Disbarred BC Lawyer Refused License in Ontario

GEO_edited-1Malcolm Zoraik was on the losing end of a motor vehicle personal injury case in Victoria, but he didn’t take losing well. Instead, a week after the jury verdict he surreptitiously delivered a letter directed to the Sheriff at the Victoria Courthouse that alleged jury tampering and described circumstances that could only have been his case. His apparent goal was to have a mistrial declared and a second kick at the can.

The police investigation included an interview with Mr. Zoraik, who denied any involvement, but security video showed that he had delivered the letter and his fingerprint was found on the envelope. He was charged with public mischief, obstruction of justice, and fabrication of evidence, plead not guilty, and embarked on a 13-day trial asserting his innocence.

He was convicted of public mischief and fabrication of evidence and two days later signed an undertaking not to practice law in British Columbia. He was disbarred by the Law Society in May of 2013. He appealed his criminal convictions and the Law Society disbarment, losing his criminal appeal, but gaining a second hearing by the Law Society, who again revoked his license to practice in April of 2018.

In 2012 Mr. Zoraik moved to Ontario and enrolled at Osgoode Hall Law School and attained a Masters degree in business law. While in Ontario he filed for bankruptcy with debt of $267,000 including student loans. By 2014 he acquired an articling position in Ontario which was terminated by the Law Society, but upon his principal’s entreaties the articles were reinstated. The Law Society said that they didn’t need to assess Mr. Zoraik’s character.

In 2016 he applied for a license to practice law in Ontario, an application that was deferred until his BC appeals were completed, albeit the application was opposed by the Law Society of Ontario, alleging he lacked the required “good character” to become a member of the Ontario bar.

Remarkably, at the Ontario Law Society’s investigation, Mr. Zoraik refused to speak about his criminal convictions in Victoria. He was asked:

INVESTIGATOR: Okay. I’m just going back to something Shoshanna asked earlier. After the court out in B.C. to do with the letter, the letter that was there, Shoshanna asked how do you feel about it. Do you feel any – do you feel any remorse over your behaviour at that time?

And answered:

MR. ZORAIK: Like I said, I don’t want to get – get into that matter. Like as I said, I think it’s an indication of my level of respect and acceptance of – of the court’s verdict that – that I have kept myself to the utmost, you know, best behaviour. I haven’t had any – any issues before that or since that. So – so whatever lesson that was there for me, I’ve learned. That is it. So, you know, I hope you understand that it’s a legal proceeding, that I not going to go beyond that. I hope that – I hope you understand. (Inaudible). What more I can do. (Inaudible).

Despite multiple character witnesses, none of whom were aware of the details of his criminal convictions or the fact that his bankruptcy discharge was delayed by his Trustee; and a law firm prepared to hire him, the Law Society refused to admit him to the Ontario bar saying:

“The evidence he gave at his criminal trial was found to be evasive, not credible, tarnished, feigned or grasping. He was not believed…There is much speculation reflected in the multiple decisions arising from these matters as to why Mr. Zoraik, an experienced court interpreter and lawyer with 10 years’ standing, would engage is such criminal conduct.
No clear evidence was provided to us that shed any light on this point. We do not know what may have motivated or influenced Mr. Zoraik.”

In the absence of any explanation for his bizarre criminal behaviour and with no expression of remorse, the Law Society correctly determined that Mr. Zoraik would not have the privilege of practicing law in Ontario.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Advertisements

And Now the End is Near- 2014 Highlights

BarristerFor me, 2014 was fulfilling, both personally and professionally. On the work side, I arbitrated some interesting family law cases, handled several Hague Convention child abduction cases: one that saw the successful reunion of father and child after an abduction from Portugal to Canada, and the other an appeal from an order that a child be returned to Montana.

Personally, I found time to workout with my incredible trainer, Janice; enjoy neighbourhood cook-outs and pool parties; sing in my choir; brainstorm ideas for a book on women in leadership, and enjoy the beauty of California and B.C’s Okanagan.

Meanwhile my contribution to the blogosphere continued throughout the year, with the following highlights:

1. Shared parenting: MP Maurice Vellacott’s bill on shared parenting crashed and burned when the Liberals and most of the Conservatives voted against it in the earliest stages of second reading.

Despite it being a part of Harper’s election platform, only a few brave backbenchers supported the bill. In retrospect it is likely that the focus on a strict equality of parenting time, instead of an emphasis on shared parenting that could see one parent with less than 50% depending on the work and school schedules of parents and child(ren), led to its early demise.

2. New Prostitution Law: On December 6, 2014 the Conservative government brought into effect their new law, based on the Nordic model adopted in Sweden, Norway, Iceland and other European countries.

After the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s previous law in 2013, which did not criminalize prostitution, but made it illegal to solicit for prostitution, operate a common bawdy house, or live off the avails of prostitution, Justice Minister McKay’s new bill was reviled in many quarters.

The new law criminalizes prostitution for the purchaser of sexual services, while women, girls, and boys who sell sex are no longer subject to legal sanctions. They are treated as exploited victims, with the goal of helping them escape the sordid life of prostitution with its inherent danger.

3. Conscious Uncoupling: Amid mockery and snide remarks, Gwyneth Paltrow introduced “conscious uncoupling” to the world of divorce, as a softer and gentler way to separate and divorce. The details of this model remain elusive but months after its debut, it has found little favour in the real world.

4. Trinity Law School: Conflict and consternation abound when Trinity Western University’s governmental approval to open a Christian law school was announced. British Columbia lawyers railed against the governors/benchers of the Law Society who voted 21 to 6 to permit Trinity law graduates to article in B.C.

The majority of B.C. lawyers who voted at a special meeting, denounced the governors’ decision to permit Trinity students to article in B.C., alleging that Trinity’s community covenant that only permits sexual relations between married, opposite sex couples amounted to sexual discrimination and a breach of human rights.

The Law Society eventually capitulated and adopted the views of Trinity’s critics. The matter is now before the Court in B.C. and in other courts across Canada where the same position prevailed.

5. Madam Justice Lori Douglas: After several years of missteps, rancour, judicial resignations, and the interference of the Federal Court, Judge Douglas finally put an end to the Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry into the collection of nude photographs of her placed on the internet by her husband, the late Jack King, a well-regarded family law lawyer in Winnipeg, by announcing her resignation from the bench.

The entire exercise highlighted the flaws of Canada’s system of judicial discipline and Judge Douglas’ resignation was welcome relief from the embarrassing sideshow the inquiry had become.

Here’s looking to 2015 with great anticipation for a new year full of juridical intrigue, legal entanglements, and matrimonial mishaps.

Happy New Year!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Passionate Entreaties Against Trinity Law School Persuaded BC Lawyers

10950859361151CDPLet me recap the recent special meeting of the members of the Law Society of British Columbia, a meeting prompted by a motion from Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan who sought to overturn the 20-7 decision of the governors (benchers) of the Law Society, who had approved the admission of future Trinity Law School students as articling students in B.C.

When the meeting began at 12:30 pm on June 10 Law Society President Jan Lindsay announced that just over 1,200 lawyers were present and a quorum was established. Family law lawyer barbara findlay (lower case is how she spells her name) moved the motion and made a passionate speech urging members to vote in favour of the motion.

Her speech was nothing short of brilliant as she referenced her struggles as a lesbian woman grappling with earlier laws that denied gays, lesbians and transgendered persons basic human rights. She did not mince words, she argued that during the time, not that many years ago, when homosexuality was labeled a mental illness, she had spent time in a mental institution, all because she was a lesbian.

Ms. findlay has been a friend and colleague of mine for many years. Recently when Canada passed laws permitting non-resident same-sex spouses to come to Canada to be divorced, if the American state they lived in would not divorce them and if they had married in Canada, she and I collaborated on several of the first cases to be heard in Canada. She had clients seeking this relief, as I did, and we compared professional notes in our efforts to serve our respective clients.

I don’t know if barbara knows I am a practicing Christian, but I know she knows that I would never skirt my duty to my clients or to the rule of law because of my religious beliefs. After all, the Bible tells us to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s”, the ultimate statement on the intersection of Christianity and secular authority. When Jesus spoke these words the lawyers and Pharisees “marveled” at his wisdom.

Other lawyers speaking in favour of the motion also focused on the historical travesties visited upon gays and lesbians, one even referenced the Holocaust. A criminal lawyer told a tale of a gay client who stabbed a woman 99 times and linked it to his Pentecostal upbringing.

A bencher who had voted against Trinity published an article before the June 10 debate comparing the segregation of African-Americans in America’s southern states to his opinion of the inevitable result of Trinity’s community covenant which disallows sexual relations between unmarried spouses or married same-sex spouses.

Lawyers arguing against the motion, seeking to endorse the bencher’s earlier decision, could not match the often inflammatory rhetoric of their impassioned colleagues.

These lawyers argued the law. They reminded the members that B.C’s Human Rights Code specifically exempts religious groups. They confirmed that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to a private educational institution, its purview of protection is against fundamentally unfair governmental action.

They relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s earlier decision in Trinity Western University v. B.C. College of Teachers where the Teacher’s College tried to block Trinity-educated teachers from becoming members and teachers in B.C. and failed.

They implored their colleagues to recognize the myriad of legal opinions from some of Canada’s brightest legal minds, and the opinion of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, yes, even that bastion of liberal thinking, all of whom supported Trinity Western’s position.

There is an expression that is common amongst lawyers: “if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts”.

It seems that many of B.C.’s lawyers embraced the well-spun facts, and ignored the law.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang