Out Of Province

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Panel has ordered the interlocutory suspension of an attorney

The evidence before us tends to demonstrate that the Lawyer received monies in trust for the benefit of the Clients and, instead of disbursing those funds to the Clients, transferred them to his general account, after which he used those trust funds for his own purposes. He eventually disbursed most of the funds to Client A, but trust monies remain outstanding more than a year later. The Lawyer’s letter dated September 29, 2023, addressed to Client A appears to be an admission that trust monies were not disbursed to the client and that amounts remained outstanding. The evidence of misuse of the Lawyer’s trust account is substantial. If ultimately proven, this conduct is likely to result in loss of licence: Law Society of Ontario v. Wilkins, 2021 ONLSTA 15 at paras. 107 to 109.

 We are also troubled by the Lawyer’s apparent lack of co-operation with the Law Society’s investigation and by the fact that he appears to have moved out of province with client funds still owing.

In this case, an interlocutory order is both authorized under the Act and required in the circumstances. The evidence before us shows that there are grave concerns about the Lawyer’s integrity. It appears client monies entrusted to him in the course of his practice have not been dealt with as they should have been; instead, they have been used for the Lawyer’s own purposes. This demonstrates a significant risk of harm to future clients and members of the public, in addition to the harm already apparently inflicted on the Clients.

Although it appears the Lawyer may now be living in British Columbia, his licence must be suspended to ensure he cannot practise law in Ontario. This is not a case in which it would be appropriate to allow the Lawyer to continue practising with restrictions. An order to restrict a lawyer’s licence requires confidence that the lawyer will abide by the restrictions. Where, as in this case, there are serious questions about the lawyer’s integrity and trustworthiness, that confidence does not exist: Law Society of Ontario v. Harrison, 2024 ONLSTH 24 at para. 214.

(Mike Frisch)