Resignation Allowed

The Alberta Law Society allowed the resignation of an attorney found to have failed to forward the file of a client to new counsel and also had made untrue statements

(a)  Mr. Samfiru made numerous representations to N.W., that he knew, or should have known, to be untrue. Such statements included Mr. Samfiru telling N.W. on July 28, 2021, that:

•      “no one is currently representing you”
•      Mr. Samfiru learned at the same time as N.W. that K.H. had a new job.
•      “we could not direct you to [K.H.]. She was an unemployed lawyer”.
•      K.H. agreed to pay Samfiru Tumarkin’s fees without concern for the sum.

Background

Mr. Samfiru is a principal partner with Samfiru Tumarkin, which provides legal services in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. At the time of this application, Mr. Samfiru was an active member of the LSA and he had no disciplinary record with the LSA. Mr. Samfiru was admitted to the LSA on October 29, 2020, but he has never actively practiced in Alberta. Mr. Samfiru has no open or closed files, and he does not handle trust funds or any client property in Alberta.

Samfiru is also a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, but he practices primarily in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Samfiru was admitted to the Law Society of Ontario on September 24, 2003.

Resignation

This matter is unusual in that most section 32 applications involve retiring members or members who have undertaken not to practice. In this case Mr. Samfiru will continue to be a practicing lawyer in Ontario. Despite this distinguishing fact, the Committee is relying upon the Undertakings of Mr. Samfiru, including that he will not apply for reinstatement in Alberta.

Based on the evidence established by the Statement of Admitted Facts, the Committee has determined that it is in the best interests of the public to accept the application of Mr. Samfiru to resign pursuant to section 32, effective July 31, 2024.  We find that it is not likely that Mr. Samfiru would have been disbarred had the citations been proven. The Committee is of the view that the public interest will still be served without requiring either a public hearing or a deemed disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)