The No Golden Rule
The Law Society of Upper Canada Tribunal Hearing Division ordered an agreed reprimand of an attorney for advertising violations.
The Law Society’s Notice of Application alleges that Mr. Weinles (the “Lawyer”) breached Rule 4.2-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) by:
a. Using the adjective “golden” in his firm name which, the Law Society alleges, suggests qualitative superiority to other lawyers;
b. Using the plural firm name “Golden Access Lawyers” and the plural domain name “goldenlawyers.ca” when he is a sole practitioner.
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The ASF contains evidence that the Lawyer advertised on his website that a non-associated sole practitioner was a “Senior Litigation Counsel” on his “Team.” The ASF also contains evidence that the Lawyer’s website showed a video in which a non-licensee was depicted performing a task usually performed by a licensee. The Law Society submits the agreed evidence establishes misconduct, seeks the appropriate finding, and submits the appropriate penalty is a reprimand.
He was called to the Bar in 1984
The Lawyer was called to the bar in 1984 and has no discipline history. His practice consists of 90% real estate, with the remaining 10% split between corporate/commercial and wills and estates. He is not a litigation lawyer.
During the times relevant to this application the Lawyer was a sole practitioner. From September 2016 to about November 2017, his firm name was Golden Access Lawyers. From September 2016 until at least January 16, 2018, his domain name was goldenlawyers.ca.
The firm name and the domain name were displayed on his law firm website, office signage and on promotional materials such as business cards.
On September 23, 2016, the Lawyer’s website contained a page called “Team.” On that page, the Lawyer referred to a lawyer who was neither his employee nor his associate as a member of his team and as his firm’s “Senior Litigation Counsel.” The lawyer so referred to was simply a sole practitioner to whom the Lawyer referred files from time to time.
The “Team” page also showed a profile for an employee who has a Master of Laws but is not licensed by the Law Society as a lawyer or paralegal. The profile indicated that the employee’s focus was on contract drafting, corporate law (with an emphasis on partnership agreements) and international law.
The website featured a 67-second promotional video featuring the non-licensed employees and the sole practitioner, without informing potential viewers that the employees were not lawyers and that the sole practitioner was independent of the Lawyer. One non-licensee was filmed sitting and presenting documents to a person apparently playing the part of a client.
The video also defined the “gold standard” in general for law firms and emphasized that Golden Access Lawyers achieved that standard.
(Mike Frisch)