The Limits Of A Paralegal License
A paralegal’s advertising drew a reprimand from the Tribunal Hearing Division of the Upper Canada Law Society.
The opinion of Shayne Kert
A paralegal may not advertise services that are beyond the permissible scope of practice of a paralegal (Rule 8.02(3) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct). Further, in offering legal services to the public, a paralegal must not use means that are false or misleading (Rule 8.02(2)(a)). The general impression and the literal words used in any advertising should convey an accurate impression to the ordinary hurried purchaser, without the need for a minute examination of the text: Richard v. Time, Inc., 2012 SCC 8 (CanLII), cited in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Zappia, 2015 ONLSTH 34 (CanLII).
Around June 2016, Ms. Kapoor hired a Brampton-based web design company to assist her in setting up a new website for her paralegal practice. She relied on the company’s content writers to create the content for the website, and she did not properly review the proposed content before the website was launched to the public, sometime in late 2016. After the initial launch, the web design company continued to provide content for the website for a significant period, but Ms. Kapoor failed to properly review that content and ensure that it was in compliance with Law Society rules on marketing.
On her original website, Ms. Kapoor claimed to have “decades of court experience,” as well as “decades of efficiently helping motorists across Ontario.” The website also described the firm’s focus in “Little Statements Judge” (presumably Small Claims Court), and stated that clients would be dealing with “former authorities from the licensed legal assistants.” None of this was accurate or demonstrably verifiable – Ms. Kapoor was, in fact, a very inexperienced paralegal who practised alone. The nature of the advertising suggested otherwise, and would certainly have been misleading (and likely confusing) to any potential consumer.
It appears that the same (or a similar) company was also responsible for providing the content for Ms. Kapoor’s other social media accounts, including on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. In those accounts, Ms. Kapoor advertised services beyond the scope of her paralegal licence, including in the areas of immigration and personal injury law. Although paralegals cannot be licensed as specialists in any field of law, and while she had only been practising for a very short period of time (months as opposed to years), Ms. Kapoor claimed expertise and specialization in various areas of the law. She also advertised potential results and outcomes in traffic ticket matters, without publishing a qualification as to potential results or outcomes. In these respects, the advertisements were inaccurate and misleading to the reader. They also offered services beyond the scope of Ms. Kapoor’s paralegal licence.
Sanction
Ms. Kapoor’s verbal apology was not her only demonstration of remorse or acceptance of responsibility. She also co-operated throughout the investigation and disciplinary proceedings, admitted the allegations and agreed with the RTA and the supplemental facts. By the time of the hearing, Ms. Kapoor had addressed all of the concerns raised by the Law Society in respect of her marketing activities.
In balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, the joint submission is reasonable. A reprimand (a public recognition and denunciation of the misconduct) falls squarely within the range of the cases cited and, in my view, addresses both general and specific deterrence, while promoting public confidence in the legal profession.
(Mike Frisch)