So more issues with David Stephen Strashin and his conduct. This time not delivering what his clients were expecting. More inappropriate mishandling of funds. David Stephen Strashin is a real piece of work. No wonder he is a lawyer. Maybe we should forgive him and blame it on his dead mother again?
HEARING DIVISION
Date: 2021-09-10
BETWEEN:
Law Society of Ontario
Applicant
– and –
David Stephen Strashin
Respondent
NOTICE OF APPLICATION – CONDUCT
To the respondent:
The Law Society of Ontario applies under s. 34(1) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c. L.8, for a determination of whether you have contravened s. 33 by engaging in professional misconduct and / or conduct unbecoming a licensee and for an order under s. 35. Details of the allegations are set out below.
This Notice of Application is served together with an Information Sheet that sets out the next steps in the proceeding.
Joshua Elcombe
Discipline Counsel Litigation Services Department
Law Society of Ontario,
393 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6
Tel: 416-947-3300 ext. 2249
E-mail: jelcombe@lso.ca
Details of the allegations:
Allegations involving Client A
1. Contrary to rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to serve Client A to the standard of a competent lawyer, in that:
(a) The Respondent failed to take the necessary steps to initiate the client’s proceeding in a diligent and timely manner; and/or
(b) The Respondent failed to investigate and identify relevant issues (such as potential problems) in the client’s matter, or alternatively, the Respondent failed to communicate with and advise the client regarding these issues in a timely and effective manner.
Allegations involving Complainant B
2. Contrary to rules 5.1-6 and/or 7.2-11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to promptly fulfil the terms of an undertaking that he had given on or about April 16, 2018.
Allegations involving Client C
3. Contrary to s. 7 of by-law 9, the Respondent mishandled $2,000 received from Client C by depositing this money into his general account rather than his trust account.
4. Following the end of his retainer in Client C’s matter, the Respondent contravened rule 3.7-9(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to account for all funds of the client and/or failing to refund any remuneration that had not been earned.
Allegations involving Clients D1 and D2
5. The Respondent contravened s. 7 of by-law 9 by depositing funds received from Clients D1 and/or D2 into his general account rather than his trust account, or alternatively, the Respondent withdrew funds from his trust account contrary to s. 9 of by-law 9.
The funds at issue are the following:
(a) $850 received on or about November 10, 2017;
(b) $750 received on or about February 8, 2018; and/or
(c) $950 received on or about July 16, 2018.
6. Contrary to rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to serve Clients D1 and D2 to the standard of a competent lawyer. The Respondent failed to take the necessary steps to initiate the clients’ proceeding in a diligent and timely manner.
7. Following the end of his retainer in Client D1’s and Client D2’s matter, the Respondent contravened rule 3.7-9(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to account for all funds of the client(s) and/or failing to refund any remuneration that had not been earned.
Allegations involving Client E
8. Contrary to rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent
failed to serve Client E (a corporation) to the standard of a competent lawyer, in that:
(a) The Respondent failed to represent the client in a Provincial Offences Act prosecution, including by failing to attend the client’s trial; and/or
(b) The Respondent failed to promptly and effectively respond to communications from the client’s officer.
9. In the alternative to allegation 8, contrary to rules 3.1-2 and/or 3.2-1A.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to effectively clarify the limited scope of his retainer in Client E’s matter.
10. Contrary to rules 3.1-2 and/or 3.5-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent lost the documents that he had received from Client E and/or the disclosure.
Allegations involving Clients F1 and F2
11. Contrary to s. 7 of by-law 9, the Respondent mishandled $850 received from Client F1 by depositing this money into his general account rather than his trust account.
12. Contrary to rule 3.1-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Respondent failed to serve Clients F1 and F2 to the standard of a competent lawyer, in that:
(a) The Respondent failed to perform his services under the retainer in a diligent and timely manner; and/or
(b) The Respondent failed to communicate with Client F1 in a timely and effective manner.
13. Following the end of his retainer in Client F1’s and Client F2’s matter, the Respondent contravened rule 3.7-9(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to account for all funds of the client(s) and/or failing to refund any remuneration that had not been earned.