LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL
HEARING DIVISION
Date: April 29, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-182
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario Applicant
- and -
Maja Milosevic Respondent
Before: Murray Walter Chitra (chair) Heard: March 6, 2026, by videoconference
Appearances: Kandace Forbes, for the applicant Respondent, not present or represented
Summary: MILOSEVIC – Summary Hearing – Co-operation – Contact Information – Proceeded in the Absence of the Lawyer – The Law Society was unable to communicate with the Lawyer using the contact information on file – The Lawyer failed to keep that information current – The Lawyer failed to respond in any way to the Law Society – The Lawyer failed to attend the hearing and so there was no evidence as to mitigating circumstances – The Lawyer’s licence was suspended indefinitely pending compliance and then for an additional month – The Lawyer was also ordered to pay costs of $1,871.50 to the Law Society.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Murray Walter Chitra:– The Law Society filed an application December 3, 2025, alleging Maja Milosevic (the Lawyer) engaged in professional misconduct.
2It asserted that she failed to:
co-operate in a Law Society investigation contrary to s 49.3 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8, and Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct between July and September 2025 by not providing complete and prompt responses to requests for information and documents, including books and records required to be maintained by s 18 of By-Law 9; and
notify the Law Society of changes to her contact information as required by s 4(1) of By-Law 8.
3A summary hearing into these matters was scheduled for March 6, 2026, starting at 10:00 AM. Kandace Forbes appeared for the Law Society. The Lawyer was not present.
4We paused the hearing for ten minutes. The Lawyer still did not appear.
5Ms. Forbes then filed confirmation of service of the application and disclosure. I was satisfied that this established the Lawyer was notified in accordance with Rule 5.3 and I should proceed in her absence as permitted by Rule 6.7.
6Ms. Forbes tabled an affidavit from investigative counsel Nichole Daniel. I found her uncontested evidence substantiated the allegations contained in the application.
7The Law Society then made submissions on penalty and costs. The Law Society sought the immediate suspension of the Lawyer’s licence until compliance followed by a one-month suspension, and costs of $1,871.50 payable within one year.
8I agreed with the proposed penalty and costs, and so ordered. These are my reasons.
BACKGROUND
9The Lawyer was licensed in 2015 and practises in Sudbury. She was administratively suspended on April 24, 2024, for not reporting on her continuing professional development; on May 14, 2024, for not submitting an annual report; and on June 4, 2024, for non-payment of annual fees.
10These suspensions were in still in place as of the date of this hearing.
CURRENT ALLEGATION
11On June 24, 2025, the Law Society started an investigation. It arose from a complaint from a client of the Lawyer that gave rise to concerns that she may have failed to:
report required information to the Law Society or insurer;
provide legal services to a client in accordance with standards of competence and quality;
communicate;
obtain or follow client instructions; and
comply with obligations resulting from her suspensions.
12Ms. Daniel was assigned to investigate. Between June and September 2025, she sent the Lawyer multiple communications requesting information and documents. This was done using contact information the Lawyer had on file with the Law Society.
13Ms. Daniel’s letters contained requests for written representations; trust statements, reconciliations, listings, and ledgers; client files; and supporting documents relating to the complaint. The Lawyer was also asked to address a number of specific questions.
14The communications were sent to the Lawyer through LSO Connects portal messages and to different email addresses. Portal messages were not opened, and most emails were returned as undeliverable. Several telephone calls were attempted but were unsuccessful. Either the numbers were not in service or the calls went unanswered.
15Eventually, a courier package to Lawyer’s home address with copies of all of the investigator’s letters was delivered and signed for on September 5, 2025, by “M Milosevic”.
16As of the date of the hearing the Lawyer has failed to communicate, respond, provide any requested information, or answer any question.
FINDINGS
17By-Law 8 requires:
4(1) A licensee shall file with the Society a change for every change in any of the following information, previously provided by the licensee to the Society …”
The Licensee’s personal contact information.
The licensee’s business contact information. …
18This includes business and personal addresses, telephone numbers of emails and facsimile numbers.
19The undisputed evidence is that until September 5, 2025, Ms. Daniel was unable to successfully communicate with the Lawyer using the business and personal emails addresses and telephone numbers that she had on file with the Law Society.
20It is clear that the Lawyer failed to meet her obligations under the By-Law to keep that information current. This particular is established.
21Rule 7.1-1 states, “A lawyer shall reply promptly and completely to any communication from the Law Society in which a response is requested.”
22This is a serious professional duty. It is an ethical obligation directed at ensuring that members of the public can have confidence when they raise concerns about the conduct of a legal professional that these will be promptly investigated and appropriate action taken, if necessary.
23Many of the requests related to information that the Lawyer was required to keep current, maintain and have readily available for inspection by the Law Society: ss 21 and 22 of By-Law 9.
24No response was ever received from the Lawyer. None of the required information or documents was ever provided. This fails to satisfy the duty to respond promptly and completely.
25Both particulars were established.
PENALTY
26The Lawyer has chosen not to appear before the Tribunal to account for her actions or speak to mitigating circumstances. There may be relevant personal or medical factors. However, in the absence of any evidence it is not possible to make any such determination.
27It is also not possible to know about the Lawyer’s future intentions. Her failure to respond or correct her outstanding administrative suspensions gives rise to concerns about whether or not she will be returning to legal practice.
28The penalty proposed by the Law Society is certainly in line with prior Tribunal decisions. Normally, lawyers without a disciplinary history receive a one-month fixed suspension for their first failure to comply.
29That is generally preceded by an indefinite suspension until outstanding requests are satisfied and any other licensing concerns are resolved. This is to encourage and facilitate compliance.
30I saw no reasons why this should not apply here. I so found.
COSTS
31The Law Society tabled a bill of costs in the amount of $1,871.50. This included 9.5 hours for Ms. Forbes and 11.1 hours for Ms. Daniel at the established hourly rates. It sought payment of that full amount.
32The leading case on costs is Law Society of Ontario v Perelli, 2020 ONLSTH 135. It describes the first step in assessing costs as finding an appropriate range using similar fact situations.
33The normal range of costs for simple hearing for failure to comply is from $2,000 to $5,000. What is proposed well within that, supported and reasonable.
ORDER
34I ordered:
The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended effective immediately and continuing indefinitely thereafter until, to the satisfaction of the Law Society’s Executive Director, Professional Regulation, or their designate, the respondent has provided a complete response to the outstanding requests as outlined in the investigator’s affidavit (affirmed February 19, 2026) at exhibits B-F.
The respondent’s licence to practise law is suspended for a period of one month, to start immediately upon the latter of:
a. the end of the suspension ordered at paragraph 1, above; and
b. the end of all current or already pending suspensions.
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 respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society in the amount of $1,871.50 on or before the deadline of March 6, 2027. This deadline may be extended by the Law Society in accordance with By-Law 11. Interest shall accrue on any overdue part of those costs, at a rate of 4% per year.