"Extreme Stress"

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has explained its reasons for imposing an interlocutory suspension of an attorney

 The notice of motion stated the Law Society had received evidence that the Licensee misappropriated $50,000 from his trust account to cover business expenses related to his practice, that he had engaged in sexual harassment of female employees, and that he may be, or may have been, incapacitated. It argued that there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a significant risk of harm to the public and to the public interest in the administration of justice and an order is necessary to reduce that risk.

Background

The Licensee was called to the bar in 2020. His practice is focussed primarily on real estate matters. He purchased the practice from his articling principal in December 2020 and borrowed approximately $2.1 million dollars to make the purchase. His monthly costs towards repayment of the loan are approximately $26,000.

On October 19, 2023, the Licensee reported to the Law Society that he had transferred $50,000 from his trust account to his general account on October 17, 2023 to cover staff salaries, that he had made this transfer while contemplating suicide, that he had been admitted to the hospital as a result of interventions by his wife and the police and, finally, that he had arranged for his wife to return the funds on October 18, 2023.

Evidence

The physicians noted a history of social anxiety and depression, The Licensee’s presentation at the material time was diagnosed as a Cluster B personality disorder, likely narcissism, manifesting in patterns of grandiose and interpersonal exploitative behaviour. One of his physicians opined that his financial difficulties were a “significant manifestation of some of his impaired judgment and decision making” and much of the behaviour was “unlikely to be modified by hospitalization or psychopharmacology”. Another physician highlighted the Licensee’s impulsivity in respect of financial and interpersonal matters.

 The Law Society was also made aware of sexual harassment lawsuits against the Licensee brought by two female former employees in 2021. The claims alleged that the plaintiffs were subjected to a series of unwelcome comments of a sexual nature, that were “inappropriate… graphic, rude and degrading”, and that the employment of both plaintiffs was terminated when the Licensee’s advances were rebuffed. Those legal actions were settled in July 2022.

Licensee had asserted he was under "extreme stress"

The Licensee attributed his financial difficulties to a reduction in the firm’s work resulting from a downturn in the real estate market. He denied that financial mismanagement or overspending were the reason for his financial predicament. He explained that although he had made three luxury car purchases over two years, he had “placed” his wife’s signature on one occasion to conclude one of those car purchases.

Interlocutory relief

Although the Licensee sought a less restrictive order, one that placed restrictions on his practice rather than a suspension, we are not persuaded that this would be appropriate in the circumstances. We are guided by the Tribunal’s finding in Harrison, above at para. 186, that to allow a licensee to practise under restrictions requires sufficient confidence that they will comply with the restrictions that are ordered.

 The integrity issues, unresolved capacity issues identified and outlined above, and the Licensee’s failure to notify his most recent employer of the regulatory proceedings underway lead us to conclude that ordering restrictions would not suffice in the present case and that a suspension of the Licensee’s licence is warranted.

(Mike Frisch)