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

Grade 11

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division found that a suspended attorney had practiced law in a criminal matter and directed the parties to meet to consider sanction

 I direct the parties, with the participation of duty counsel if that is possible, to consult on the nature and extent of evidence that they intend to put forward, and specifically to consider whether they have any objection to the penalty and costs hearing proceeding in writing. I make this proposal partly in deference to the reservations that Ms. Avruskin expressed in the context of her adjournment requests and her testimony.

Findings

The Law Society alleges that while suspended, the respondent practised law and held herself out to do so when she made representations about disclosure to the Crown Attorney’s office on behalf of an accused who already had counsel, while at the same time making a complaint to Legal Aid Ontario regarding that counsel.

Ms. Avruskin says she was just assisting her friend, who had been a friend of her deceased husband, and she did not have to be a lawyer to understand disclosure; she testified that she knew about disclosure “from my grade 11 civics class”.
 
On April 14, 2023, Ontario Assistant Deputy Attorney General Randy Schwartz wrote to the Law Society to report that the respondent had written to the Crown Attorney’s office on March 23, 2023 regarding an accused person who was facing criminal charges.
 
In her March 23, 2023 email, Ms. Avruskin advised the Crown office that the accused was scheduled for trial that day, but he was in the process of changing counsel, who represented him under a Legal Aid certificate. According to the respondent, this would take four to six weeks.
 
Ms. Avruskin advised that she had the accused person’s consent, but she was not practising law; she was helping the accused at the suggestion of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). She asked for an adjournment of at least two-and-a-half months to enable the accused to find new counsel and prepare for trial.
 
With her email, the respondent attached copies of her March 13, 2023 complaint to LAO against the accused’s counsel Ranney Hinsta, alleging that Ms. Hinsta had breached her client’s s. 7 Charter rights by failing to provide him with the full Crown disclosure. More generally, Ms. Avruskin alleged in her complaint that Ms. Hinsta had failed to serve her client in several ways and “has failed to advocate for him at all.”
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process