“You Might Want To Google The Word Defamation”

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division imposed a reprimand and costs for admitted misconduct in part involving an attorney’s responses to unfavorable online reviews.

Respondent had represented a client who refused to pay his fee and later applied for a paralegal license

 In February 2021, Mr. Samfiru learned that JD was applying to become a paralegal. He wrote JD the following email:

Ms. D.,

We understand, based on your comments, that you are seeking to become a member of the LSO. We have significant concerns with this, as it is a requirement that members show good character and honesty prior to admission. We feel it is incumbent on us to write to the LSO and advise it as to our experience with you and your character (this will involve sending a copy of the pleadings, which are public record). The LSO should have all information prior to deciding whether you should be considered for admission.

Later

Following the settlement of the civil litigation, JD renewed her complaint with the Law Society. Mr. Samfiru was advised of the reactivated complaint on October 12, 2021. On October 13, 2021, he sent an email to JD’s counsel, stating that the LSO complaint represented a fundamental breach of the terms of settlement and that the claim would be reissued. Despite this threat, this litigation was not pursued.

Another matter

 IK had a consultation with Mr. Samfiru’s associate on May 27, 2021. IK decided not to proceed with a retainer, and the associate agreed to refund her consultation fee. IK wrote a negative Google review about Mr. Samfiru’s firm on May 31, 2021, and Mr. Samfiru was copied in an email from his firm advising IK that the fee would not be refunded until the review was taken down. Further email exchanges occurred between IK and Mr. Samfiru on May 31, 2021, in which Mr. Samfiru wrote to IK and demanded that she remove the Google review or face a defamation lawsuit. The email exchanges included, in part, the following:

Licensee: I will make it very simple for you. Unless this review is deleted by 5pm today, we will be suing you for defamation. This is not negotiable. I will be checking again at 5pm. Not a minute later.

IK: You might want to google the word defamation. I wrote a review based on my experience. Not a word of a lie or misleading. I am contacting the law society now. These threats are unacceptable and quiet [sic] pathetic from senior counsel.

Licensee: 5pm. Not a minute later.

Licensee: The only one that can decide if something is defamatory is the court. So we will be suing you and taking it to court. You may wish to return [sic] counsel already.

IK: I will not engage in any more back and forth. I will not be removing the review – I will however update it once the refund has been processed to reflect same.

Licensee at 12:24 pm: Boris, Please sue this lady for defamation for $500,000 and arrange service ASAP. Kari can give you particulars. Thanks.

 In early June 2021, IK retained counsel, who negotiated a reimbursement of the consultation fee in exchange for removing the Google review. Mr. Samfiru never commenced a defamation lawsuit, given the matter had settled.

A client who had retained him

Following an unsuccessful Employment Insurance Appeal, Mr. Samfiru renewed his offer for advisory support to BE if he self-represented in Small Claims Court. BE was unsatisfied with this offer of support and posted another Google review of the firm. The following email exchange ensued between BE and Mr. Samfiru:

Licensee: …You left a negative review again. If you want to see how good we are litigating, fine. Here is what will happen. Unless you remove your false and defamatory review by today (Sunday) at noon, we will sue you. Not in Small Claims but in Superior Court. This is not a debate or an idle threat. It is simply what we will be doing. I will be checking again at noon and if your review is still up, we won’t be holding back. Noon.

BE: What judge would find in your favour for wasting his/her time for an honest Google review? Let this email serve as a cease and desist notice. Effective 9:11 AM eastern standard time on 9th February 2019 [sic], I wish to receive no further communications from you or anyone at your firm. Regards, [BE]

Licensee: Too bad. A judge will certainly find in our favour. In any event, you will have to hire a lawyer and go through thousands of dollars in fees to find out. I am not kidding. Noon today. David, please sue BE for $250k in damages plus $100k in punitives, if his review is still online at noon today.

 BE subsequently deleted his second review. However, a screen shot of his email exchange with Mr. Samfiru, which included a portion of their February 9, 2020 emails, continued to be posted online. Mr. Samfiru proceeded to commence a defamation action for over $1.2 million against BE, including punitive damages. The statement of claim was issued on May 21, 2020. BE retained counsel on a pro bono basis through the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the parties settled the matter in October 2020, with BE agreeing to remove his reviews in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

Finding

The facts particularized in the ASF for all three complainants have made out the finding of professional misconduct as alleged by the LSO. Mr. Samfiru’s actions with his firms’ clients IK, BE, and JD lacked compassion and empathy, and he failed to act with integrity, to the extent that his actions and communications were abusive and offensive, inconsistent with the proper tone of a lawyer.

Respondent has no prior record of discipline. (Mike Frisch)