This complaint focuses on four issues, namely, (1) the unethical barter concerning the

provision of legal services concluded between me and Mr. Renick, (2) giving testimony in
breach of the ethical rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, (3) professional misconducts
concerning a mortgage document signed by me, and (4) using condential information
provided by me for purposes different than the purposes for which the information have been
provided for.

The unethical barter concerning the provision of legal services concluded between me and
Mr. Renick

As you can see from the attached documents, I concluded a lease agreement with Mr.
Renick. However, at some point of time, Mr. Renick has informed me that he was not able to
pay the rent. He proposed to provide me with legal services in exchange for the rent due to
me. Thus, I was forced to become his client.

It is blatantly clear that it is not ethical and legal to provide legal services in exchange for
tenancy. Such a transaction carries with it many potential conicts and other ethical pitfalls.
Firstly, the provision of legal services in exchange for tenancy infringes Article 2.04 (3) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct published by the Law Society of Upper Canada (hereinafter,
referred to as the Rules of Professional Conduct). Article 2.04 (3) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct states that A lawyer shall not act or continue to act in a matter when
there is or is likely to be a conicting interest unless, after disclosure adequate to make an
informed decision, the client or prospective client consents. In this regard, I would like to
note that Mr. Renick did not make an adequate disclosure allowing me to know the risks
associated with the conicting interests between me and Mr. Renick.

A clear indication that a provision of legal services in exchange for tenancy is regarded as
conicting interest is the following sentence published by the Law Society of Upper Canada
as a commentary of Article 2.04: For example, there could be a conict of interest if a lawyer,
or a family member, or a law partner had a personal nancial interest in the clients affairs or
in the matter in which the lawyer is requested to act for the client, such as a partnership
interest in some joint business venture with the client. A Financial Interest is anything of
monetary value including rents.

It should be also that the provision of legal services in exchange of tenancy involves
improper solicitation of business. A lawyer who accepts services will have a serious advantage
over the other lawyers. Moreover, the services received by the lawyer will not be subject to
any taxes. Obviously, this is a tax evasion.

Giving a testimony in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of
Upper Canada

Pursuant to Article 2.03 of the Rules of Professional Conduct published by the Law Society
of Upper Canada, a lawyer at all times shall hold in strict condence all information
concerning the business and affairs of the client acquired in the course of the professional
relationship and shall not divulge any such information unless expressly or impliedly
authorized by the client or required by law to do so. Mr. Renick has infringed Article 2.03 of
the Rules of Professional Conduct published by the Law Society of Upper Canada because,
during legal procedures against me, he disclosed information obtained in the course of our
professional relationship.

Professional misconducts concerning a mortgage document signed by me

As a notary, Mr. Renick had the obligation to verify the signatures in a document
concerning the close of a mortgage. Later, one of the signatures in the document became a
subject of criminal proceedings. Mr. Renick veried the signatures. However, he did two
professional misconducts, namely, (1) he did not conduct a check on whether or not I had the
ownership of the house and (2) he testied in criminal proceedings that a signature notarized
by him was a forgery.
It should be noted that the rst misconduct had a serious consequences on me. The reason
is that the document concerning the close of the mortgage was a subject of criminal
proceedings. In the criminal proceedings, it was claimed that I closed the mortgage without
having the ownership of the house. Consequently, if Mr. Renick conducted a check on
whether or not I had the ownership of the house, I would have avoided the criminal
proceedings.

In relation to the second misconduct, the following logical question arises from the fact that
Mr. Renick testied that a signature notarized by him was forged: How can a lawyer who
notarized a signature in a document claim that that the signature was forged? Obviously,
there is a serious contradiction between the testimony of Mr. Renick and the fact that he
himself notarized the signature in the document.

I would like to request your venerable institution to investigate the rst and the second
professional misconducts and, if necessary, take disciplinary measures against Mr. Renick.


Using condential information provided by me for purposes different that the purposes
for which the information have been provided for.

Duringz my business relationship with Mr. Renick, he assisted me with resolving many
issues. Surprisingly, he used the information provided by me in relation to these issues in
order to terminate his tenancy relationship with me. Below, you can nd an excerpt from an
email sent to me by Mr. Renick on March 2010, 2007.

"JP, I can't believe you are actually trying to create a paper trail that
would place the blame for this unbearable situation on Michelle or myself.
It is one of the most underhanded things I have ever witnessed from you.
I guess I should not be surprised. I have not witnessed one successful long
business relationship with you. You fought with your elevator installation
people, your general contractor, the person I sent over to install computer
cable, Dan Turner, the Essex Voice, etc. The list just goes on and on. In
light of all of the above, I will be vacating these premises at my earliest
opportunity.

In this regard, I would like to note that Article 2.03 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
published by the Law Society of Upper Canada states that:

A lawyer at all times shall hold in strict condence all
information concerning the business and affairs of the client
acquired in the course of the professional relationship and shall
not divulge any such information unless expressly or impliedly
authorized by the client or required by law to do so.

Mr. Renick infringed Article 2.03 of the Rules of Professional Conduct because he used the
information obtained in the course of our relationship (e.g. information about Dan Turner, the
Essex Voice, etc.) for his own benet, namely, the tenancy relationship between Mr. Renick
and me. This is a serious infringement of the Rules of Professional Conduct.