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

Application Denied

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has denied admission to an applicant on character and fitness grounds.

The issues related to the circumstances of his resignation from the Florida Bar 

Based upon our review of the evidence, both documentary and from the applicant’s oral testimony, we find that the Law Society has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant made deliberately false and misleading misrepresentations regarding his prior misconduct with the Florida Bar. The applicant’s answer that he “voluntarily resigned” his position with the Florida Bar “due to extenuating circumstances without having been subject to disciplinary sanctions” in answer to question 7 of the good character section of the application and whether he had ever been suspended, disqualified, censured or otherwise disciplined as a member of any professional organization, deliberately misrepresents that he was in fact disbarred in April 2021.

His answer fails to disclose that he was the subject of multiple complaints, two of which involved allegations of misappropriation, and was under investigation by the Florida Bar. In stating that he “voluntarily resigned”, he omitted important information which would have raised serious concerns about his good character, while attempting to cast the information he did provide in the most positive way. We find that this was a deliberate misrepresentation.
 
Our chart at para 22 summarizes the numerous complaints filed against the applicant with the Florida Bar, and some of these complainants also made successful applications to the client security fund. Based upon documentary evidence, before approving payment from the fund, an investigator is assigned to each application to establish proof of loss and make a recommendation for payment. Based upon this evidence, the fund paid out $31,240.68 for the claims of misappropriation made by ACM, GA, ML and SA; claims the applicant had notice of when he filed his Petition for Revocation with the Florida Bar. The Clients’ Security Fund paid out additional claims submitted after the applicant was disbarred.
 
The applicant did not provide a copy of the Petition for Disciplinary Revocation nor the order of Supreme Court of Florida with this LSO licensing application. He testified that he assumed the Law Society would request his file from the Florida Bar. In our view, as in Levenson, the application process relies upon an applicant’s self-reporting. While the Law Society can, and ultimately did, ascertain his discipline history, his lack of candour and, in our view, deliberate suppression of information, deliberately misrepresented to the Law Society the seriousness of his prior misconduct and ultimate disbarment.
 
The alleged theft of his client files and office equipment either at the time of or immediately following Hurricane Irma, while disturbing, in no way alters the investigations underway at the time of his Petition for Disciplinary Revocation. Further, his testimony that he was unable to reconstruct his client accounts with the Florida bank(s) where he maintained his trust account because of the high costs of seeking their help was evidence he did not provide previously to the Law Society for their corroboration or testing of veracity.
 
We find the applicant deliberately made misleading misrepresentations on his licensing application, and for this reason is deemed not to meet the requirements for the issuance of a licence under the Act: s 8(2) By-Law 4.
 
Based upon this finding, it is not necessary for us to go further in our examination of the applicant’s good character and in particular whether we can infer from his involvement with NCA Exam Guru that he misrepresented his awareness of widespread cheating on the 2021 barrister and solicitor licensing exams and obstructed the LSO investigation.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process