Additional Information: The paralegal has worked as a sole practitioner and has no prior discipline history. The investigator's name for all three investigations is [use your instructor's name]. By the time of the hearing, Mr. Clarke has satisfied all investigative requests other than producing required books and records. History of the Investigation On June 10, Y-3, the investigator requested representations, information, and documents in the first investigation from Mr. Clarke regarding client TS, including the most recent trust bank statement, trust bank reconciliation and comparison, and client trust listing Mr. Clarke had prepared, client trust ledgers for the transaction(s) under investigation and the supporting documentation (including but not limited to deposit slips, cancelled cheques and bank statements) to support each transaction listed thereon. On July 17, Y-3, Mr. Clarke sent 11 emails to the investigator providing information and documents. The investigator advised that they would interview the complainant, review Mr. Clarke's responding emails and get back to him. On June 3, Y-2, the investigator requested representations, information, and documents in the second investigation from Mr. Clarke, including the same types of accounting documents for client IM as had previously been requested for client TS. On June 8, Y-2, Mr. Clarke provided partial representations and requested an extension of the time to respond from July 2 to July 20, or preferably August 20. The investigator conditionally agreed to extend the deadline to July 20, Y-2. On July 5, Y-2, the investigator requested representations, information, and documents in the third investigation from Mr. Clarke, including the same type of accounting documents for client UP as had previously been requested for clients TS and IM. Mr. Clarke promptly engaged with the investigator and sought extensions of the time to respond.

On July 6, Y-2, Mr. Clarke and the investigator spoke by telephone. Mr. Clarke had left a message that she was unable to meet the deadline to respond as his books and records were not in proper format. In the call, Mr. Clarke acknowledged his books and records were not properly maintained. The investigator advised that the Law Society would have to freeze her trust account in the absence of proper books and records. On July 12, Y-2, the investigator met with Mr. Clarke at her home. Mr. Clarke confirmed that he was: not maintaining his records in accordance with the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c. L.8 or the by- laws; unable to accurately reconcile his trust account; unable to produce an accurate client trust ledger; unable to identify or explain a surplus of $7,000 in his trust account; of the belief that he could bring his records current within a reasonable time frame as he had only 13 clients, seven of whom had trust balances; and willing to sign a voluntary freeze of his trust account in the interim while he reconstructed his records. On January 19, Y0, the investigator wrote to Mr. Clarke, advising that the following investigative items/inquiries remained outstanding: a. trust bank cheques and enclosures (certified cheques, bank drafts, returned items, and so on.) for the period January 2016-present; and b. explanation and correction of all the adjusting entries noted on Mr. Clarke's trust reconciliations for the period January 2016-present.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) has brought an application alleging that John Clarke, a paralegal, failed to maintain books and records as required by By-law 9. The LSO also asserted that the paralegal engaged in professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with and respond to a Law Society investigation.

The application stems from three complaints the LSO received from Mr. Clarke's clients and from two opposing lawyers, which caused the LSO to conduct investigations.

Fact Situation

First Investigation - Case Number 2018-946

The Law Society received a complaint from Mr. Clarke's former client TS on April 5, Y-4. Based on the

information received from TS, an investigation was instructed on May 9, Y-3 into whether Mr. Clarke

may have:

mishandled/misappropriated client funds;

behaved dishonourably by including improper term(s) in his retainer agreement;

acted in a conflict of interest and/or behaved dishonourably by asking his client to sign a power

of attorney with improper term(s) and/or without recommending that his client obtain

independent legal advice;

failed to provide the client with her original documents; and

failed to preserve client property.

Second Investigation-Case Number 2019-32

The Law Society received a complaint from Mr. Clarke's former client IM on November 29, Y-4. Based

on the information received from IM, an investigation was instructed on April 17, Y-3 into whether Mr.

Clarke may have:

had his client sign improper documents;

engaged in improper advertising/failed to provide services as advertised;

misled his client;

failed to account to his client;

failed to follow client instructions;

acted without client instructions; and

failed to serve his client.

Third Investigation-Case Number 2020-547

On July 4, Y-2, the Law Society received a complaint from two lawyers representing opposing parties in

a labour matter of Mr. Clarke's client UP. Based on the information received, an investigation was

instructed on July 12, Y-2 into whether Mr. Clarke may have:

had his client sign an improper document; and

acted in a conflict of interest by preferring his own interests to the interests of her client.

I am acting as the defence of Mr.Clarke i need an Affidavit prepared.