A professional discipline committee at the Law Society of Alberta has approved the resignation of an Ontario-based employment lawyer registered in another province while he faced multiple citations related to a client-file transfer dispute and alleged attempts to influence a complainant.
The tribunal’s decision ends all pending conduct proceedings against L.S., striking his name from the membership roll in Alberta. The ruling, which includes binding undertakings on L.S., underscores the committee’s view that his alleged misconduct did not warrant disbarment and that the public interest would be served by accepting his resignation.
L.S. was admitted as a member several years ago but had never actively practised in the province. He is a principal partner at a law firm that operates in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Although he had no open or closed files and did not handle trust funds in that jurisdiction, a complaint arose involving a client, N.W., and a departing lawyer, K.H.
The law society issued three citations regarding L.S.’s handling of N.W.’s file, alleged attempts to persuade N.W. to withdraw her complaint, and conduct viewed as failing to demonstrate honour and integrity.
Statement of admitted facts
According to the “Statement of Admitted Facts,” L.S. delayed transferring N.W.’s file for “a number of different reasons,” including “a requirement that the complaint filed by N.W. with the law society be withdrawn,” a disagreement over fees, and the absence of a formal Notice of Change of Solicitors. The file remained with L.S.’s firm for more than six months after N.W. initially requested it.
L.S. was also cited for telling N.W. “nothing is going to happen until the law society complaint is withdrawn,” and allegedly making statements the tribunal deemed “untrue.” In one example, L.S. told N.W. that “no one is currently representing you,” despite evidence that K.H. was still acting for N.W.
Although these allegations were never tested at a formal hearing, L.S. and the law society presented an agreement in support of his voluntary resignation. Both sides acknowledged that, even if the citations were proven, the matter would likely not result in the most serious sanction available. Instead, the law society indicated it would probably seek a suspension if a hearing proceeded.
Prior resignation decisions
The tribunal considered prior resignation decisions, including matters anonymized as L.S. v. E.L., O.S., W.W., C.C., W.W. and J.J., where members facing potential discipline were allowed to resign under similar provisions. In each instance, the committees looked to whether the alleged conduct, if proven, could lead to disbarment and whether accepting a resignation would still protect the public interest.
Here, the tribunal concluded it was “not likely that L.S. would have been disbarred,” partly because he had no previous disciplinary record, there was little risk of harm to the public, and his conduct did not involve client trust accounts or a repeat pattern of professional misconduct. The tribunal weighed whether disbarment would be a realistic outcome and decided it was not. It also considered mitigating factors, including L.S.’s assurance that “there was no noticeable harm to the client.”
Despite recognizing that L.S.’s motivation might include avoiding a potential suspension that could be recognized in Ontario, the tribunal held that L.S.’s “Undertakings” sufficiently safeguarded the public. Those undertakings included a binding commitment not to apply for reinstatement in Alberta, not to provide or market any legal services in the province, not to handle client matters there, and to pay the full costs associated with the proceedings. L.S. further pledged to cease representing himself as a practitioner in that jurisdiction on any platform or firm website.
Quoting directly from L.S.’s written conditions, the tribunal noted Undertaking (3): “That he will neither provide legal services in Alberta nor appear before any Alberta Court, tribunal, panel, or other adjudicator.” It added that these promises would effectively ensure he was no longer connected to the province’s legal practice, aligning with the committee’s focus on safeguarding the public and upholding confidence in the profession.
Resignations versus disbarment
In its analysis, the tribunal highlighted the distinction between resignations under the relevant legislation’s section dealing with non-disbarment resignations and another section that involves a formal disbarment. In this case, the facts appeared to “not warrant disbarment,” meaning a written acceptance of L.S.’s resignation was appropriate. The tribunal’s decision immediately discontinued all ongoing conduct proceedings, but it ordered that public notice be issued.
Citing examples from other anonymized matters, the committee drew parallels to scenarios where lawyers on inactive status, near retirement, or facing specific allegations were allowed to step away from practice so long as measures were in place to protect the public. While this situation was somewhat different — because L.S. intended to carry on legal work in Ontario — the tribunal was satisfied with the protective value of his Undertakings. L.S. did, however, acknowledge that his resignation would still entail being “struck off the roll” in Alberta and that his disciplinary file in that jurisdiction would stand as concluded without a further hearing.
The tribunal’s final order confirms the immediate effect of L.S.’s resignation. It requires him to relinquish his certificate of membership and pay costs set by the committee. Since L.S. had no active or stored files in Alberta, no instructions were necessary regarding client matters. The written ruling makes it clear that third parties may access documents, subject to redactions that preserve confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege.
By accepting these conditions, the tribunal effectively ends any outstanding allegations related to the delayed transfer of N.W.’s file and any improper attempts to influence her or her complaint. The decision asserts that, given L.S.’s undertakings, the public interest in maintaining confidence in the legal profession remains protected. A formal notice was distributed to inform the profession of the tribunal’s ruling, although no notice to the Attorney General was deemed necessary.
With this arrangement, L.S. continues his practice in Ontario, bound by a firm legal promise not to return to practice or portray himself as a lawyer in Alberta. The tribunal stressed that L.S. “will not apply for reinstatement of his membership in the law society” as part of his Undertakings. It also noted that any future attempt to do so would face stringent scrutiny, should such a situation ever arise.
For more information, see Law Society of Alberta v Samfiru, 2025 ABLS 1 (CanLII).
