexual harassment
86We have no hesitation in finding that the evidence as set out above in these reasons has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Bowie failed to conduct himself with integrity and breached Rule 6.3-3 by sexually harassing Client A, Client B, and Persons C and D.
87Mr. Bowie made repeated offers to use cocaine with his Clients A and B and with Persons C and D.
88Mr. Bowie sent Client A communications containing unwelcome sexual advances, made requests for sexual favors in exchange for legal services, and engaged in other communications of a sexual nature.
89Mr. Bowie sexually harassed Client B by making unwelcome sexual advances and sexual requests to her while acting as her lawyer. He engaged in unwelcome physical touching of a sexual nature.
90Mr. Bowie sexually harassed Person C and Person D. He made sexual advances towards them, made unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. He engaged in unwelcome physical contact of a sexual nature with Person D without her consent.
Breach of confidentiality
91Rule 3.3-1 requires that a lawyer at all times shall hold in strict confidence all information concerning the business and affairs of the client acquired in the course of the professional relationship and shall not divulge any such information unless authorized by the client, required by law, or required to provide to the Law Society or otherwise permitted by the Rules.
92Mr. Bowie breached this Rule during his Discord Conversation on November 29, 2022, wherein he revealed confidential information about Client A's private affairs.
93He identified her by name in a public broadcast and was aware other people were listening when he shared her confidential and solicitor-client privileged information.
Failing to report criminal charges
94Mr. Bowie never self-reported to the Law Society that on April 23, 2023, he was charged with criminal harassment, two counts uttering threats, and two counts of extortion, in breach of his professional obligation pursuant to By-Law 8, s 2.
Failing to release file to new counsel
95Mr. Bowie failed to deliver Client E's file to the new counsel after being discharged by the client. Despite repeated written requests and a court order, Mr. Bowie has failed to deliver Client E's file, in breach of Rule 3.7-9.
Failing to co-operate with Law Society investigations
96Mr. Bowie never responded to the Law Society investigator's request for written representations and documentation relating to his failure to report the criminal charges against him.
97Mr. Bowie has also failed to co-operate with the Law Society's investigation of Client E’s complaint. He failed to provide the information, documents, and representations requested in numerous letters from the Law Society, contrary to both s 49.3 of the Act and Rule 7.1-1.
Finding
98Accordingly, we find that Mr. Bowie engaged in professional misconduct as alleged in the notice of application. We find that his sexual harassment of the two non-clients was conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor. We find that his sexual harassment of his two clients was both professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor.
PENALTY
99Penalty is meant to address four goals: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation or restitution, and the maintenance of public confidence in the legal profession: Law Society of Upper Canada v Strug, 2008 ONLSHP 88 at paras 3-7.
100In coming to our decision we have considered these goals and the factors summarized in Law Society of Upper Canada v Aguirre, 2007 ONLSHP 46.
Prior disciplinary record
101Mr. Bowie’s licence has been suspended since December 2022 by two separate discipline orders of the Tribunal after failing to co-operate with Law Society’s investigations.
102The existence of a prior disciplinary record is an aggravating factor.
Remorse, acceptance of responsibility or an understanding of the effect of the misconduct on others
103Mr. Bowie did not participate in the hearing. There is no evidence of remorse or acknowledgment by him of the inappropriateness of his conduct. We have no evidence of any self-awareness or insight into his actions by the respondent. We therefore have no indication that his behaviour and professional misconduct will not be repeated.
104On the contrary, following Client A’s complaint, he engaged in a public Discord Conversation where he shared Client A's confidential information and made her defamatory allegations against her.
105Mr. Bowie has still not delivered Client E’s file to his new lawyer. This is an aggravating factor, being ongoing misconduct.
Has Mr. Bowie complied with his obligations by responding to or otherwise co‑operating with the Law Society
106We found that he has failed to co-operate with the Law Society in two of the complaints before us. His failure to co-operate is ongoing. This is an aggravating factor.
The extent and duration of the misconduct
107The misconduct took place over several years; the sexual harassment of Client B took place in 2018, of Persons C and D in 2021, and the sexual harassment of Client A took place in 2022. The duration of this misconduct is an aggravating factor.
108As to the extent of the misconduct, there are several aggravating factors in Mr. Bowie’s conduct in this case.
109In two of the sexual harassment particulars of this application, Mr. Bowie took advantage of his position as the lawyer of vulnerable individuals.
110Client A was struggling with depression and was in therapy for the mental health concerns while her medications were being worked out; was dealing with the impacts of the death of her former partner the previous year; had difficulty coping with the stress of the criminal proceedings and recent breakup with her partner; and had chronic suicidal thoughts. Mr. Bowie was aware of these facts as they were communicated to him by Client A.
111Client B attempted suicide in consequence of Mr. Bowie’s misconduct and the trauma inflicted on her by Mr. Bowie has left her with ongoing mental health issues for which she continues to receive treatment.
112Mr. Bowie egregiously abused his position of authority and attempted to take advantage of very vulnerable clients. This is a very serious aggravating factor.
113Mr. Bowie’s public disclosure of Client A’s confidential information is a serious breach of his fiduciary duty. His public disclosure of Client A’s confidential information undermines the public’s confidence in the legal professions. As the commentary on Rule 3.3 notes, a client must feel completely secure and entitled to proceed on the basis that the matters disclosed to or discussed with their lawyer will be held in strict confidence. This is an aggravating factor.
114Mr. Bowie’s refusal to release his file to Client E’s new counsel, when he knew that his failure to do so jeopardized his former client’s position in the litigation and in the face of a court order to release the file, is an aggravating factor.
The potential impact of the respondent’s misconduct upon others
115In Law Society of Upper Canada v Sinukoff, 2012 ONLSHP 12, the panel states at para 42:
Women must be entitled to deal with lawyers, whether as clients or as prospective clients, without having to worry whether they will be sexually harassed. Legal services are not to be bartered for sexual favours. Lawyers must act with integrity and they do not do so if they propose payment by sexual favours or if they commit unwanted sexual touching. The requirement of integrity is a foundation of the legal profession. In the twenty-first century, it must be understood by all lawyers that conduct such as this is utterly reprehensible and that it will attract serious consequences from the regulator.
116We agree. The goal of general deterrence requires that the clearest possible message be conveyed to the professions that sexual harassment of clients and potential clients cannot be tolerated. The potential public impact of this misconduct is an aggravating factor.
Whether the respondent has admitted misconduct
117Mr. Bowie did not admit his misconduct. Mr. Bowie is entitled to oppose the Law Society’s application and this is a neutral factor.
Extenuating circumstances
118There is no evidence of any extenuating circumstances. This is a neutral factor.
Whether the misconduct is out-of-character or, conversely, likely to recur
119Mr. Bowie’s misconduct was extensive, displaying a lengthy pattern of misconduct. We conclude that it is very likely that Mr. Bowie’s misconduct will recur if Mr. Bowie continues to be licensed by the Law Society. This is a significant aggravating factor.
CONCLUSION
120As stated above, members of the public must be entitled to deal with lawyers, whether as clients or as prospective clients, without having to worry if they will be sexually harassed. It is imperative that clients can be confident that they will not be subjected to sexual harassment in their dealings with lawyers.
121Maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the legal professions and their self-regulation requires an appropriate penalty for a licensee who, as Mr. Bowie did in this case, takes advantage of his position of authority and of the vulnerable position of his clients to sexually harass them. In the circumstances of this case, where we have no indication that Mr. Bowie’s misconduct is out of character and will not be repeated, the immediate revocation of his licence to practise law is the appropriate penalty.
COSTS
122The Law Society asks for an order that Mr. Bowie be responsible for the full costs of this proceeding in the amount of $112,453.16. This includes just under $30,000 in costs for discipline counsel, approximately $20,000 in investigative costs for the investigation into the misconduct of Mr. Bowie by Mr. Firth, and disbursements of just over $63,000.
123The Law Society is not seeking the investigative costs of Mr. Gregus, as he has left the Law Society and his dockets were not available. The counsel costs of appearance for the one-day hearing before us are also not included in the Law Society’s bill of costs.
124This matter required the interviews of numerous witnesses and related parties. Mr. Bowie's failure to co-operate and his continued non-compliance despite two previous Tribunal decisions necessitated the Law Society obtaining an order in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to seize electronic devices from his office.
125While the costs of obtaining the order are not included in the Law Society’s bill of costs, the disbursements incurred in executing the order and the $48,890.33 paid to Ellwood Evidence Inc. for collecting and preserving the electronic evidence retrieved are included.
126Although the matter was ultimately heard in a single day based on the deemed admissions, Mr. Bowie’s conduct throughout made the investigation and prosecution of the application more difficult, complicated and time-consuming, and a costs award substantially indemnifying the Law Society is warranted.
127As stated above, Mr. Bowie has not participated in this hearing, and he has not provided any evidence regarding his assets and his ability to pay. However, we have revoked Mr. Bowie's licence to practise law. He is incarcerated and his ability to earn income is limited.
128In the circumstances, we find that a costs order of $100,000 payable immediately is appropriate.
Order
129We ordered:
The respondent’s licence is revoked, effective immediately.
The respondent shall comply fully with the terms of 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 costs to the Law Society in the amount of $100,000. Interest shall accrue on any unpaid portion of that amount at a rate of 4% per year.