“This Case Cries Out”
The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Panel has revoked an attorney’s license
In Law Society of Ontario v. Deokaran, 2024 ONLSTH 61 (the findings reasons), we found that the Law Society proved 40 of 42 particulars alleged. We found that Gabriella Deokaran engaged in numerous acts of dishonesty and fraud towards her clients, other lawyers, the courts, the police, and members of the public.
Seriousness of misconduct
The misconduct was very serious. Of the 40 findings of misconduct against Ms. Deokaran, 27 of them were for integrity breaches, including three findings for misleading both opposing counsel and the court, nine for misleading opposing counsel, six for misleading the LSO, and three for misleading her former partner by forging her signature and misleading Teranet.
Ms. Deokaran’s misconduct was intentionally deceitful. She repeatedly lied to clients, lawyers, courts, police officers and the Law Society. She forged affidavits of service and her law partner’s signature on documents to Teranet. She doctored documents to respond to Law Society investigations. She assumed the alias of a fake lawyer in a letter she created. She continuously lied to counsel and her clients about work completed on files. She lied to the police, creating false claims of assault, to harm another lawyer.
Integrity is a critical quality for lawyers, and maintaining the reputation of the legal profession is a fundamental consideration. As stated in Bolton v. Law Society, every member of this profession must “be trusted to the ends of the earth.” Ms. Deokaran’s deceit with the public, lawyers, courts, and colleagues revealed that she was untrustworthy to the extent of taking malicious steps to damage those who put their confidence in her.
Sanction
Given the multiplicity and the seriousness of the findings against Ms. Deokaran, this case cries out for revocation. In our view, while also meeting the goals of specific and general deterrence (and there being no evidence about rehabilitation), revocation is the only penalty that can maintain the confidence of the public in the trustworthiness of the legal profession.
(Mike Frisch)