An Ontario lawyer has been suspended for eight months and ordered to pay $5,000 in costs after being found guilty of sexually harassing a vulnerable client through inappropriate messages and unwanted physical contact.
The Law Society Tribunal found the lawyer, A.E.C., engaged in professional misconduct by sending his client communications of a sexual nature and making unwelcome advances that included verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. The misconduct culminated when he placed his hand on the client’s breast.
The lawyer admitted to sending the sexual communications but did not explicitly accept the tribunal’s findings about the unwelcome advances and inappropriate physical conduct.
Vulnerable client targeted
The tribunal emphasized the serious nature of the misconduct, noting that sexual harassment “is an act of power which thrives on an imbalance of power between the harasser and the harassed.” The panel found A.E.C.’s actions particularly reprehensible because he was fully aware of his client’s financial vulnerability and dependence on him.
The client was described as extremely vulnerable, with very limited financial resources and neither the means nor resources to seek other legal counsel. She trusted A.E.C. to represent her in a matter of extreme importance to her, believing he was experienced.
The misconduct occurred over several months despite the client’s attempts to communicate her discomfort by responding to inappropriate texts with biblical quotes. The tribunal noted this was not “a single slip up or a momentary lapse in judgement,” as A.E.C.’s actions escalated from sexist and sexual texts to inappropriate sexual comments and advances.
Law Society sought revocation
The Law Society argued that revocation would be appropriate if the tribunal could not be satisfied A.E.C. would not repeat his misconduct and the public would be at risk, given his absence of remorse, insight and evidence of rehabilitation.
However, if the tribunal accepted that the lawyer was remorseful and had gained insight into his misconduct, a suspension of eight months would be appropriate, along with an order to attend continuing professional development on addressing harassment and discrimination.
The Law Society also sought $25,000 toward its total costs of $39,760.50 incurred in investigating and litigating the matter.
Lawyer’s response
A.E.C. told the tribunal the experience had been sobering and that he was “deeply sorry and ashamed.” He stated he was determined his misconduct would never happen again and planned to always meet with female clients in the presence of another person if permitted to resume practice. He apologized to the Law Society and the profession.
The lawyer said he had participated in discussions with members of his church about relationships and was now more careful about how he spoke with women. He acknowledged he was in full control of any messages sent by him and had taken a diversity, equity and inclusion course, though he was unable to provide names or details about the course or reading materials.
A.E.C. argued his licence should not be revoked for “one slip up” but accepted that a long suspension was necessary to show accountability.
Financial hardship claimed
Regarding costs, A.E.C. argued the $25,000 award was “excessive” and said he had been cooperative with the Law Society. He told the tribunal he had been out of work for five years, lost his home and was now supported by his son. He was prepared to pay $5,000 toward costs over two years once he resumed practice.
The lawyer provided his 2023 tax return and Notice of Assessment, which confirmed he earned no income that year.
Tribunal’s analysis
The tribunal applied a four-part test for appropriate penalty: specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation of the licensee and maintenance of public confidence in the legal professions.
As aggravating factors, the tribunal noted the misconduct occurred over several months and escalated in severity. The client’s extreme vulnerability and the effect on public perception of the legal profession were also considered.
The tribunal found A.E.C.’s expressions of remorse to be a neutral factor, noting that while he expressed shame and distress, “his expressions of shame and distress concerned his feelings. He did not fully acknowledge the distress his misconduct caused his client or its impact of the administration of justice.”
Mitigating factors included A.E.C.’s lack of prior discipline history and his admission to sending inappropriate sexual communications, which reduced hearing time.
Comparable cases reviewed
The tribunal reviewed similar cases, noting that licensees who take advantage of their positions to engage in sexual harassment can expect significant sanctions, up to and including licence revocation. Suspensions may be appropriate where the panel is satisfied the licensee has acquired sufficient insight into their misconduct such that there is no risk of repetition.
Tribunal’s struggle with decision
The tribunal acknowledged it “struggled with our determination in this matter.” While A.E.C. expressed remorse and discussed his conduct with church community members, “it was not evident that he truly understood and appreciated his misuse of power or that he accepted full responsibility for his actions.”
The panel found this was clear from his plan not to meet with women clients without another person present, stating: “It is his responsibility to manage his future behaviour – not the responsibility of a chaperone.”
However, the tribunal noted A.E.C.’s misconduct was not as severe as in other cases that resulted in revocation, and there was evidence of at least some remorse and insight.
Final order
The tribunal ordered A.E.C. to serve an eight-month suspension starting immediately and to complete a continuing professional development program on addressing harassment and discrimination by Dec. 31, 2025. He must also pay $5,000 in costs to the Law Society in two equal installments of $2,500, with the first payment due six months after returning to practice.
The reduced cost award reflected A.E.C.’s demonstrated financial hardship, despite the tribunal noting it had no basis to question the Law Society’s bill of costs.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Chima, 2025 ONLSTH 80 (CanLII).
