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

A Failed Partnership

By Michael Frisch

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has ordered the revocation of an attorney’s license

 Until August 22, 2022, Vanessa Ibe (the respondent) was a partner in the law firm of Rosenbaum and Ibe. The Law Society alleges that, unbeknownst to her law partner, she:

  •        misappropriated $6,000 of client trust funds to settle a claim made against her personally;
  •        misapplied approximately $3.3 million from client trust funds; and
  •        misled clients about the status of their legal matters, including by fabricating documents.

The respondent did not contest these allegations and the particulars that support them in a request to admit. As a result, we conclude that the allegations have been proven, and we find that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

The misconduct involves dishonesty. Proven dishonesty almost always leads to revocation of a licence.

The principle of presumptive revocation applies even in cases where there is strong mitigating evidence. The respondent opposes revocation and asks to be permitted to resign. In this application there is some mitigating evidence, but it is not sufficient to justify a lesser penalty.

The uncontested facts of the respondent’s dishonesty justify the revocation of her licence. Our reasons now explain why. We review the details of the three allegations above and explain why the misconduct in each instance involves dishonesty. We then set out why the appropriate penalty is revocation, rather than permission to resign. Finally, we deal with costs.

Impact on her partner

the respondent’s law partner hired her as a summer student when she was in high school. He then provided her with a series of jobs, encouraged her to work as his legal assistant and then to qualify as a lawyer. She eventually went into partnership with him.

At the same time as expressing her gratitude for the opportunities that he gave her, the respondent appeared to blame him for cultivating a workaholic culture that she succumbed to. Her fear of making mistakes and feeling unable to ask for help led her to eventually commit the misconduct that led to these proceedings.
 
The effect of the respondent’s misconduct on her law partner has been devastating. He has suffered physical and mental health problems, has spent over $500,000 in attempts to recover missing funds, and is named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits.
 
Yet the respondent’s submissions deflect some of her responsibility onto her law partner. In our view, this tempers her expression of remorse. In the same vein, her submissions focused mostly on the suffering that her actions caused herself. She said relatively little to acknowledge the impacts on clients.
 
(Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process