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

An Unusual Path

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has revoked a license to practice

 The path by which Mr. Saran became licensed in Ontario was somewhat unusual. While the path taken does not much matter in the end, it is useful to describe his path at the outset to avoid confusion.

Prior to November 2021, Mr. Saran had unsuccessfully taken the solicitor examination three times and had unsuccessfully taken the barristers exam four times. The November 2021 solicitor examination was his fourth attempt.
 
While Mr. Saran was pursuing a licence to practise law in Ontario, he also pursued a licence to practise law in Nova Scotia. Unlike Ontario, Nova Scotia now has a path to licensing that does not require the successful completion of licensing examinations.
 
Mr. Saran became licensed as a lawyer in Nova Scotia in January 2022. Having been licensed in Nova Scotia, Mr. Saran immediately sought to be licensed in Ontario under what are sometimes called the mobility rules. Generally, lawyers who are licensed elsewhere in Canada need not pass the Ontario licensing examinations in order to become licensed in Ontario.
 
In January 2022, Mr. Saran made a new application for licensing to the Law Society of Ontario based on his licensing in Nova Scotia. In this application, Mr. Saran was asked a number of “good character” questions. On February 17, 2022, Mr. Saran submitted a Petition for Call to the Bar and Certificate of Fitness – Transfer from another Province or Territory of Canada in which he confirmed that his responses to the good character questions continued to be current, complete and correct.
 
Mr. Saran was licensed as a lawyer in Ontario on February 24, 2022 as a mobility licensee. His application under the usual licensing process was withdrawn.
 
While the allegation of cheating is in respect of the solicitor exam taken under Mr. Saran’s original licensing application, cheating, if proven, would be relevant to the requirement of good character for the new licensing application and could be relevant to the “good character” questions asked in the new licensing application.
 
The examination in issue was administered during COVID restrictions
 
Unfortunately, not all test-takers could be accommodated on the same day in this new on-line format. In November 2021, each of the barrister and solicitor exams had to be held on four days. The four barrister exams occurred on November 2, 3, 4 and 5, 2021, while the four solicitor exams occurred on November 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2021. Approximately 1,700 examinations were administered in the eight sittings.
 
Irregularities identified
 
On November 19, 2021, the Law Society learned that irregularities in the solicitor exam held that day had been identified. Specifically, two different candidates had logged onto the exam from the same IP address and moved unusually quickly through the exam; had significant periods of inaction during the test; and made unusually few changes to their answers during the course of the exam. An analysis of the two candidates’ performance revealed further irregularities. Specifically, the two candidates both answered some questions in unusually brief periods of time. Further, the two candidates took similarly prolonged periods to answer experimental questions as opposed to similarly shorter periods to answer operational questions. The two candidates had remarkably similar responses to one another. This included 13 incorrect answers in common. Moreover, these two candidates listed each other as the other’s emergency contact.
 
The allegation of cheating was denied

After careful consideration, the majority of the panel has determined as follows:

•           Mr. Saran knowingly used prohibited material in answering questions in the solicitor exam.

•           Mr. Saran made false and/or misleading statements to the Law Society contrary to By-Law 4, section 8(2); and

•           Mr. Saran is not and was not of good character. His use of prohibited material during his sitting of the solicitor exam on November 19, 2021, was serious misconduct. This misconduct was compounded and continued by his misrepresentations to the Law Society when he applied for licensing in 2022 and during the Law Society’s investigation of his use of the prohibited material in the examination…

First, the nature of the transgression we are concerned with is grave. It strikes at the heart of any and every lawyer’s core, his or her integrity. Mr. Saran cheated on an admission examination while attempting to gain his call to the Bar of Ontario. The duration of his dishonesty is likewise concerning. Though his cheating on the November 2021 solicitor exam is a single event, it is not isolated because when he was confronted with it, he prevaricated, choosing to mislead Law Society investigators over an extended period of time.

 Second, remorse must be premised on acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for the underlying wrong one has done. Mr. Saran has not done this fully. His acknowledgement has been dosed out parsimoniously. When the cheating happened, he kept it secret. When confronted, he falsely denied having received any materials, both in writing and verbally over many months. Eventually, he acknowledged having unwittingly gained access to the prohibited material. It is clear that Mr. Saran has demonstrated that he regrets being in the position he is in. However, he has not demonstrated remorse, as he has not fully and freely acknowledged the underlying wrong he has done. However, we recognize that we cannot require that remorse be shown where the misconduct is denied. That said, we are not assisted in finding present good character by a showing of remorse.
 
Dissent
 
Notwithstanding my concerns about the numerous inaccuracies in the ASF, given the totality of the evidence received from UU, KK and the Anonymous person, it is evident that Mr. Saran was in possession of prohibited materials that included both questions and answers.  According to the ASF, both the evidence received from the Anonymous person and UU, contained some questions and several answers.  I find that it is quite plausible that Mr. Saran may not have known that he was in possession of prohibited materials before March 2022.  As Mr. Saran testified, he  thought he was in possession of study materials for the solicitor exam, that he received from NEG. As such, the questions were not answered falsely on his mobility application. Therefore, I find that Law Society did not meet its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Saran made false or misleading representations to the Law Society as part of his licensing process for his mobility application, contrary to section 8(2) of By-Law 4.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process