The FARPBQ: An Institutionalized Conflict of Interest Since 2020?

The Example Everyone Understands

Your car insurance company refuses to compensate you after an accident. Frustrating — but you can contest, switch insurers, or go before an independent tribunal.

Now imagine that your insurer is run by the same person as the dealership that sold you the defective vehicle. When you file a claim, it is that same person who decides whether the defect exists. If they say no — and they say no in the vast majority of cases — your claim is closed. And while you fight, they pay the dealership's legal fees to defend against you.

Where would you go to complain? To the same person.

This is precisely the structure that governs lawyers' professional liability in Québec since April 1, 2020.

What the Official Documents Reveal

This is not a theory. It is written in black and white on the FARPBQ's own website:

"Until March 31, 2020, the Insurance Fund was administered by a board of directors independent from that of the professional order. Since April 1, 2020 (…) the board of directors of the Barreau du Québec exercises the functions and powers relating to the Bar's insurance affairs."

In other words: before 2020, the FARPBQ had its own independent board. That is no longer the case. For the past five years, the same board of directors has simultaneously overseen:

• The Barreau du Québec — which regulates its approximately 30,000 lawyer members
• The FARPBQ — which handles claims filed against those same lawyers
• The Office of the Syndic — which investigates those same lawyers, and whose decisions are protected by legal immunity for acts carried out in good faith. Concretely, this means the Syndic is shielded from any lawsuit for investigation decisions or file closures, even when, in the facts reported across multiple cases, such closure is subsequently invoked by the FARPBQ to refuse compensation. There is no automatic appeal mechanism: the victim can request a review from the complaints review committee, but that committee also falls under the Bar.
• The Indemnity Fund — a mechanism separate from the FARPBQ, reserved specifically for cases where a lawyer has misappropriated a client's funds (theft or misuse). It does not cover professional errors or representation failures — those fall under the FARPBQ. Yet what the official texts confirm, and few victims know: it is the Bar's board of directors that ultimately decides on Indemnity Fund claims — not an independent committee. And this Fund generally refuses to act until the Syndic has concluded its investigation. Since the Syndic can close a file without consequence, the Indemnity Fund becomes, in practice, yet another locked door.

This is not fraud. It is something more subtle — and for victims, often more devastating: a structural conflict of interest, made possible by a quiet legislative change in 2020, met with complete public indifference.

The FARPBQ's Mission — Reading Between the Lines

The FARPBQ's official mission, as stated in its own documents, is clear:

"To insure, on a non-profit and long-term basis, the professional liability of the members of the Barreau du Québec."

Not: to protect victims of professional misconduct. Not: to compensate harmed clients. To insure its members. That is: to manage the financial risk for lawyers — not necessarily for their clients.

And the FARPBQ confirms it on its own training page: "the vast majority of files submitted to the Insurance Fund are closed in the absence of professional liability." The FARPBQ does not publish the exact claim rejection rate in its publicly available reports — an opacity that, on its own, deserves to be questioned. What exact proportion of claims result in compensation? The question remains open, and both the Fund and the Bar should answer it publicly. In an era where AI-powered analytics can process and audit insurance data with unprecedented transparency — where regulators in the United States are already deploying standardized AI evaluation tools to assess how insurers handle claims — the FARPBQ's refusal to publish basic outcome statistics looks less like discretion and more like a deliberate blind spot.

How It Actually Works — The Loop

Here is what a citizen who believes they have been harmed by their lawyer goes through:

Step 1 — The Syndic: You file a complaint with the Office of the Syndic. It investigates for months, sometimes over a year. It can close the file at any time, with no automatic appeal. And it does so with impunity: the Syndic benefits from legal immunity under the Code of Professions for acts carried out in good faith in the exercise of its functions. In practice, this means it is shielded from any lawsuit for its investigation or closure decisions — even when, in the facts reported across multiple cases, such closure is subsequently invoked to refuse compensation by the FARPBQ. You can request a review from the review committee, but that committee only has advisory power and falls under the same Bar.

Step 2 — The FARPBQ: You turn to the Insurance Fund. It responds that there is no evidence that a fault was committed — and refers you back to the Syndic.

Step 3 — The Indemnity Fund: If your lawyer misappropriated your funds (and only in that case), you can turn to the Indemnity Fund. But it responds that it is waiting for the Syndic's investigation to conclude — the same investigation that can be closed at any time without public justification. And ultimately, it is the Bar's board of directors that makes the final decision.

Result: Three doors. Three referrals. One single master. And if you decide to sue the offending lawyer in civil court — your only real recourse — the FARPBQ pays for the lawyer's defence against you.

You are alone, without resources, fighting a system that funds your opponent. And the Syndic, protected by immunity, answers to no one for the decision that started it all. But in 2026, "alone" no longer means "unarmed": a growing number of unrepresented citizens are turning to generative AI tools to draft complaints, structure legal arguments, and navigate institutional processes that were once impenetrable without a lawyer. The playing field is beginning to shift — slowly, but perceptibly.

Two Real Cases. Same System. Same Wall.

This is not theoretical. Two cases documented by Justice-Quebec.ca illustrate this mechanism.

Monsieur G. — a disabled citizen whose lawyer was officially disbarred for theft — received a letter from the FARPBQ in February 2026 stating that there was "no evidence that a fault was committed." A lawyer disbarred for theft. A letter saying the fault cannot be proven. The Indemnity Fund — the one specifically designed for cases of fund misappropriation, and whose claims are ultimately decided by the Bar's board of directors — is waiting for the Syndic to conclude. The Syndic is still investigating — eight months after the disbarment. Three institutions. One board of directors. Zero compensation.

Julien — an autistic father separated from his twins for four years — experienced an even more complex version of this same system. At the heart of his case: Me David Chun, a lawyer at the firm Spunt & Carin in Westmount, who resigned from the Bar on February 5, 2025 — in the middle of a disciplinary investigation by the Office of the Syndic. The Office of the Syndic closed the file. Despite this, Me Anne-France Goldwater reportedly submitted a formal complaint to the Bar alleging "serious criminal fraud" and a "cover-up." The response from the Office of the Syndic: "a decision has been rendered... this file is closed." The FARPBQ, meanwhile, funds the defence of the firm in question — and has sent cease-and-desist letters to journalists covering the case. Julien's twins are now 4 years old.

Why Are the Premiums So Low?

Québec has the lowest professional insurance premium in Canada: $750 per lawyer since April 2025, compared to approximately $1,800 + taxes in British Columbia and $3,250 in Ontario with LawPRO.

The legitimate question: are premiums low because Québec lawyers make fewer mistakes — or because claims rarely succeed?

An insurer pays less when its processes are structured to minimize payouts. The average cost per claim jumped by over 16% in two years, forcing a premium increase from $700 to $750. Mistakes are costing more. But victims are still just as alone. And outside this closed ecosystem, the insurance industry is being reshaped by a force that could change everything: artificial intelligence is enabling citizens to file better-documented, more legally precise claims — often without a lawyer. Across North America, AI-assisted appeals of insurance denials are already showing significantly higher success rates. If that wave reaches professional liability insurance in Québec, the FARPBQ's low premiums may be the first casualty of a system that was never designed to withstand informed claimants.

A Necessary Nuance

Everything described above regarding governance structure is factually documented. What is more a matter of interpretation is the conclusion drawn from it: that this consolidation necessarily causes systematic harm to victims. It is a reasonable inference, but the direct causal link between the structure and individual outcomes is harder to formally prove. The Bar could argue that the same board makes different decisions depending on whether it acts as regulator or as insurer.

But let us be clear: in any other sector — banking, medical, financial — a structural conflict of interest of this magnitude would, at the very least, trigger an investigation by the Auditor General or a parliamentary inquiry. The fact that this has not happened here speaks volumes about the Bar's unique status within Québec's institutional ecosystem. It is also worth noting that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the United States has already begun deploying AI governance frameworks and evaluation tools specifically designed to ensure transparency and fairness in how insurers process claims. The question for Québec is not whether such oversight is possible — it is why nothing remotely comparable exists for the FARPBQ.

The Question Nobody Is Asking

The Barreau du Québec states that its mission is "to ensure the protection of the public" — as enshrined in the Code of Professions. But since 2020, one single board of directors holds four roles: it represents the lawyers, administers their insurance, appoints the Syndic who investigates them with immunity, and ultimately decides whether their victims will be compensated. Four roles. One board.

This is not an accusation. It is a legitimate institutional question that Québec legislators should be asking — especially now that the tools exist, both regulatory and technological, to audit these systems with a level of precision that was unthinkable five years ago.

Protect the public. Or protect its members. Both at once, with the same board of directors and an immunized Syndic — is that truly possible?

Citizen Files — Learn More

• "A Person Like You Doesn't Deserve to Have Children" — An Autistic Father Separated from His Children
• The Spunt & Carin Affair: An Autistic Father Separated from His Twins, a Ghost Lawyer, and Silent Institutions
• Another Disbarred Lawyer, Another Forgotten Victim: The Labyrinth of Indifference at the Barreau du Québec

If You Are the Victim of a Lawyer's Professional Misconduct

Recourses exist but require careful navigation between multiple bodies: Office of the Syndic for disciplinary complaints, FARPBQ for civil claims, Indemnity Fund for misappropriation of funds. The Justice-Quebec.ca guide on self-representation documents how to use the available tools to navigate this system on your own — because, more often than not, you will be on your own. But increasingly, you will not be without intelligence: AI-powered legal assistants are making it possible to analyze denial letters, identify procedural errors, and draft responses with a rigour that was once the exclusive domain of lawyers.

Sources: FARPBQ, official presentation and mission — FARPBQ, training and claims statistics — Barreau du Québec, mission and public protection — Barreau du Québec, role and organization — Code of Professions of Québec — Office of the Syndic — Regulation respecting the Indemnity Fund, RLRQ c B-1, r 11.1 — Bar resignation notice — Spunt & Carin — AMF — Justice-Quebec.ca, Julien / Spunt & Carin file — Justice-Quebec.ca, Monsieur G. file — Justice-Quebec.ca, self-representation guide.

This site does not provide legal advice. All statements in this article are based on publicly available official documents. Allegations concerning individual cases are supported by court documents filed under dockets 705-17-011918-255 and 705-17-012105-258, correspondence from the Office of the Syndic, and documentary evidence cited in previous Justice-Quebec.ca articles. All persons mentioned are presumed innocent.