The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Junior Osas Ebagua

 

 

Lately, many of my posts have been about lawyers who have shown professional misconduct in their practice. Does it beg the question that lawyers seen to be bigger law breakers than paralegals? Perhaps, but don't quote me on that. It's just a hypothetical. 

 

This case in particular happens to be against a paralegal. He failed to respond to eight Law Society investigation, and he failed to produce books and records for five of those investigations. The Law Society tried to get in touch with him many times but he delayed his reply to those investigations.

 

Mr. Ebagua was also charged with trafficking drugs on two accounts in September 2011 and has a criminal sexual assault case pending against him. Beyond that he has a custody hearing with his ex-wife Ashley.

 

Mr. Ebagua claims that the reason why he had issues responding to the Law Society was because his office had flooded, destroying his files, he was dealing with the criminal charges against him that he believed were a conspiracy against him and he was getting sick physically and mentally because of everything he had to endure.

 

 

 

The Law Society Hearing Panel after assessing his evidence, did not buy into his excuses and found that all of his actions were done to delay the trial to get a date that was convenient for him. They revoked his license and ordered him to pay the costs of the Law Society's legal team of $25,900 in 6 months in which post-judgement interest would occur.

 

I applaud Mr. Ebagua for showing up to trial and representing himself but he had to have known that his excuses would be found invalid. The best thing to do is to co-operate with the Law Society. The Law Society of Upper Canada is just trying  to protect the public from unscrupulous agents and society deserves honest representatives.

 

Take a look at this. Let me know what your three words are. Be honest with yourself and others around you. If you are looking to become a paralegal or lawyer be the best that you can be. Avoid problems because the penalties are not a walk in the park.

 

 

Information found in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Junior Osas Ebagua, 2012 ONLSHP 0123 Case 



 

The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Milton Markham Chambers

 

To the right of the page is Howard Goldblatt. He was a member of the hearing panel in the case against Milton Chambers. Barbara J. Murchie was chair and Catherine Strosberg were also members of the panel. To the left of the page is an information board found outside of Osgoode Hall in Toronto. 

 

Mr. Chambers happens to be another lawyer who in the last four and a half years became ungovernable by the Law Society of Upper Canada. He had become a lawyer in 1990 and had practised without complaints for 18 years of his career. It may have started to go downhill for this man when in 2008 he was found by the panel to have engaged in professional misconduct and his license was suspended. He was also ordered to pay $14,300 plus the legals fees associated with the case. In 2011, Mr. Chambers was suspended for one month and was ordered to pay $1000 plus interests until the amount was paid. He failed to do so and pretty much stopped communicating with the Law Society.

 

He had several complaints from 2 clients and failed to file a statement of defence for  GM and 756629 Ontario Limited in which they complained to Law Pro that the $450,000 that was paid into court was at risk because they "failed to retain counsel". Furthermore, Mr. Chambers did not provide the Law Society with proper documentation of his place of business or residence and as such, could not be contacted to serve him with a notice of application.

 

Despite the fact that he was not present and was unrepresented at his hearing, The Law Society Hearing Panel penalized him on findings of Professional Misconduct for failure to respond, communicate and co-operate with the Society. They revoked his license and ordered him to pay $11,723.12 at an interest rate of 2% per annum to the Law Society of Upper Canada to cover their costs.

 

I think his license should have been revoked a long time ago. I know that the Law Society of Upper Canada has procedures to follow even when dealing with ungovernable parties but clearly he could care less about the orders against him. I also feel that sometimes those who make a complaint are at a disadvantage because the panel never examines a remedy for them. I think that individuals who have something to lose from their lawyer or paralegal who has shown misconduct should be accommodated as well. If I were a client, I would care less about the individual getting their license revoked and more about what is owed to me. That is what is fair.

 

 After learning that clients usually get the short end of the situation by making a complaint about an M.I.A lawyer/paralegal, if you ever need to obtain counsel, what actions would you take to ensure that this doesn't happen to you?

Information obtained from Law Society of Upper Canad v. Milton Markham Chambers,  2012 ONLSHP 0100 Case

The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joseph Rebelson Gouveia

At top left is Robert Wadden, the chair of the hearing panel in this case against Mr. Gouveia. In the middle is Aslam Daud and to the right is Susan T. McGrath members of the Law Society Hearing panel. Mr. Gouveia was absent in this trial and did not have counsel there to represent him.

 

I find this case to be  interesting because of the outcome. Before I give a spoiler alert, let me tell you what he did. Mr. Gouveia was a lawyer who had started practising in 2001. He had filed Annual reports until 2008. He was charged with Professional Misconduct by Abandoning his Practice under s. 33 of the Law Society Act. When I read that, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer would abandon his/her practice since they usually get paid handsomely from the services they provide. In doing so, he left a lot of angry clients behind and failed to communicate with the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

 

In 2009, he failed to file his Annual report and was suspended by the LSUC. He met with several clients during the next two years and failed to mention that he was suspended. In many instants, he had won cases for his clients and the money had been paid into his trustee account. When they tried to contact him, he was unreachable. Some clients ultimately showed up to his practice and demanded their money in which he replied it would be transferred. It never was and he seemed to disappear off the face of the planet. These clients (5 in total) decided to file complaints against him. The LSUC attempted to get in contact with him and were unsuccessful because Mr. Gouveia failed to provide any contact information about his place of residence. All efforts to contact him (cell phone, email, mailing, looking up his registered license plate for an address) all came back unsuccessful.

 

The hearing--despite the fact that Mr.Gouveia was not present--was held and the panel found that he was ungovernable and ordered that his license be revoked and that he pay $15,165.44 within one year of the order in which interest of 3% per annum would be accrued.

 

My main concern is if they can't find him, how do they expect him to pay. I think that he should have had harsher penalties. He should have to pay his clients, pay the Law Society and pay their legal fees on top of having his license revoked. Clearly he has no regard for his clients and the panel should have made an example out of him.

 

What, if any, penalties do you think Mr. Gouveia should face? If you click on the link to the case found in the word practice, do you think that the Law Society exhausted all of their options in trying to reach Mr. Gouveia?

 



Bad boys, bad boys what you gonna do? In this Mr. Gouveia's case, hide. Listen to the lyrics because Mr. Gouveia is definitely a bad boy.

Information from this case Law Society of Upper Canada v. Joseph Rebelson Gouveia, 2012 ONLSHP 0117

The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Michael James Webster

Osgoode Hall Courtroom

The case against Michael Webster was heard by Christopher D. Bredt. Webster was charged with failure to cooperate with the Law Society. This particular case that I looked at only dealt with Webster's request for an adjournment. Webster was looked to get the case adjourned to two months later because he claimed that he did not have the financial means to retain a lawyer. The Law Society opposed the request.

Mr. Webster set out in an email four reasons in for an adjournment aside from having his practice suspended:

1. I have not been working for re-numeration for over a year, and only recently obtained a job grossing $30 [sic] starting a month ago
2. Our family had to sell our house in Avenue Road and Lawrence area and move to Scarborough, move which ended two weeks ago. We could no longer afford the house at Avenue Road and Lawrence.
3. My mother-in-law has been diagnosed with lung cancer. She is 89 years old and will require our family's constant attention.
4. As [a] of the suspension of my law practice, my wife and I have had serious difficulties with the marriage. We have only recently reconciled, as I have moved to an apartment here in Scarborough. (I had looked at apartments one block North of Danzig Avenue).  

His request for an adjournment was denied. To come to this decision, Bredt looked at a number of factors that were set out in the Rules of Practice and Procedure guideline.

The following factors in Rule 14.03 were analyzed in coming to his decision:
 

A.      Prejudice to a person

·       There was a slight prejudice to Mr. Webster in not being able to retain counsel however duty counsel was made available to him.

B.      Timing of the Request

·       Mr. Webster brought the motion only 4 days before the actual case was supposed to be heard. It is required that an adjournment request be brought to the Proceedings Management Conference 10 days prior to a scheduled hearing.

C.      The Number of Prior Requests and Motions for an Adjournment

·       Mr. Webster did not make any prior requests.

D.    The Number of Adjournments  Already Granted and Prior Directions or Orders with Respect to the Scheduling of Future Hearings

·       There were no previous adjournments.

E.       The Public Interest

·       Since the issue against Mr. Webster is an issue of compliance, it is better to proceed quickly in the case.

F.       The Costs of an Adjournment

·       Witnesses were ready to testify and if there were to be an adjournment, Mr. Webster would have to pay the costs to the Law Society, which he already expressed that he had financial issues already.

G.     The Availability of Witnesses

·       As mentioned above, witnesses were available for that particular trial date so moving the trial would be inconvenient.

H.      Efforts made to Avoid the Adjournment

·       The adjournment request was brought on late so he had not tried to avoid the adjournment.

I.        Requirement for a Fair Hearing

·       Mr. Webster could have chosen to defend himself because the allegations against him were straight forward.

J.      Any Other Relevant Factors

·       Mr. Webster did not provide specific reasons as to why his reasons for an adjournment would affect the trial from proceeding.

 I have a bit of sympathy for Mr. Webster. Hard times have fallen on him and now he is going to be unprepared in going to trial. Of course, if he had co-operated with the Law Society of Upper Canada, he would not have been in the predicament he got himself into. I believe that he could have represented himself  if he wanted to but he decided not to because of the issues he was facing. He had already been suspended from his practice so making the argument that Public Interests would be affected has little to no merit in my opinion.

Do you think that Christopher Bredt's decision was fair? Although this was just a motion for an adjournment, do you think that this is karma coming back to him?

Information obtained from Law Society of Upper Canada v. Michael James Webster, 2012 ONLSHP 0144 Case

The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jack George McGee

Barbara J. Murchie

This is Barbara J. Murchie, chair of the Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel. She may not look intimidating but the fate of Jack George McGee lies in her hands along with two other panel members. Lawyers and Paralegals have rules of conduct that they have to follow. After all, could you imagine the types of behaviours Lawyers and Paralegals could get away with if they had no repercussions? Most of you might believe that they get away with a lot and could even get away with murder but our most valuable notion that we have learned from our high school law class is that no one is above the law. Not even those who study the law and know the inner workings of it inside and out.

Complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada are taken very seriously and once reviewed, the panel holds a hearing to assess the evidence against that Lawyer or Paralegal and impose a penalty. There are various penalties depending on the breach of conduct and you will see the variety of penalties laid out in these next few blogs.

Jack George McGee was a lawyer who gave an undertaking (promise) that he would not practise real estate law. It’s funny because, Lawyers are those types of people who will try to find their way around… pretty much anything. He met with clients and either witnessed or commissioned closing documents. When questioned about it, he told a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, that he met with clients only as a “clerk”. The Panel found that he was exhibiting professional misconduct of breach of undertaking in relation to s. 33 of the Law Society Act.
 
Everything is done formally and those charged with a misconduct are served with a Notice of Application.

At the time of reading this case a penalty had not been imposed, but I’m sure one has been entered now. I am interested in what you think his penalty should be for breaking his promise?

Eight Months after McGee’s undertaking, he stopped his practises as acting as a clerk when the Law Society of Upper Canada started to question his activities. Do you think that his actions prove guilt that he knew what he was doing was wrong?

Mr. McGee never even showed up for his hearing. Do you think that his penalty should be stiffer?

Information obtained from Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jack George McGee, 2012 ONLSHP 0125 Case