Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Words And Emails

By Michael Frisch

A one-month suspension has been ordered by the Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division

We concluded that the Licensee engaged in sexual harassment contrary to Rule 6.3-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules) when he derogatorily described sex trade workers as “hookers” in front of his staff, causing them discomfort. He also engaged in sexual harassment with the use of a gendered expletive, “bitches,” in reference to post office staff with whom he and his staff had encountered difficulties.

We further concluded that contrary to Rules 6.3-3 and 6.3.1-1, the Licensee sexually harassed and discriminated against his receptionist by making multiple comments about her physical appearance, at times in front of clients. The comments had the effect of making the employee uncomfortable to the point where she left her employment.

We agree with the Licensee’s submissions that the type of sexual misconduct at issue is not as egregious as that found in some other cases, which often involved sexual touching or overt sexual advances (for example, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Sinukoff, 2012 ONLSHP 12, and Johnston (Re), 2023 LSBC 16). Nevertheless, the sexual harassment and discrimination, especially in respect of the comments made toward the receptionist, were not trivial. Regardless of the Licensee’s intentions, the receptionist interpreted the Licensee’s comments to have a sexual connotation, which made her uncomfortable. She resigned her employment after three months because of the Licensee’s behaviour. Resignation is a significant consequence of sexual harassment and discrimination.
 
Communications with clients

  The second area of misconduct concerns the Licensee’s written communications with two clients in respect of fee disputes. The communications involved two e-mails set to Client A and three e-mails sent to Client B and her father, who had assumed responsibility over a fee dispute.

We found that the Licensee contravened Rule 7.2-4. In response to Client A’s expressed disagreement with an invoice and the services she received, the Licensee replied with two unprofessional communications sent on May 15, 2018. In the first e-mail he referred to the client’s history of abuse of being “beating and been urinated on” as not his problem. In the second e-mail he referred to a conjured desire to get revenge on someone: “I am willing to give you a discount … to make you [feel] you have got revenge on someone, people often do that to those who have tried to help them…I know you just meant to punish someone to get back at your husband by proxy.”

We found that the Licensee also contravened Rule 7.2-4 in respect of three e‑mails sent to Client B and her father from January to April 2018 during a time when the client was experiencing serious health issues. The Licensee exaggerated the client’s communications to his firm as “a lot of unjustified rude emails”, a “torrent of abuse… time after time” and “emails that made me shudder.” He accused the client of being at fault in the delay of her legal matter: “[Our firm] worked very efficiently to sort out the mess you created by making plans without going thro[ugh] the procedures then expecting government to change the drill for you.” The Licensee also insinuated, without any supporting evidence, that the client’s business income was paid in cash. He wrote to her father that the client and her husband should not “feel that they can continue to rub our faces in the dirt by getting away without paying.” Furthermore, he made multiple personal attacks on the client’s father.
 
In summary, the Licensee sent two unprofessional communications to Client A and three to Client B. These incidents occurred many years ago and over a short time span. They were, however, sent to two vulnerable clients. Client A had retained the Licensee in respect of a family law proceeding in the context of an abusive relationship. It was abusive and offensive for the Licensee to use her exceptionally personal traumatic experiences against her. Client B was also vulnerable in that she was experiencing significant health issues.
 
Sanction
 
We acknowledge the Licensee’s remorse, his efforts at rehabilitation and his ongoing therapy such that we view specific deterrence as less relevant in the present case. We are of the view that general deterrence and confidence in professional regulation are of greater relevance. The seriousness of the misconduct, despite the extenuating and mitigating factors, is such that only a suspension will deter other legal professionals from similar misconduct and will maintain public confidence in the legal professions.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process