A Law Society motions panel has done something most AI commentary in law does not: it explained the mechanism of failure, not just the symptoms. A large language model cannot verify its own output, does not know the limits of its knowledge, and does not know when it is inventing something. The costs were $31,150.
Criminal defense lawyer accepted an informal retainer where communication with a client depended entirely on third parties he could not control. When one link broke four days before trial, everything unravelled. The communication chain was the problem. The adjournment was just the symptom.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified what the good character requirement actually demands of licensing panels. Working through the standard Armstrong factors: remorse, rehabilitation, passage of time is not enough. Panels must step back and ask the harder question: would granting this licence be consistent with public trust in the legal profession? In Law Society of Ontario v AA, the Tribunal failed to ask that question. The Court of Appeal set the decision aside.
Years of practice management failures did not ultimately determine the outcome. Instead, the decisive issue was licensing dishonesty. After commencing and continuing articling without having received a required Certificate of Qualification, the Tribunal found willful blindness despite the respondent’s assertion that he had no intention to deceive. The case underscores a critical regulatory principle: uncertainty about eligibility is not a defence, and integrity in the licensing process can become a determining factor.
In LSO v. Balaganthan (2025 ONLSTH 126), a newly-called lawyer and former Toronto police officer was found guilty of professional misconduct after $1.7M in stolen funds flowed through his trust account. Despite personal hardships, the Tribunal held he was wilfully blind to glaring red flags: offshore parties, unexplained fees, and instructions to pay non-parties. His own note, “I will be paid from the funds received” , underscored the risks. The case shows that trust accounts are not escrow services and inexperience is no defence.