Me Michel Lachance: The Lawyer Under Syndic Investigation for Over a Year — and the Missing Link in the Spunt & Carin Affair

efore addressing the current facts, it is essential to recall that Me Lachance is no stranger to the Barreau's disciplinary bodies.

In 2010, the Disciplinary Council found him guilty of breaches of his duties of competence, diligence and probity, and of wilful blindness, for having executed the fraudulent sale of a property on behalf of a representative acting without the owner's knowledge — ultimately causing the owner's bankruptcy. A fine of $2,000 was imposed in 2011. Most revealing: the Council noted at the time that the lawyer stated he would act the same way again if given the chance.

Then in December 2023, Me Lachance pleaded guilty to three new disciplinary charges: consenting to a court application without his client's mandate in a family law matter, filing a declaration with the Registraire des entreprises without authorization, and misleading the opposing party. The Council imposed a total fine of $7,500. The disciplinary decision notes that these acts occurred when he had accumulated 37 years of practice — experience that "should have led him to exercise greater rigour."

This is therefore not a lawyer without a track record who is facing a new syndic investigation. This is a lawyer with an established disciplinary file, sanctioned three times over fifteen years, now at the centre of a far more serious matter.

As far back as 1998, a first complainant had attempted to file a private complaint against Me Lachance before the Disciplinary Committee — a matter that ended in withdrawal, with the complainant stating he lacked "the resources and energy" to continue the process. That same complainant had reported receiving a phone call and a formal notice from the lawyer following his complaint — pressure that, the Committee noted, led him to withdraw.

What the Barreau Itself Says

On December 11, 2024, deputy syndic Me Guylaine Mallette sent an official letter to Me Michel Lachance. The document, obtained and filed in the record, confirms the opening of a formal disciplinary investigation under file number 00283253-MAL.

The list of complaints made by Julien is damning. During his mandate, Me Lachance allegedly:

• failed to respond to his client's communications;
• neglected to inform him of hearing dates;
• refused to report on the status of his file;
• invoked false laws before his client;
• barred his own client from the courtroom when he was physically present.

But there is more. The complaints extend to acts of far greater severity: collusion, corruption, breach of trust, discrimination and serious threats, as well as violations of Section 10 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms — the provision protecting against discrimination based on disability, among other grounds.

After ceasing to represent him, Me Lachance allegedly also failed to return the client's file and transmitted confidential information to the opposing party.

The Barreau du Québec itself summarizes the alleged direct consequence in its letter: "M. [Julien] states that your conduct caused him to lose access to his children and suffer financial losses."

These words come from an official letter of the Bureau du syndic — not a blog post, not a social media comment. From a disciplinary institution.

The Central Issue: What the Client Never Saw

Perhaps the most disturbing detail in this affair is the following: Julien alleges that hearings took place without his knowledge, and that his own lawyer concealed their existence from him — or barred him from the room when he showed up.

This pattern is not without precedent. In the 2023 disciplinary decision, the Disciplinary Council had already found that Me Lachance consented to a pivotal court application in a family matter — the appointment of a lawyer for the child — without informing his own client or obtaining his authorization. The client only learned of the judgment after the fact.

In Julien's case, the opposing counsel in those same family proceedings was Me David Chun, of Spunt & Carin — the same Me Chun who has since resigned from the Barreau in the middle of a disciplinary investigation, whose whereabouts are the subject of two contradictory sworn statements, and whose conduct has been characterized as a "serious criminal fraud" by Me Daniel Goldwater.

The question that follows is direct: if a lawyer holds hearings hidden from his own client, and the opposing counsel is at the centre of allegations of fabrication of evidence and judicial collusion — what took place in those courtrooms in the absence of the very person being represented?

The Request for Documents: A Wall

In April 2025, Julien attempted to answer that question the only way possible: by formally requesting from Me Lachance the full record of communications exchanged between him and Me David Chun during the mandate.

Me Lachance's response, documented in exchanges obtained by Justice-Quebec.ca, consists of two short sentences:

"Don't insist. We will wait for the deputy syndic's opinion. And don't try to contact me again. I've blocked your address."

Julien had methodically reminded him of his rights: Article 80 of the Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers requires every lawyer to return to a former client the documents and property to which they are entitled. This right exists independently of any ongoing disciplinary investigation. It is absolute.

Me Lachance did not contest this argument on the merits. He blocked his former client.

It is worth noting that this pattern of pressure toward a complainant is not new: as early as 1998, the Disciplinary Committee documented that a complainant had withdrawn his private complaint against Me Lachance after receiving a phone call and a formal notice from him.

Over a Year of Investigation, and Silence

The Bureau du syndic's letter dates from December 11, 2024. It is now February 2026 — more than fourteen months since the investigation was opened, with no known public decision, no announced sanction, and no official closure of the file.

This delay takes on particular significance in the context of the Spunt & Carin affair. In that same matter, the Bureau du syndic closed the file on Me David Chun despite a complaint from Me Anne-France Goldwater, despite a fundamental factual error admitted in writing by Me Mallette herself, and despite allegations of "serious criminal fraud" by Me Daniel Goldwater.

On one side, a file closed too quickly. On the other, a file left open for over a year with no resolution in sight. In both cases, the same Bureau du syndic. In both cases, the same father cut off from his children.

The Full Picture

Taken together, the documented elements paint a coherent and deeply troubling portrait.

Julien, an autistic father, is represented in family proceedings by Me Michel Lachance — a lawyer who already carries three disciplinary decisions on his record over fifteen years. His opposing counsel is Me David Chun, of Spunt & Carin. Hearings allegedly take place without the client's knowledge — a pattern that mirrors exactly what the Disciplinary Council had already reproached Me Lachance for in a separate 2023 family matter. His own lawyer allegedly bars him from the courtroom. Psychosocial reports favourable to Julien allegedly never reach the tribunals — concealed, according to his allegations, by Me Lachance himself. At the end of the process, he loses access to his children.

Me Chun resigns from the Barreau mid-investigation. Me Lachance is himself under investigation since December 2024. The communications between the two lawyers — those that could reveal what was discussed outside the official record — remain inaccessible. Me Lachance has blocked his former client.

No decision. No sanction. No transparency.

A Matter of Public Interest

Justice-Quebec.ca makes no claim as to anyone's guilt. That role belongs to the courts and to the competent disciplinary bodies. All allegations reported here are drawn from official documents filed in the record — the Bureau du syndic's letter, email exchanges produced in the proceedings, and disciplinary decisions published on CanLII — and none have been the subject of final judicial conclusions. Me Michel Lachance benefits from the presumption of innocence.

But when a lawyer carries an established disciplinary history, has been under syndic investigation for over a year on some of the most serious allegations that can be levelled against a member of the Bar, refuses his former client access to communications that could shed light on a possible collusion with opposing counsel — and when that same former client remains separated from his children — the issue goes far beyond the disciplinary framework.

It strikes at the confidence every citizen is entitled to place in the system that is supposed to protect them.

Reference documents: Letter from the Bureau du syndic, Me Guylaine Mallette, December 11, 2024, file 00283253-MAL — Email exchanges between Julien and Me Michel Lachance, April 21, 2025 — Disciplinary decision 2010 QCCDBQ 99 — Disciplinary decision 2023 QCCDBQ 86 — Disciplinary Committee decision, file 06-97-01211, May 4, 1998 — Court files 705-17-011918-255 and 705-17-012105-258. All persons mentioned benefit from the presumption of innocence.