Can a lawyer sue me for having complained to the LSUC ?

[plainNamedDad44]

Hi community...

Is it possible for a lawyer to sue me for having lodged a complaint about them to the LSUC ?

While it was closed with no disciplinary action, the complaint was not frivolous.

thanks

PND

[paco]

Hi community...

Is it possible for a lawyer to sue me for having lodged a complaint about them to the LSUC ?

While it was closed with no disciplinary action, the complaint was not frivolous.

thanks

PND

That's the first time I hear this, anyone is entitled to make a complaint about a lawyer to their governing authority which is LSUC, I don't see anything wrong in that.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

[rockscan]

LSUC has the process to complain. If that lawyer wanted to sue you it would be difficult to win.

Stop worrying about all this noise.

[plainNamedDad44]

Answer to my question.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...mily-1.4575847

[rockscan]

Apples and oranges.

Also:

“But lawyers are not allowed to bill for hours spent responding to complaints, according to the Law Society of Ontario. A legal ethics expert says responding to complaints is a cost of doing business and a lawyer's professional obligation, and clients shouldn't be "punished" for asking the law society to investigate a potential problem.”

[tunnelight]

No, otherwise people wouldn't speak up due to fear of being sued.

Thanks for the CBC link.

[OrleansLawyer]

Is it possible for a lawyer to sue me for having lodged a complaint about them to the LSUC ?

No, they cannot.

[kate331]

I hope this isn't the lawyer that is representing you at your trial??? Did the trial get delay or is it still on?

[Kinso]

You (and everyone else) canbe sued for anything. Anyone can issue a Statement of Claim asking for damages or equitable relief, no matter how baseless the claim.

Can you be sued successfully for making a complaint? Highly unlikely.

[plainNamedDad44]

No, they cannot.

Thank you OL.

[plainNamedDad44]

No, they cannot.

Thanks OL, can you provide info/rational to substantiate ?

[plainNamedDad44]

https://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/def...ation-lawsuit/

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130

Qualified privilege attaches to the occasion upon which the communication is made, and not to the communication itself. The legal effect of the defence of qualified privilege is to rebut the inference, which normally arises from the publication of defamatory words, that they were spoken with malice. Where the occasion is shown to be privileged, the bona fides of the defendant is presumed and the defendant is free to publish, with impunity, remarks which may be defamatory and untrue about the plaintiff. The privilege is not absolute, however, and can be defeated if the dominant motive for publishing the statement is actual or express malice. Malice is commonly understood, in the popular sense, as spite or ill‑will. However, it also includes any indirect motive or ulterior purpose that conflicts with the sense of duty or the mutual interest which the occasion created. Malice may also be established by showing that the defendant spoke dishonestly, or in knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Qualified privilege may also be defeated when the limits of the duty or interest have been exceeded. The fact that an occasion is privileged does not necessarily protect all that is said or written on that occasion. The information communicated must be reasonably appropriate in the context of the circumstances existing on the occasion when that information was given.

[rockscan]

You could always contact the lsuc about it to determine the conditions. Im sure they have a practice rule about retaliation for a complaint. Plus Im sure judges look down on members who sue someone who questioned their behaviour.

All of that aside, you really need to stop worrying and move on. Im sure this lawyer has better things to do than sue for a complaint to their governing body.

[plainNamedDad44]

https://defamationandrisklawblog.ahb...ute-privilege/

[rockscan]

Did you publish your complaint? Did you post publicly “LAWYER JOHN SMITH IS A JERK AND SHOULDN’T PRACTICE LAW”? Did you bang a drum while wearing a sign? If you didn’t publicly post your complaint then you are protected by the privacy of your complaint.

This link you posted is about an administrative body not a management body and it outlines clearly that defamation is because the complaint was of a public nature.

The society has a complaint mechanism so they can police their members accordingly. Its similar to medical practitioners. They take an oath and are governed by that oath in accordance to their profession. The society would not allow for complaints of professional misconduct if they allowed their members to take retaliatory action against the practitioner.

Again, you are focusing on something that isn’t worth your energy. You just settled a six year battle. Move on!