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I think his license should have been revoked a long time ago.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