An Ontario lawyer has been suspended for four months and ordered to pay $12,500 in costs after admitting he sexually harassed two female employees at his law firm where he served as managing partner.
The Law Society Tribunal found that he engaged in professional misconduct by making sexually suggestive comments and unwelcome advances toward a summer student, articling student and law clerk at his Newmarket, Ont.-based firm.
The tribunal accepted a joint penalty submission based on an agreed statement of facts in which the lawyer admitted to the misconduct. The decision was made following the tribunal’s assessment that the penalty met the strict public interest test and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Pattern of harassment over two years
The misconduct involved two women who worked at the firm between 2017 and 2019. The first employee, identified as Person A, was 23 years old when she began working as a summer law student in 2017. She later completed her articles and became an associate at the firm.
The tribunal found that the lawyer’s inappropriate behaviour began in August 2017, shortly after the employee accepted an articling position. His conduct included sending text messages calling her “hun,” telling her he missed her when they were apart, and that he was “excited” to see her.
When the employee returned for her articles in summer 2018, “the harassment renewed and escalated,” the tribunal found. The lawyer made frequent comments about her appearance, including her clothing and hair, and asked her to wear a certain skirt for him. He required her to review documents at 7 or 8 p.m. after other staff had left, during which he would express his feelings for her.
The lawyer told the employee he was attracted to her, loved her, and felt a special emotional connection with her. He asked her to send photos of herself and pressured her to let him drive her to work or spend time alone with him.
In one particularly troubling incident, the tribunal noted that the lawyer told the employee he wished he had met her 10 years earlier, “which would have been when she was 15 years old.” He began addressing her as “love of my life” or “LOML” in messages and changed her name in his phone directory to initials meaning “on the downlow,” indicating she was a secret.
The harassment also included unwelcome physical contact. The lawyer would grab and kiss the employee’s hand after high-fives, repeatedly ask for hugs, and once hugged her and kissed the top of her head as she was leaving the office. Despite her requests to stop the inappropriate touching, his behaviour persisted until she quit in November 2019, just four months after becoming an associate.
Second employee targeted
The second victim, Person B, was also 23 years old when she began working as a law clerk at the firm in 2017. Initially, she had a good relationship with the lawyer, but his conduct toward her became sexualized around 2018.
In December 2018, when the employee wore a long black sweater dress to work, the lawyer emailed her saying she got “10 points” over another person and called her “Santas helper in the boots and dress” and “naughty Christmas.” The employee tried to avoid crossing his path that day.
In summer 2019, when the law clerk wore a skirt to work, the lawyer stared at her body and later called her to his office. When she arrived and asked what he needed, he said he didn’t need anything but told her: “I just wanted to tell you that I think the skirt you’re wearing is the sexiest piece of clothing you own.” As she prepared to leave, he said: “Mm, ok, I’ll be watching as you walk away.”
The tribunal found that the comments made the employee feel “uncomfortable, embarrassed, degraded, and fearful.” She stopped wearing dresses and skirts to avoid unwanted attention and ultimately began to fear the lawyer. She resigned in October 2019, citing harm to her mental health.
Impact on victims
Both employees provided victim impact statements that the tribunal considered. The first employee continued with the firm despite the harassment because she felt she could not afford to lose her articling placement, which was crucial for the licensing process. After becoming a lawyer, she felt she could not afford to give up her job, but ultimately resigned due to the lawyer’s conduct.
The tribunal noted that the harassment had “both immediate and ongoing adverse impact” on both women.
Lawyer’s response and mitigation
During the investigation, the lawyer initially denied misconduct but eventually admitted his actions constituted sexual harassment and breached the firm’s policy. However, he characterized his behaviours as merely “regrettable and foolish” and claimed he “had no idea that they were genuinely offensive.”
The lawyer said he respected women and had never discriminated against anyone. He suggested that if the first employee had wanted the communication to stop, he would not have continued, and noted that the firm manager thought the employee spoke to him inappropriately.
Since the complaints, the lawyer has attended counselling and completed various training programs, including sexual harassment training and workplace violence awareness courses. The tribunal found some mitigation in these efforts.
The agreed statement of facts noted that during the time of the harassment, the lawyer “was experiencing personal health and family issues,” which the tribunal accepted as potentially explaining the misconduct to some extent.
Tribunal’s analysis
The tribunal found that general deterrence was the most important penalty goal, noting that sexual harassment remains “an ongoing problem in the legal professions.” The decision emphasized that employers of students and new lawyers “must be deterred from sexually harassing them.”
The tribunal also considered the vulnerability of the victims, noting that summer students, articling students and new lawyers “are particularly vulnerable because their licensing as lawyers and their professional futures are dependent on their continued employment.”
In reviewing comparable cases, the tribunal found that suspensions are commonly ordered for sexual harassment, with penalties varying based on factors such as the nature and extent of conduct, patterns of harassment, and other misconduct.
The tribunal concluded that the four-month suspension would achieve deterrence goals and maintain public confidence in the legal profession while being consistent with penalties in similar cases.
The lawyer’s licence was suspended effective immediately, and he must comply with Law Society guidelines for suspended lawyers. The costs must be paid by February 12, 2026, with interest accruing at five per cent annually on any unpaid portion.
For more information, see Law Society of Ontario v Moubarak, 2025 ONLSTH 116 (CanLII).
