License Surrender Allowed

A Tribunal Hearing Division of the Ontario Law Society called the end of a 30-year career a “sad case” and allowed the attorney to surrender her license

The respondent, Jennifer Suzor, practised family law in Windsor for about 30 years. She acquired a stellar reputation through the quality of her family law work as a litigation lawyer, coach, mediator, screener, trainer and developer of innovative interdisciplinary services in conflict resolution.

Between 2015 and 2018, at a time of great personal hardship and stress, Ms. Suzor was handling her last client file while transitioning to a full-time mediation practice. It was a difficult client relationship. In the course of that last retainer, she engaged in serious misconduct, consisting of an escalating series of actions that included:

•        misappropriation (and later return) of about $85,000 of the client’s trust funds from the sale of a matrimonial home;
•        mishandling of the client’s $25,000 retainer by transferring the funds to herself before completing the legal work or rendering an account; and
•        to cover up her misconduct, misleading her client and the court by fabricating a client ledger and 36 bank statements, swearing three false affidavits and confirming this false information in a letter to a judge.

The respondent admitted her misconduct to the client and reported herself to the Law Society. She understood from the outset that her conduct would lead to the termination of her licence and the end of a very impressive career at the Bar. She co‑operated throughout and approached the investigation and the hearing from a perspective of genuine shame and remorse.

The parties negotiated an agreed statement of facts (ASF) setting out the misconduct. They also presented a victim impact statement from the client, the respondent’s curriculum vitae, and almost a dozen character letters from the Windsor legal community and beyond. They presented a joint submission that we should make a finding of professional misconduct and award $10,000 in costs to the Law Society.

On penalty, Ms. Suzor asked us to grant her permission to surrender her licence, rather than revocation. Her counsel argued that the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on presumptive revocation must evolve with time. The Law Society did not formally oppose her position, but noted that given the seriousness of her misconduct, she needed to satisfy the panel that a departure from revocation was justified.

After receiving the parties’ evidence and argument, we recessed and then announced our decision that the respondent would be given permission to surrender her licence.

The same result was permitted in an unrelated matter involved alleged harassment of a client in a family law matter

a.   The Lawyer advised that he had acknowledged the Legal Aid Certificate of Client A. During this discussion, Client A felt that the Lawyer teased her about having no choice but to accept the Lawyer as her representative, making a teasing gesture of placing his finger on his nose and sticking out his tongue, saying they were now stuck with each other because it is next to impossible to get Legal Aid to agree to change lawyers. Client A felt that the Lawyer’s behaviour was inappropriate.

b.   The Lawyer made certain comments during the meeting that shocked Client A and made her believe the Lawyer was implying she had been promiscuous in her past and was “hitting on her.” Although the Lawyer denied making comments about Client A’s past sexual activity, and further denied that he made any advance towards Client A, the Lawyer admitted that, as described below, Client A and the Lawyer did have a brief discussion which can be viewed as being of a sexually suggestive nature, and he acknowledged that, in hindsight, this discussion was not welcomed by Client A, and in fact made her uncomfortable.

c.   Of particular note, they discussed the notion that the hair on a person’s head might be artificially coloured, but that a person’s natural hair colour might be confirmed by a match between head hair and body hair. Client A felt the Lawyer was asking about her head hair and pubic hair, and this part of their conversation made her very uncomfortable. The Lawyer admitted that this topic arose briefly in their discussion, after they had discussed the colour of the hair on Client A’s head; however, he denied any intention of sexual overtones in the discussion, denied mentioning pubic hair specifically, and denied making any such intimate inquiry of a personal nature about Client A herself.

d.   Part of the discussion involved the Lawyer asking who, besides Client A, might act in a parenting role with Client A. While the Lawyer’s position is that this was a relevant point of discussion in relation to Client A’s legal matter, he acknowledged that, given the aforementioned discussion, Client A felt uncomfortable with this topic, as she perceived this line of questioning as the Lawyer making a direct inquiry about her sex life.

e.   When the meeting concluded, the Lawyer briefly touched Client A as she was leaving his office. The Lawyer explained that he did not intend anything more than to comfort Client A, as they had been discussing difficult issues in her legal matter, and he wanted to be polite in showing her out the door of his office. Notwithstanding the Lawyer’s explanation for this physical contact, the Lawyer acknowledged that, in hindsight, this was unwanted physical contact.

The attorney was admitted in 1978. (Mike Frisch)