Diamond & Diamond boss faces law society hearing over marketing practices
Jeremy Diamond fails in bid to have proceeding stayed
Diamond & Diamond LLP senior partner Jeremy Diamond faces a full disciplinary hearing over the firm’s controversial marketing practices after failing in a bid to have the Law Society of Ontario’s conduct proceeding against him stayed.
Diamond argued his prosecution represented an abuse of process that unfairly singled his firm out for advertising tactics widespread in the province’s plaintiff-side personal injury market.
But Frederika Rotter, chair of the Law Society Tribunal panel hearing the stay motion, was unconvinced:
“On balance, we find that the Lawyer has failed to establish improper motives, bad faith or any act by the Law Society which would violate the conscience of the community,” she wrote for the unanimous three-member panel. “The Society’s conduct application may or may not be successful, depending on the nature and quality of the evidence before the hearing panel. Even if it is unsuccessful, that does not necessarily mean that the application was abusive.”
According to the ruling, Diamond bridged several incarnations of the Diamond & Diamond brand, initially working for his uncles after his 2008 call to the Ontario bar, before switching to senior partner when his wife Sandra Zisckind purchased the firm in 2013.
The most recent configuration, Diamond & Diamond LLP came into existence at the start of 2018, but the bulk of the law society’s allegations of misconduct concern the years immediately prior.
The LSO’s claims, none of which have been established, include allegations that Diamond breached its marketing rules by advertising legal services he did not actually provide, since his and the firm’s practice between 2013 and 2017 was to refer potential clients to other lawyers for a fee.
The law society also took issue with marketing materials that inflated the firm’s size, referenced money amounts without qualification and suggested the firm was qualitatively superior to other lawyers.
Further unproven allegations of misconduct relate to Diamond’s marketing of second opinion services online and his alleged advertisement of personal injury expertise without a law society specialist certification.
Moving to stay the entire disciplinary proceeding, Diamond hit back, accusing the LSO of selective prosecution and “institutional bias” against certain members of the personal injury bar in small and medium sized firms.
However, Rotter noted the high bar for a finding of selective prosecution, concluding that “no tenable allegation of bad faith” was made out by Diamond.
According to the ruling, Diamond claimed that the law society’s decision to move forward with its conduct application violated his legitimate expectations that proceedings would be dropped when the firm made changes to its marketing practices suggested by LSO staff.
“We do not accept this proposition. While it is commendable that the Lawyer remediated his marketing practices after consulting with the Society, there is no evidence that the Lawyer sought or received any assurances about whether or not proceedings would be commenced if he did so,” Rotter wrote in her ruling.
Alternatively, Diamond sought to have proceedings stayed temporarily until the completion of a separate LSO investigation against his wife Zisckind, who handles the marketing side of the business.
The panel agreed that it would be fair and expedient to join any proceeding against Zisckind with the one concerning her husband, but was not prepared “to indefinitely adjourn or delay the current proceeding on the chance that a conduct application will be brought at some future time.”
“Therefore, we will not stay this proceeding pending any possible future application concerning Ms. Zisckind,” Rotter wrote, adding that an application for joinder may be considered if the LSO launches a conduct application in the near future.
Neither Diamond nor Zisckind responded to a request for comment.
Follow us on Twitter @CourtReportCA