Law Society of Ontario personal injury advertising roundup
With advertising issues in the personal injury field continuing to occupy the Law Society of Ontario, here’s a summary of some of the latest regulatory developments in the area:
Law Society of Ontario v. Ambridge 2021 ONLSTH 54
Toronto lawyer Marina Ambridge received a three-month suspension from practice after posting fake client testimonials on the website for her firm Ambridge Law.
According to the ruling, the lawyer used photographs from the internet alongside comments from non-existent injury victims praising the firm and the level of compensation received.
Although she admitted her misconduct at the hearing, Ambridge initially told an LSO investigator that the testimonials were inaccurate versions based on real clients, before later coming clean about their fabrication.
Bencher Malcolm Mercer, sitting as the single tribunal panellist, also found that Ambridge Law’s online claim to have a “Former Judge On The Team” breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by implying that an ex-Canadian judge belonged to the firm.
“While Ms. Ambridge had been a judge of the Economic Court of the Minsk Region in Belarus and had been an arbitrator of the International Arbitration Court of Belarus, she has never been a judge in Canada,” he wrote.
Despite his concerns about the fake testimonials, Mercer gave Ambridge credit for her previously spotless disciplinary record, belated cooperation and currently compliant marketing and advertising.
“Without a joint submission and these mitigating factors, I would have ordered a longer suspension. However, in the current context, it cannot be said that a three-month suspension is truly unreasonable or unconscionable,” the bencher concluded.
Law Society of Ontario v. De Rose 2021 ONLSTA 9
Paralegal Dominic De Rose saw his reprimand for improper advertising upheld by the LSO appeal division, despite the panel’s concerns about the regulator’s conduct during the investigation.
According to the ruling, De Rose admitted some of his marketing material was likely to mislead the public by leaving the impression he was a lawyer.
An LSO investigator warned De Rose back in 2016 that a lawyer had complained about the website for his firm De Rose Barristers & Solicitors. De Rose acts as CEO of the firm, which he set up with his daughter, who is a lawyer.
Certain pages on the firm’s website did not explicitly state that De Rose was a paralegal, but referred to him as its “founder,” according to the appeal ruling, which adds that he did not complete the necessary changes to bring himself into compliance until after a conduct application was filed in June 2017.
The paralegal claimed he was taken by surprise when the LSO escalated the investigation, and saw motions for both a stay of proceedings and for a conversion to an invitation to attend, denied.
Writing for the appeal panel, bencher Raj Anand said that each member was concerned by “missed communications and inaction” by both parties in the run up to discipline proceeding’s authorization.
“Nevertheless, as an appeal panel, we are unable to conclude that the hearing panel’s findings of fact or mixed facts and law reflected palpable and overriding error, or that there were any errors of law that would justify reversal of the two hearing panel rulings. We therefore dismiss the appeal,” Anand continued.
Regulatory Meeting March 31, 2021 Re: Sokoloff
Toronto lawyer Wendy Sokoloff, principal of Sokoloff Lawyers, avoided formal disciplinary action altogether after members of the LSO’s proceedings authorization committee concluded a regulatory meeting was enough to address their concerns with her practice.
According to a notice posted on the LSO’s website, the regulator took issue with the firm’s online claim to be “Toronto’s Top Multi-Ethnic Personal Injury Firm,” because of the possibility it suggested a qualitative superiority to other lawyers.
In addition, Sokoloff’s claim to specialize in personal injury law was challenged because the LSO had not certified her as a specialist in civil litigation. The law society also denied her entry to the certification program while the investigation remained unresolved.
However, the notice added that Sokoloff cooperated fully with the investigation and was in full compliance with the LSO’s advertising rules by 2018.
“The members of the Committee agreed that the discussion was useful, and that the process made it unlikely that there would be improper marketing by the firm in the future,” reads the notice of the regulatory meeting.
Law Society of Ontario v. Diamond 2021 ONLSTH 14
Meanwhile, Jeremy Diamond, a senior partner at Diamond & Diamond LLP – one of the province’s most prolific personal injury law advertisers – has yet to face a hearing over alleged breaches of the LSO’s marketing rules.
Diamond recently failed in an attempt to have the proceedings against him stayed as an abuse of process, as we reported earlier this year.
You can read more about that case here: https://courtreportcanada.substack.com/p/diamond-and-diamond-boss-faces-law
Follow us on Twitter @CourtReportCA
Story tips or comments to CourtReportCanada@gmail.com