Lawyer Brian Radnoff Quoted in Canadian Lawyer Article on Legal Disciplinary Case
- Media Mentions
Want to get our alerts?
Click “Subscribe Now” to get attorney insights on the latest developments in a range of services and industries.
Lawyer Brian Radnoff was recently quoted in the Canadian Lawyer article “Case against Law Society of Ontario allowed to move forward”.
A panel of Ontario Court of Appeal judges recently allowed the appeal of a lawyer who amended his claim that the Law Society of Ontario’s disciplinary process amounted to wrongful abuse of power. The case, Robson v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, will now proceed in Superior Court on the part of the appeal related to malicious prosecution and the question of what constituted malice.
Mr. Radnoff, a commercial litigator who also represents lawyers in disciplinary cases, says that such cases are difficult to make on the merits, even if they proceed past the pleadings stage.
“There are some circumstances – this perhaps is one of those cases – where you have to be very careful,” Mr. Radnoff says. “It is very unfair to the party to basically say you are bound by this obiter decision where you either only had a limited opportunity to make representations or didn’t make representations at all on this issue, and now you are bound by this. And you are guilty of professional [misconduct]. This is another one of those cases that shows where there is a fine line in terms of preventing people from relitigating what other judges have said in what could be obiter decisions.”
To read the full article, please click here.
A panel of Ontario Court of Appeal judges recently allowed the appeal of a lawyer who amended his claim that the Law Society of Ontario’s disciplinary process amounted to wrongful abuse of power. The case, Robson v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, will now proceed in Superior Court on the part of the appeal related to malicious prosecution and the question of what constituted malice.
Mr. Radnoff, a commercial litigator who also represents lawyers in disciplinary cases, says that such cases are difficult to make on the merits, even if they proceed past the pleadings stage.
“There are some circumstances – this perhaps is one of those cases – where you have to be very careful,” Mr. Radnoff says. “It is very unfair to the party to basically say you are bound by this obiter decision where you either only had a limited opportunity to make representations or didn’t make representations at all on this issue, and now you are bound by this. And you are guilty of professional [misconduct]. This is another one of those cases that shows where there is a fine line in terms of preventing people from relitigating what other judges have said in what could be obiter decisions.”
To read the full article, please click here.
Recent Insights
- September 15, 2025 Industry Alerts Key D.C. Circuit Decision Revives CAA Emergency Event Affirmative Defense
- September 15, 2025 In the News Alex Courtade Joins Dickinson Wright Austin Office
- September 10, 2025 Industry Alerts Recent FTC Developments on Non-Compete Enforcement
- September 9, 2025 In the News Eleven Dickinson Wright Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Mountain State Super Lawyers
- September 09, 2025 Media Mentions Sara Jodka was recently quoted in the Bloomberg Law article, “States Ramp Up Car Privacy Enforcement Using Tricks Old and New.”
- September 05, 2025 Media Mentions Matthew Koskinen and Adam Richards were quoted in a Construction Dive article, “Who is liable when a ‘borrowed’ construction worker gets hurt?”
- September 04, 2025 Articles Motions for Reconsideration Under Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h) No Longer Toll the Appeal Deadline
- September 4, 2025 In the News Nine Dickinson Wright Lawyers Ranked in Best Lawyers in Canada® 2026 Edition, Three Ranked in “Ones to Watch”
- September 04, 2025 Articles Friendly PC Model: 3 Key Ancillary Agreements for CPOM Compliance