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
- March 19, 2026 In the News David Wu Joins Dickinson Wright Silicon Valley Office as a Member
- March 19, 2026 Media Mentions Patrick Potter and Ashley Jericho were recently quoted in Global Restructuring Review, “Hong Kong proceedings denied recognition in Texas over US property requirements and COMI issues.”
- March 19, 2026 Media Mentions Matthew McLeod was recently interviewed for the Fello Agency blog, “Founder-Proofing Your Startup: Matthew McLeod’s Minimum Legal Foundation.”
- March 18, 2026 In the News Klien Hilliard Joins Dickinson Wright Seattle Office
- March 18, 2026 In the News Mark D. Marsden, Ph.D. Joins Dickinson Wright San Diego Office
- March 17, 2026 In the News Ruba Qashu Joins Dickinson Wright San Diego as a Member
- March 17, 2026 In the News Six Dickinson Wright Lawyers Listed in the 2026 Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory
- March 17, 2026 In the News Thirty-Eight Dickinson Wright Clients Featured on LexisNexis® 2026 Top 100 Global Innovators
- March 17, 2026 Industry Alerts CBP Provides Further Details on Planned IEEPA Refund System