Life Support
The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division found misconduct and ordered a hearing on sanction.
The attorney came to Canada from Romania in 2006
From her testimony it is apparent that the Lawyer is a very active, energetic and ambitious individual. She was working while studying law and pregnant with her oldest child. She gave birth to her son and had an exam just one week later. She started articling when the child was about three-and-a-half months old. After her articles she worked for the second principal of the firm where she articled.
Her client had been injured in a car accident
Client A suffered a very serious heart attack on July 3, 2017. The doctors attending Client A indicated to his family that, as there appeared to be no prospect of recovery, he should be removed from life support. Client A’s family, including his spouse, children and siblings agreed.
The Lawyer strongly objected to this decision and sought a court order to have life support extended. The court order was initially issued, but later set aside. The Lawyer unsuccessfully appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and was denied leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada. The allegations concern the propriety of the Lawyer’s conduct in this matter.
Concerns
We also find her credibility and honesty is impeached by the fact that, as discussed below, she admits she deliberately falsified or caused to be falsified the A&D documents signed by Client A. Regardless of the bona fides of her wish to keep Client A alive on life supports, she acted dishonestly in altering the documents.
The Lawyer defends her actions by her repeated assertions that she believed that her client wanted to “remain alive” and that she believed her actions were consistent with this putative wish. We have doubts about the honesty of those beliefs, as we have no evidence of the client’s actual wishes. The client’s family believed that the client would not wish to remain on of life support, in a vegetative state. We find the client’s family would have a better understanding of the client’s wishes than would the Lawyer.
We find that the Lawyer’s assertions about her objectives and motivations in this matter generally lack an air of credibility. For example, we question the Lawyer’s assertions that she believed she was “doing the right thing” for her client after the client had passed away. In short, we do not accept the Lawyer’s explanations for her conduct and her assertions that she was right to behave as she did.
Response to a client complaint
While she was a client of the Lawyer, Client B was also receiving services from Spinetec provided by Mr. Irshidat’s clinics. Her claims for statutory benefits included claims for these services. The Lawyer did not obtain Client B’s written consent for the Lawyer to act for her despite a potential conflict of interest arising from her relationship with Mr. Irshidat. Nor did the Lawyer record any oral consent in writing…
The Lawyer forwarded to the Law Society’s investigator copies of her e-mails to DocuFraud Canada; Ace Locators; [an email address] (connected with Ace); Golden Triangle Investigations, Inc.; and Larrek Investigations. On July 10, 2020, the Law Society’s investigator cautioned the Lawyer that she might be disclosing confidential information contrary to Rule 3.3-1 of the Rules. The Lawyer replied to say that she disagreed because under Rule 3.3-3, she was permitted to disclose information to prevent serious bodily harm (which, in certain contexts, includes psychological harm). However, she agreed that she would not proceed with her enquiries at that time. She also contacted Larrek Investigations and Ace Locators and asked that they delete the information that she had sent them.
The parties agree that the Lawyer was entitled to disclose confidential information to defend herself but that she disclosed more information than was required. By so doing, the Lawyer contravened Rules 3.3-1 and 3.3-4 of the Rules.
Conclusion
We find the Lawyer has engaged in professional misconduct as admitted and alleged. We direct the Tribunal office to schedule a hearing for penalty and costs.
(Mike Frisch)