A recent decision of the Disciplinary Council of the Barreau du Québec (Goldstein v. Gemayel, file no. 06-24-03490) clearly and firmly confirms that private disciplinary complaints must never become a tactical tool or a lever of pressure in civil litigation.
In this particularly tense family case (divorce, child custody, inheritance), the plaintiff had filed a private complaint against the lawyer who represented his ex-spouse and then his estate. In particular, he accused him of having multiplied the procedures, of lacking moderation, of acting outside the warrant or of tolerating the presentation of information that he considered inaccurate before the Superior Court.
We acted for the respondent (our client) in bringing a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Conseil ruled in our favour: the complaint was declared both manifestly unfounded and abusive within the meaning of section 143.1 of the Professional Code.
Why did this complaint not hold water?
The Council began by reiterating a fundamental principle: in order to assess the allegations made, it would have been necessary to examine in detail the mandate entrusted to the lawyer, the instructions of her client and the judicial strategy chosen. However, these elements are subject to professional secrecy, a fundamental right that belongs to the client. In this specific case, the client having unfortunately died, no waiver of secrecy was possible. It was therefore impossible, structurally, to investigate the complaint without violating this essential secrecy. As a result, the complaint was doomed to failure from the start.
The Council also emphasized its specific role: it is not a court of appeal for civil decisions or a tribunal responsible for reviewing a lawyer’s strategic choices in litigation. Issues of the relevance of the proceedings, the credibility of the evidence or the merits of the arguments must be decided by the courts seized of the civil case, not by the disciplinary process.
A personal goal rather than the public interest
Beyond the unfounded nature, the Council characterized the complaint as abusive. It was clearly aimed at a strategic and personal goal: to discredit the lawyer and weaken her position in the cases still pending, rather than to really protect the public. The Council reaffirmed a key principle of our profession: a lawyer has a duty to represent his or her client with rigour, loyalty and determination, even in the most hostile contexts. Strong advocacy does not equate to a disciplinary breach.
Disbursements imposed on the complainant
As a result, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the disbursements related to the proceedings, in accordance with section 151 of the Professional Code. The Council wished to emphasize that it is not the responsibility of members of the Bar to assume the costs generated by complaints that are clearly abusive or used for tactical purposes.
A strong signal for all practitioners
This decision sends a clear message: private disciplinary complaints are serious remedies reserved for the protection of the public. It cannot be misused to put pressure on opposing counsel, to change the balance of power in civil litigation or to circumvent the competent judicial bodies.
At Azran Avocats, we continue to defend our clients with the same determination, while ensuring compliance with ethical rules. This victory confirms that the disciplinary system has the necessary tools to quickly rule out abusive appeals.
Me Gabrielle Azran, founder of Azran Lawyers, practices civil law, construction law and family law in Montreal.
