The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Panel ordered the interim suspension of an attorney

 Our finding was based on the criminal charges of sexual assault of an Indigenous woman which are supported by some forensic evidence; Mr. Castellano’s failure to protect client information in favour of himself, which was admitted; and to some extent, his failure to co-operate, which was also admitted. Each of these allegations, if proven at a merits hearing, would invite licence revocation or suspension as a penalty.

At the hearing on the merits, the Law Society submitted that a suspension was required as there were no restrictions that could restore the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. Mr. Castellano, an Indigenous man, submitted that restrictions were sufficient and noted that he served an underserviced community. There were no submissions on the nature of restrictions that might suffice.

In our reasons, we acknowledged that any order we make to reduce the risk of harm should aim to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. We also identified a competing consideration being that Mr. Castellano served a disadvantaged, largely Indigenous community which has traditionally not trusted the legal professions. We asked for further submissions on whether an interlocutory suspension was the only option to reduce the risk of harm and what restrictions might suffice.

The panel

We have reviewed the LSO’s thorough and helpful submissions. While acknowledging the importance of access to justice in the Indigenous community, counsel fairly points to our findings that Mr. Castellano acted without integrity, concealed his criminal changes by being untruthful to clients about the whereabouts of their files, and admitted that he failed to serve one client. It notes the lack of supporting evidence for Mr. Castellano’s testimony that he serves a disadvantaged, largely Indigenous community, taking cases that other lawyers would deem too financially risky.

The LSO submits that, given all his professional failings in addition to the criminal charges, a decision that allows Mr. Castellano to continue to practise subject to restrictions, could be seen as the Tribunal prioritizing legal representation by an Indigenous lawyer over representation by a competent and honest licensee. To be clear, by inviting additional submissions and considering restrictions, we were not in any way suggesting that the Indigenous public deserve lesser or riskier legal representation and reject such a submission.

The list of restrictions offered by the LSO in the alternative to an interlocutory suspension may well satisfy the need to protect the public interest while not diminishing the seriousness of the criminal charges and alleged assault upon an Indigenous woman. However, in the absence of submissions from Mr. Castellano, we agree with the Law Society that our additional findings of lack of integrity and untruthfulness are compelling reasons to order an interlocutory suspension.

The Kingstonist reported on the matter. (Mike Frisch)