An Ontario lawyer has been found guilty of professional misconduct for sexually harassing a client, following a Law Society Tribunal ruling that determined he engaged in inappropriate communications and unwelcome advances.
The Tribunal concluded that A.C. violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by sending sexually explicit messages and making improper physical contact with a client, A.A.
A.C., who represented himself, admitted to sending inappropriate messages via WhatsApp but denied making sexual advances or engaging in unwanted touching. However, the Tribunal found A.A.’s testimony credible and determined that both allegations were substantiated.
Background and allegations
A.C. was called to the Ontario Bar in 2010 after practising law in another jurisdiction. He was a sole practitioner when he was retained by A.A. in 2018 to assist with an employment matter involving a settlement agreement. Between April and December 2018, A.C. sent multiple WhatsApp messages containing sexist and sexually suggestive content to A.A., which she described as offensive and distressing.
The Tribunal’s forensic analysis of A.A.’s phone confirmed the messages originated from A.C.’s personal number.
Some of the messages included inappropriate jokes, cartoons, and memes with sexual undertones. One image depicted two children in underwear with a caption suggesting a young girl’s body was a “gold mine.” Another portrayed a courtroom scene comparing marital shopping to sexual assault.
The Tribunal ruled that these messages constituted sexual harassment under Rule 6.3-3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
A.A. testified that she felt uncomfortable but initially did not directly confront A.C. because of the power imbalance in their lawyer-client relationship. She responded to the messages by sending religious scripture in an effort to discourage further inappropriate conduct.
Tribunal findings on misconduct
Despite his admission in the agreed statement of facts that the messages were inappropriate, A.C. argued during the hearing that they were intended as educational and humorous, not directed at A.A. The Tribunal rejected this claim, describing it as “objectively absurd” and inconsistent with A.C.’s previous admissions.
The Tribunal also found that A.C. engaged in unwelcome advances and sexual touching during in-person meetings with A.A. at his office. A.A. testified that A.C. made inappropriate remarks about her marital status, played romantic music, asked if it made her feel “wet,” turned off the office lights, and in one instance, touched her breast while commenting on her clothing.
The Tribunal found her testimony credible and ruled that the conduct met the legal test for sexual harassment.
Credibility and power imbalance
The Tribunal considered A.A.’s financial dependence on A.C. for legal representation, noting that she could not afford another lawyer. A.A. had initially sought legal help from a disbarred lawyer, who then referred her to A.C. She later realized she had little recourse but to endure his misconduct while her case was ongoing.
In contrast, the Tribunal found A.C.’s denials lacked credibility, citing his earlier attempt to refute sending the messages until confronted with forensic evidence. The ruling emphasized that “A.C. is prepared to deny allegations until faced with irrefutable proof. That suggests a propensity to lie.”
Next steps
The Tribunal found that A.C. committed professional misconduct by sexually harassing his client through both written communications and physical advances. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine the appropriate penalty and costs.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Chima, 2025 ONLSTH 21 (CanLII).
