I need a help me to doing an opening statement for the Mock Conference.

Scenario and notes:

Theresa Clarke sent the first email on October 17, YR-01 requiring that the following information be provided by November 8, YR-01:

written representations addressing each issue;

for the period of April to December YR-00:

general and trust account bank statements;

trust ledger;

general ledger; and

receipts and disbursement journals with supporting documents;

explanation of the role and contact information for the complainant, X;

explanation of where and how funds were used;

evidence of investment;

explanation of how any repayments were made to the complainant, X; and

any additional supporting documents that might assist in the investigation.

On November 8, YR-01 Mr. Angel left Ms. Clarke a voice message. The two subsequently spoke and Mr. Angel sent a follow-up e-mail requesting a two-week extension to provide a "comprehensive response." Ms. Clarke extended the deadline to November 22.

No response was received. Mr. Clarke sent a further e-mail on November 26 reminding Mr. Angel of his obligation under Rule 9.01(1) of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (the Rules) to reply promptly and completely. She suggested that Mr. Angel seek legal advice and made a "second demand" for the requested information by December 6.

Ms. Clarke received a phone call from Ben Gauthier, a paralegal whom Mr. Angel had contacted about representing him. Ms. Clarke informed Mr. Gauthier of the new deadline and he stated that this should be enough time to provide everything requested.

Mr. Gauthier wrote Ms. Clarke on December 6. He confirmed that he had been retained and that he expected to be in a position to provide all of the required information by December 12, YR-01 with the exception of ledgers and journals. He indicated that Mr. Angel had retained a new accounting service to review these records.

No information was provided in December. On January 30, YR-02, Ms. Clarke wrote Mr. Gauthier a "third demand letter." She stated that unless she received a full response by February 7, she would refer the matter of his client's compliance for possible disciplinary proceedings. No reply was received.

On March 20, YR-02 Ms. Clarke made an unannounced visit to the business address that Mr. Angel had on file with the Law Society. Neighbors advised her that Mr. Angel had moved months earlier with all his belongings. Ms. Clarke then went to the home address that Mr. Angel had on file with the Law Society. Building security advised her that Mr. Angel was not living there anymore. She telephoned Hugh Jackman, a lawyer representing Mr. Angel in a separate case with the Law Society and related civil proceedings. She left a voice message. Ms. Clarke sent e-mails to both Mr. Jackman and Mr. Angel stating that address information on file with the Law Society was not accurate and she was unable to locate Mr. Angel's files, books and records. They were urgently requested to provide current business and home mailing addresses, contact information and the present location of Mr. Angel's records. No response was received. However, less than a half-hour after the e-mails were sent, changes were made to Mr. Angel's home and business information on file with the Law Society using online web access. On March 21 Ms. Clarke made an unannounced visit to the newly-filed business address. Mr. Angel was not present, but she was able to confirm that he was renting space at that location. Ms. Clarke contacted Mr. Angel by phone and asked that he meet her at his office. Mr. Angel refused stating that he was in court all that day and the next. Ms. Clarke sent a letter by e-mail to both Mr. Jackman and Mr. Angel, which was also delivered to Mr. Angel's new business address by courier. She asked for details concerning the court matters that he said made it impossible for him to meet.

Ms. Clarke also wrote that because of continued non-co-operation over several months, Mr. Angel was now receiving an "urgent demand" for production of "all" of the required documents by March 26, YR-02. He was warned that if he failed to do so, the matter would be submitted for authorization of a summary hearing.

At 4:19 p.m. on March 21, Mr. Gauthier sent an e-mail to Ms. Clarke. He acknowledged her correspondence. He stated that he would be meeting Mr. Angel on March 26 to review matters. Mr. Gauthier wrote: "We will be providing a complete response to each request no later than Tuesday April 2, YR-02. You have been most patient. No further request for additional time will be forthcoming." Ms. Clarke replied the same day, pointing out that most of the outstanding documents should be on hand, easily available online or already prepared. She asked for "reason(s) why all these documents could not and have not been provided earlier; and why Mr. Angel would not be able to meet the March 26, YR-02 deadline that LSO provided after Mr. Angel failed to provide the documents despite several extensions (since October YR-01)."

The promised documentation was not received on April 2. Rather, Mr. Gauthier sent a letter stating that he would be in a position to provide a complete response to the complaint by the end of business on April 4 and the next day provide trust and operating account statements and reconciliations.

Mr. Gauthier spoke to Ms. Clarke by telephone on April 4. For the first time, he raised questions concerning the Law Society's jurisdiction to pursue the complaint because it did not arise from a client relationship. Mr. Gauthier asked if they were agreed on that characterization. Ms. Clarke stated that she would need the requested information to determine the nature of the relationship but also noted that paralegals had a responsibility to behave even in private affairs. Mr. Gauthier stated that he would be sending the required financial information that day, to be followed by a "list of admissions" by April 10. He once again committed to provide everything requested.

Mr. Gauthier followed up with an e-mail. It had various attachments that were described as trust account statements, trust account reconciliation, list of accounts and operating account statements.

Ms. Clarke responded on April 9 noting that the financial documents produced did not fulfill her request. In particular, the Paralegal had provided transactional histories rather than actual statements bearing images of instruments received and disbursed. As well, she noted that she had still not received the majority of the information requested.

On April 11 Mr. Gauthier sent a further letter in which he:

stated that the transaction histories were "fully responsive to your request. Mr. Angel does not have trust account statements. He did not download these when his trust account was (in) operation, and he does not have access now that the trust account is closed";

acknowledged that Mr. Angel did not maintain a general ledger and a receipts and disbursements journal as required under Law Society By-laws;

indicated that Mr. Angel would make another attempt to obtain complete statements from his bank and was willing to give written authorization for Ms. Clarke to obtain these directly;

offered representations on some of the allegations but declined to provide others because Mr. Angel was in settlement discussions with the complainant;

indicated that the outstanding representations would be provided in a "reasonable period of time if the current settlement negotiations are not successful, and subject to legal advice Mr. Angel may receive and may rely upon with respect to the Law Society's jurisdiction in this matter"; and,

confirmed that no funds were invested.

On April 15 Ms. Clarke requested that Mr. Angel order statements from his bank for the general and trust accounts from June 1, YR-00 to May YR-01, including images. As well, Mr. Angel was asked to provide a letter from the bank confirming that the trust account had been closed and the closing balance.

Fact Situation The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) has brought an application alleging that David Angel, 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 co-operate with a Law Society investigation. The paralegal was licensed in 2015, has worked as a sole practitioner, and has no prior discipline history. The application stems from a complaint the LSO received from an individual who stated she hired Mr. Angel to pursue investment opportunities in mortgages.

The complainant stated:

In April and May of YR-00 she provided Mr. Angel with $50,000 for investment purposes, with $2000.00 of that being for a personal load to Mr. Angel;

She provided copies of cheques made payable to Mr. Angel in trust;

She eventually received two cheques from an unknown individual ("X"), dated November YR-00 related to the loans. Both cheques were NSF and copies were provided.

She stated that Mr. Angel now refuses to answer her phone calls or respond to messages.

The LSO authorized an investigation into this complaint on issues as to whether Mr. Angel may have participated in improper fraudulent investment schemes, used his trust account for improper purposes and failed to repay a personal loan. Theresa Clarke was assigned the investigation.