This story does not begin with an email. It begins with a family law matter that, over the years, has turned into a judicial maze with irreversible human consequences: a father living with autism spectrum disorder and Tourette syndrome deprived of meaningful contact with his young children, despite favorable reports, while parallel proceedings, factual contradictions, and allegations of fraud continued to accumulate.
At the center of the file is a lawyer from the firm Spunt & Carin — David Chun — who resigned from the Barreau du Québec while under investigation by the syndic. That single fact, within a disciplinary system designed to protect the public, raises a fundamental question: what becomes of an investigation when a lawyer leaves the Order at the very moment he is being investigated?
In this particular matter, not only did the disciplinary process lead to no publicly known sanction, but the firm itself was later sued in civil court for alleged fraud and judicial collusion. Meanwhile, the Office of the Syndic declined to open or reopen a formal investigation, and the parties involved were cleared, despite the resignation having occurred in the midst of an active inquiry.
Conflicting Versions, Under Oath
The case takes on an even more troubling dimension when the issue of the former lawyer’s whereabouts becomes central.
As part of a defense handled by counsel retained and paid by the Barreau du Québec’s Professional Liability Insurance Fund — namely Me Jean-François Noiseux — it was asserted that David Chun was residing in China, a position directly affecting the possibility of compelling his testimony or securing his appearance.
It should also be noted that Me Noiseux sent formal demand letters to journalists who were reporting on the matter. Without commenting on the procedural legitimacy of such letters, their effect was to slow or limit public dissemination of information relating to the case. In an already complex file marked by sworn contradictions, a reasonable question arises: is the objective simply to protect a legal position — or to discourage broader public scrutiny?
At the same time, however, a sworn statement filed by an employee of Spunt & Carin affirmed that David Chun had been physically seen in Quebec, at a Walmart in Kirkland, on a specific date, with photographs attached in support.
In other words:
— Counsel retained by the Barreau’s insurance fund maintains that the former lawyer resides abroad;
— The firm concerned files a sworn declaration placing him in Quebec;
— The central witness becomes unavailable when required in proceedings;
— A portion of the court file reportedly disappears from the courthouse registry;
— Multiple injunctions are sought;
— Requests for transcripts of court hearings are denied;
— Access to court records is refused;
— Cross-examinations are denied;
— Requests for reasonable accommodations are refused;
— The production of witnesses is denied.
Despite this accumulation of procedural irregularities and factual inconsistencies, the syndic of the Barreau maintains the decision to close the file.
A Complaint That Changes the Landscape
A significant development occurs later.
After hiring senior lawyers who had previously worked within the Spunt & Carin environment, Me Anne-France Goldwater learned of the alleged facts through professional intermediaries. According to the documented sequence, she personally reported the matter to the Barreau du Québec, transmitting the information in her possession.
Her son, Me Daniel Goldwater, informed of the situation second-hand, subsequently contacted the complainant in the case, believing he was acting anonymously. Metadata from the email later allowed the origin of the communication to be traced. When confronted, he did not deny knowledge of the matter, but clarified that his mother was the source of the information and had already reported it to the Barreau.
This is no longer a scenario involving only a single litigant characterized as persistent or vexatious. It becomes a situation in which one of Quebec’s most high-profile and respected family law attorneys is said to have transmitted to the syndic information described as constituting serious criminal fraud.
And yet, the institutional response remains unchanged.
Guylaine Mallette’s Decision: Closure
The Assistant Syndic, Me Guylaine Mallette, confirmed that a decision had already been rendered in the file, that it had been upheld by the Review Committee, and that the Office of the Syndic was proceeding with closure of the case, refusing any new request for investigation.
In other words, even after:
— the resignation of a lawyer during an active disciplinary investigation;
— civil proceedings alleging fraud and judicial collusion;
— sworn contradictions regarding the location of a key witness;
— the involvement of counsel retained by the Barreau’s insurance fund to defend the firm concerned;
— demand letters sent to journalists covering the matter;
— the alleged disappearance of elements from the court registry;
— repeated procedural refusals throughout the judicial process;
— a complaint submitted by a leading and highly respected Quebec lawyer;
the Barreau maintains the file’s closure.
The Real Issue
This case now extends far beyond the original family dispute. It goes beyond the specific allegations directed at a firm or an individual lawyer.
It raises a broader institutional question: what must occur for a genuine disciplinary investigation to proceed when a member resigns during an inquiry and allegations of serious criminal fraud persist?
When the complainant is no longer only a father separated from his children, but also a prominent figure within Quebec’s legal community — and yet the disciplinary door remains closed — the matter ceases to be personal.
It becomes systemic.
If a complaint of this magnitude, reportedly brought forward by Me Anne-France Goldwater herself, is insufficient to maintain or reopen a disciplinary review in a context so laden with contradictions, then the debate is no longer about a single file.
It becomes a question of public confidence in the very mechanism intended to protect it.
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires