On February 14, shortly after power to my unit was restored, I got a call from one "Smith" who left me a message asking me to call back, which I did. Here's how that conversation went (it got interrupted when my phone ran out of battery and turned itself off):
What I was trying to determine was who he was and why was he calling me. Anyone can call and claim to be a lawyer, not provide their first name, and leave you trying to figure out which "Smith" they are - as you can imagine, quite a few lawyers go by that last name. Lawyers and paralegals are barred from offering predictions to their clients on how a case will turn out, but they face no such restrictions when dealing with an opponent. That is because a client usually pays for their folly, whereas with an opponent they engage in what is called "advocacy."
Nobody can predict how a case will turn out, especially in an area of the law such as this one, because there are many other variables, other than law, evidence and precedent that might come into play and besides, the law itself is not very clear in a number of circumstances. Furthermore, the law appears to be on my side.
I tried to avoid the question of whether he misled me into thinking he's a lawyer. I had to listen and re-listen to his original message several times: I could not distinguish if he introduced himself as "Mr Smith" or "Lord Sith" or "Mr Dick." If he did indeed mislead me, then I could probably let the Law Society know, but I have no interest in doing that. It is LSUC's job to uphold standards, the most I can do is to publish the recording and license it with Creative Commons Attribution; I also don't feel good about destroying someone's livelihood. After all, "Mr. Smith" works for Jack Steinman. It is the Landlord I'm having an issue with, not his Superintendent or his legal representative. The Landlord's legal representative and / or their communication skills do not really matter in the grand scheme of things, though when somebody is overly aggressive, misunderstanding their role, that certainly makes things a bit more difficult and reduces the chances of settling the issue, thereby increasing the time I have to waste on this matter. In an ideal world, individuals who confuse legal representation with a boxing match or repeating their mantra ad nauseam, only to prevent their interlocutor from speaking, generally lose, but then again, in the real world nobody in their right mind dares to make such predictions expecting to make an impact, or would hire as their representative a person who has been disciplined for being discourteous to an adjudicator in the very tribunal they are trying to obtain results.
The rather strange part is that he professes a belief that he does not have to serve me with documents (http://goo.gl/oqZrrF). That got me worried that he will attempt to go through with an appearance in LTB based on an unexecuted affidavit of service (i.e., proceed with his application while lying about having delivered a copy to me). That's where I draw the line: if he actually fulfills his promise of perjury on his Affidavit of Service, I will certainly file a complaint with the Law Society.
Eventually, after he emailed me, I was able to better investigate who he is, and it turned out he is a paralegal who has recently got his license back. This is from a Law Society page with aspx?id=625 (permanent shortcut - http://j.mp/[his Capitalized business name]:
(..) Mr Smith, of the City of Toronto, applied for a Class P1 licence, for licensing as a paralegal.
By Decision and Order dated June 14, 2011, the hearing panel determined that the Applicant is now of good character and ordered as follows:
The Applicant shall be granted a Class P1 licence with the following conditions:
That for a period of two years from the date of this order, the Applicant shall enroll and attend regularly, on a yearly basis, psychotherapy group sessions with Deborah Alton, psychotherapist, or a similar group session as she may recommend and the Law Society approve. The Applicant shall provide proof of his enrollment to the Law Society.
The Applicant shall enroll in such courses as may be provided on Civility by the Law Society in each of the two following years and provide proof that he has done so.
(Counsel for the Society, Susan Heakes and Anne-Katherine Dionne / Representative of Record for the Applicant, Elaine Page)
I have also discovered that this person had a criminal record which got pardoned immediately prior to reinstating his license. The following are selected paragraphs from the original 2011 proceedings, archived by CanLII under the URL http://j.mp/[his business name, one word, no capitals].
II. ISSUES
[5] On behalf of the Respondent Law Society, it is submitted that this application raises unique issues for the panel to consider; namely, that the Applicant has abused his position as a paralegal by engaging in bullying, threatening and intimidating conduct in carrying out his legal services.
[6] The Respondent submits that as a result of the Applicant’s aggressive and uncivil conduct, it is not in the public interest for the Law Society to grant him a Class P1 licence.
IV. OVERVIEW
[10] The Applicant was born in 1964 and has worked as a paralegal since 1997 with the organization [Mr. Smith, Inc.]. The Applicant’s main work interest revolves around advocacy in the Small Claims Court and administrative tribunal matters. He frequently appears before the Landlord and Tenant Board, the Small Claims Court and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
[11] The Applicant applied to the Law Society for a Class P1 licence on or about October 30, 2007. On his application, the Applicant confirmed that he had been convicted of certain Criminal Code offences. Attached to his application was a copy of a pardon granted by the National Parole Board on July 9, 2007, which granted a pardon for all criminal offences outstanding against the Applicant.
[12] The schedule of offences attached to the pardon enclosed with the candidate’s application set out the following background information regarding these offences:
(a) The Applicant was first convicted of common assault on November 20, 1997. The Applicant advises by letter dated April 10, 2008 that he pled guilty to the assault charge and received a suspended sentence and probation for one year. The Applicant advises the Law Society in an interview that this first assault arose out of a somewhat chaotic romantic relationship with one S.T. and that the assault occurred after a night of drinking and consisted of, in the Applicant’s words, “a bit of pushing”.
(b) The pardon document further indicated the Applicant was convicted on another charge of common assault and failure to comply with an undertaking on July 13, 2000. A further charge of being unlawfully in a dwelling house had been laid arising out of the same set of facts but was subsequently withdrawn. This second assault again arose out of a dysfunctional and chaotic relationship with S.T., which the Applicant says lasted for approximately six years and which he ultimately broke off in 2000. A central problem arising out of this relationship was the conduct of S.T.’s son who the Applicant maintains conducted himself irresponsibly and committed repeated thefts of money and goods from S.T.’s home.
(c) On the second assault charge, the Applicant did approximately 17 days of pre-trial custody as he had been released on the promise to appear with an undertaking not to communicate with the complainant. The Applicant breached the undertaking and was charged and subsequently denied bail. The Applicant, as indicated, received a pardon for the three convictions in June 2007.
[13] In addition to the issue of criminal convictions, the Agreed Statement of Facts sets out certain incidents which the Applicant was sanctioned with costs penalties by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Respondent takes the position that these costs penalties demonstrate clearly the uncivil conduct of the Applicant. There were three such incidents as detailed in the Agreed Statement of Facts and outlined in the arguments of the Respondent.
(a) On April 25, 2005, adjudicator, Nancy Fahlgren, of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal found the Applicant’s conduct to be unreasonable and ordered him to pay costs of $500. Her reasons indicate that his conduct of the hearing was disruptive and that he acted with contempt towards her and displayed a lack of respect for the process. Despite warnings of his behavior, he persisted in his conduct and failed to comply with Ms. Fahlgren’s instructions. The Applicant takes the position that he was being too passionate in his representation of his client. His position was that Ms. Fahlgren had interrupted his submissions and that this had interfered with his representation of his client. He questioned the impartiality of Ms. Fahlgren.
(b) On June 23, 2008, the Applicant was sanctioned by a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board for inappropriate behavior. This sanction order was discovered by the Respondent when the Law Society did their investigation. The Applicant did not disclose this sanction to the Law Society in his application. The nature of this sanction arose out of the Applicant’s conduct when the Board member, Freda Shamatutu, observed that the Applicant’s conduct was unreasonable and on three occasions he threatened to report her to the Ministry, which she takes the position was undermining the authority of the Board. In her written reasons, Ms. Shamatutu says that the Applicant was rude, abusive and belligerent towards her. He was ordered to pay $150 for unreasonable conduct during the hearing.
(c) The Applicant requested a review of the Order of June 23, 2008 which was denied on August 12, 2008 by reviewing member Shawn Henry.
(d) The Law Society investigator requested additional information on the earlier Tribunal sanctions and the Applicant self-reported that on April 15, 2009, Ms. Leslie of the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board had ordered him to pay $150 for improper behavior. In her reasons, Ms. Leslie indicated that the Applicant demonstrated a lack of respect for the Board’s process and contemptuous behavior towards her.
[13] That completes an overview of the evidence as contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts dated March 22, 2010 and signed by the Applicant and counsel for the Law Society.
V. REVIEW OF THE RESPONDENT’S COMPLAINT EVIDENCE
[14] The Respondent Law Society presented evidence at this hearing of certain complaints it had received. Two of these complaints were received prior to the commencement of the good character hearing and three such complaints followed the commencement of the good character hearing. This panel, upon application of counsel for the Respondent, allowed evidence of the three subsequent complaints to be provided. It should be noted that with respect to the Jane (Neilson) Haslam complaint, it was filed on February 22, 2007 with the Law Society and this was at a time during which it did not govern paralegals. At the time the Applicant applied for his licence, the Law Society was aware of the complaint, however, it had elected not to investigate the complaint for nearly three years. The Julie Pierce complaint was filed June 5, 2008 with respect to an event that occurred on May 21, 2008. Again, the Law Society closed this file without investigation because it did not have jurisdiction to regulate paralegals. This file, apparently, was re-opened after the paralegal legislation was enacted, without notice to the Applicant.
Jane (Neilson) Haslam Complaint
[15] Ms. Haslam testified that she had been threatened by the Applicant to be removed from Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings for speaking directly to his client. On one such incident, the Applicant stormed into her office unannounced and interrupted a client meeting. She was unclear of the exact date when this incident occurred. She indicated that the Applicant was angry and carried on in a bullying manner. The Applicant challenged at the hearing, Ms. Haslam’s version of this incident.
Julie Pierce Complaint
[16] Ms. Pierce testified that she was a self-represented tenant at the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Applicant represented her landlord. She said the Applicant threatened to call security when she did not answer his questions and that he threatened to “drill her” once she testified at the hearing. She could not recall at the hearing the exact words used but was alleging that the Applicant was trying to intimidate her.
[17] On application to the panel, the Respondent was then allowed to lead evidence regarding fresh complaints by individuals Anthia Frank, Barbara Jones and Linda Casey-Mishimagi.
Anthia Frank Complaint
[18] Ms. Frank testified that on July 13, 2010 she was in a mediation with the Applicant representing her landlord. Ms. Frank was assisted by duty counsel, Barbara Jones, who was not in the mediation due to speaking to another matter. Ms. Frank testified that the Applicant would not let her speak to the extent that a “shuttle mediation” had to be carried out. The mediator apparently reached some form of agreement, however, Ms. Jones then returned to the mediation and Ms. Frank told her she was not satisfied with the agreement. She testified that she found the Applicant’s conduct during the mediation disrespectful and bullying.
Barbara Jones Complaint
[19] As a result of her interaction with the Applicant at the Landlord and Tenant Board on July 13, 2010, she complained to the Law Society. Ms. Jones, as duty counsel, had to leave the mediation room for a period of time and when she returned found Ms. Frank upset with the agreement. Ms. Jones advised the Applicant that the tenant was upset with the agreement and she testified that he became angry and implied that the duty counsel had interfered with the agreement. Ms. Jones took exception to this inference as the Applicant implied she had done something improper. The Applicant admitted he was angry but it arose out of feelings of frustration because he had allowed his client to go home thinking he had an agreement worked out.
Complaint of Linda Casey-Mishimagi
[20] This complaint is about an application for rent abatement. Ms. Casey-Mishimagi attended before the Landlord and Tenant Board with her representative, Gary Ikemoto. Ms. Casey-Mishimagi testified that throughout the exchange between her representative and the Applicant, the Applicant was threatening and intimidating. She testified that the Applicant berated Mr. Ikemoto in front of other members of the public, however, Mr. Ikemoto testified that the Applicant was simply being his typical self and that his style as counsel was aggressive, flippant and sarcastic. Mr. Ikemoto confirmed that certain comments were made by the Applicant, which appeared to be threatening, as to what would happen in the court room.
Complaint of Kristine Pettersen
[21] Ms. Pettersen, a licensed paralegal, testified that she took over the case of Ms. Casey-Mishimagi after Mr. Ikemoto was released from his retainer. Ms. Pettersen testified that the Applicant used profane language in front of Ms. Casey-Mishimagi and Ms. Pettersen, which the Applicant admitted was inappropriate. She also testified that the Small Claims proceeding regarding the rent arrears came on for hearing and she requested an adjournment, which the Applicant refused to accede to. The Applicant requested payment of costs in the amount of $500 as costs for the adjournment. She found that the behavior of the Applicant was inappropriate for a paralegal and that the role as paralegal advocate was to protect individuals and not to bully or intimidate.
Complaint of April Stewart
[22] Ms. Stewart complained to the Law Society regarding a telephone call she had with the Applicant on October 1, 2010. The Applicant had referred a file to her and the result of her handling the file was not to the Applicant’s satisfaction. She testified that when the Applicant called to discuss the results of the case, he was aggressive and abusive and used profanity. There is no doubt that, from the evidence subsequently heard from the Applicant, he was upset and he concedes that he may have raised his voice.
Complaint of Marc Cartlidge
[23] This complaint was a letter filed and marked as Exhibit 36 in which the Applicant had reported in a complaint form to the Law Society the conduct of one Marc Cartlidge who was holding himself out unlawfully as a paralegal licensee. The Applicant took the position, upon checking with the Law Society records, that Mr. Cartlidge had never been a licensee. This involved a dispute over client representation and the Applicant took the position that Mr. Cartlidge’s involvement in certain proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board on February 17, 2010 demonstrated that Mr. Cartlidge conducted himself in an inappropriate manner and subsequently had costs assessed against him. This involved the client, one Mr. Haong. The Applicant, who had undertaken the representation of Mr. Haong, advised Mr. Cartlidge by letter that he should desist from further contact with him and that if Mr. Cartlidge threatened Small Claims litigation regarding the entire matter, the Applicant would seek to have Mr. Cartlidge deemed a “frivolous and vexatious litigant”. The panel was uncertain, based upon Exhibit 36 alone, that the Applicant demonstrated any inappropriate behavior in his conduct of the exchange with Mr. Cartlidge and Mr. Sampson.
[24] In summary, the Respondent submits that when the evidence is viewed as a whole, it reflects an Applicant who displays regularly inappropriate anger and disrespect for others. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant was not candid in his responses under oath and that his conduct appears to be that of a person who deflects responsibility for his own conduct by focusing on the misconduct of others. The Respondent submits that he omitted significant details of matters that were unflattering or reflected poorly on his involvement in many of the events that were described through the witnesses called by the Respondent. In short, the Respondent’s position with respect to the testimony given by the Applicant was that it fell short of any standard of candour when assessed against the actual recollection of others regarding the events giving rise to the various complaints that the panel heard.
VI. OVERVIEW OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
[29] The panel heard from several of the witnesses that the proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board were often bitterly contested with a significant overlay of emotional reaction and outburst. This was coupled with the fact that the proceedings were often carried out in quarters that were very cramped and inadequate for an appropriate atmosphere of quiet court proceedings. There is often no space for client representatives to conduct interviews with their clients or discuss settlement and the parties are often required to conduct these discussions in the hallways and in the presence of other persons not parties to the proceeding. Since the proceedings are highly contentious, voices can be raised in argument and displays of animosity are not infrequent. It was the Applicant’s evidence that he often conducts cases in this atmosphere and, although it does not excuse a lack of civility, such incidents are not unheard of as many of the litigants are unrepresented, many with significant language barriers.
I really don't have much more to add, but I underlined important passages in bold. Once again, I am trying to hide this person's identity, as I do not consider that relevant and he seems ashamed of his pardoned criminal past.