“The Barreau Didn’t Do Its Job” — Daniel Goldwater

This leads to several unavoidable questions: what happens to an investigation when a lawyer resigns in the midst of the process?
Does the resignation put an end to the examination of the facts?
Is the disciplinary analysis pursued nonetheless?
Is the public informed of any conclusions?

In the file reviewed by Justice-Quebec.ca, no public disciplinary measure appears to have resulted from this sequence of events.

Serious Allegations and an Official Response

The elements raised include:

• A resignation during an ongoing investigation.

• Contradictory sworn statements filed in court.

• Written exchanges in which Daniel Goldwater refers to acts he describes as “serious criminal fraud.”

• Repeated requests for reconsideration before the disciplinary authorities.

On December 23, 2025, a new request for an investigation concerning Mr. Chun was submitted, on the grounds that information obtained from a member of the Barreau du Québec suggested acts constituting serious criminal fraud and that the Barreau had not treated the matter with the required seriousness.

The official response from the Office of the Syndic, signed by Me Guylaine Mallette, Assistant Syndic, reads as follows:

“However, a decision was rendered in the file in which you requested an investigation from our office, and that decision was confirmed by the Review Committee of the Barreau du Québec.

Accordingly, we are proceeding with the closure of this file without authorizing you to submit such a request for investigation to our office.”

Thus, despite the elements invoked — including the resignation during the investigation and the allegations put forward by Daniel Goldwater — the Barreau maintained the closure of the file and refused any further reconsideration.

Justice-Quebec.ca does not claim to determine the validity of the accusations nor to substitute its judgment for that of the competent authorities. However, the apparent absence of a formal reopening raises a legitimate question: were the disciplinary mechanisms fully exercised?

The Role of the Barreau: Protecting the Public or Its Members?

The primary mandate of the Barreau du Québec is the protection of the public. It also administers a professional liability insurance fund intended to compensate victims of professional errors.

In a case where a member resigns during an investigation, where serious allegations are raised by an experienced lawyer, where factual contradictions are submitted under oath, and where no public disciplinary measure appears to have been taken, the issue extends beyond a simple individual dispute.

Is the Barreau sometimes placed in an institutional tension between protecting the public, safeguarding the integrity of the profession, and managing its own systemic responsibility?

This is not an assertion of a conflict of interest, but rather a question of public interest.

Institutional Trust at Stake

Public confidence in disciplinary institutions rests on transparency and consistency.

When a professional under investigation leaves the order during the process, the public is entitled to understand whether the investigation continues, whether conclusions were reached, and whether any misconduct was identified.

In the present case, unanswered questions remain.

“Le Barreau n’a pas fait sa job”
— Daniel Goldwater

This statement remains an allegation. Yet it now fuels a broader discussion about the effectiveness of disciplinary mechanisms and the system’s ability to protect citizens when institutional issues arise.

Justice-Quebec.ca will continue its analysis of professional oversight mechanisms and the ethical obligations applicable in this matter.