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

Immediate Suspension

By Michael Frisch

An immediate interlocutory suspension has been ordered by the Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Panel based on findings of misconduct in a home purchase and the ensuing investigation.

Background

The Lawyer is 49 years old. She received her law degree in Delhi, India in 1999, and she practised law there from 1999-2003. She subsequently pursued a master’s degree in law in Cardiff, Wales, which she obtained in 2004. She practised law part-time in Wales, because she had young children at the time.

She and her family relocated to Ontario in 2010. From about 2012 onwards she worked as a law clerk or legal assistant in different law offices. She started her NCA exams in 2015 and passed in 2018. The Lawyer was licensed to practise in Ontario in January 2021. She has an office in Burlington and one in Mississauga.
 
The Law Society received a complaint about the Lawyer from April Marratto on April 6, 2022. The complaint concerned the Lawyer’s conduct towards Ms. Marratto’s vulnerable elderly aunt, Ms. A, who was the Lawyer’s neighbour. Ms. A and the Lawyer lived across the street from each other in Burlington, Ontario.
 
Findings

In this case, the evidence before us strongly suggests that the Lawyer proceeded with the closing of the house sale on terms that were favourable to her, despite the presence of several red flags which should have put her on notice to halt the transaction. Ms. A was a vulnerable older individual. The deal was not financially advantageous to Ms. A. The home was sold at less than fair market value, and a $100,000 “windfall” was being provided to Ms. Jones.

The Lawyer and her husband provided a minimal (0.556%) down payment of $5,000 for a $900,000 purchase. There was a nine-month gap between the signing of the APS (drafted by the Lawyer and executed the same day) and the closing. All chattels were included with the sale of the property.
 
A was never referred to and never obtained ILA in the transaction. It appears that the lawyer who represented her in the transaction was a colleague or acquaintance of the Lawyer.
 
The evidence suggests that the Lawyer was aware of Ms. A’s capacity issues, as she had been notified by the family and also had received the doctor’s note. She was also alerted to this issue by the financial advisor. Nevertheless, the Lawyer persisted in maintaining throughout that she had “no concerns” about Ms. A’s capacity. A prudent and ethical lawyer is obliged to take every necessary step to satisfy her- or himself of a party’s capacity before proceeding with a sale, especially in respect of an older and potentially vulnerable individual.
 
The Lawyer’s behaviour with the financial advisor also raised questions about the Lawyer’s integrity. She falsely identified herself as Ms. A’s lawyer and then suggested that the advisor’s concerns were irrelevant, as a “cognitive test” had not been performed.
 
It appears that the Lawyer took no steps to address the inherent conflict of interest that existed in preparing estate planning documents on behalf of Ms. A.
 
Further, we received serious, compelling and credible evidence demonstrating that the Lawyer apparently engaged in dishonest misconduct which might have impeded the regulatory and supervisory functions of the Law Society. As described above, the Lawyer apparently attempted to destroy evidence during her interview with the Law Society investigator by deleting e-mails that were highly relevant to the investigation. The relevant e‑mails appear to have been deleted while the Lawyer was off-camera, on the day of the interview, during a break in the interview. After the investigator discovered the deleted e-mails, the Lawyer stated she “must have pressed a wrong button” and she “did not know” what she had done.
 
The e-mails show that the Lawyer was informed of the doctor’s diagnosis of dementia at least as of December 2021. Yet after that date, the Lawyer continued to maintain that Ms. A had no capacity issues. The evidence before us shows that the Lawyer represented to the LSO and stated in a court-filed affidavit (affirmed in April 2023) that at no time did she have any concerns related to Ms. A’s capacity.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process