The Law Society of Ontario has suspended the licence of Toronto lawyer Andrew Gordon Rogerson on a temporary basis, following a court’s finding that he misappropriated client money, knowingly breached a court order freezing assets, and made sexist remarks to a female lawyer. The Law Society Tribunal panel concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe Rogerson poses a significant risk to the public and the public interest in the administration of justice if he is allowed to continue practising law.
The case, cited as Law Society of Ontario v Rogerson, 2025 ONLSTH 103 (CanLII), originates from a dispute between the Łutsel K’e Dene First Nation in the Northwest Territories and its former business manager, Mirza Mohamad Imram Karim Barlas. Following the dispute, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories issued a Mareva injunction on April 28, 2023. This type of court order is a powerful legal tool used to freeze a person’s assets to prevent them from being moved or spent, ensuring they are available to satisfy a potential future judgment. The injunction applied to Barlas’s assets worldwide.
Just two days before the court issued the asset-freezing order, Barlas transferred $90,000 to Rogerson’s law firm trust account as a retainer. The Law Society Tribunal heard that Rogerson quickly became aware that these funds were captured by the injunction. Despite this knowledge, and a subsequent court order to return the money, he refused to do so. The First Nation was forced to apply to the court to compel the return of the funds. In a judgment issued on March 10, 2025, the court sided with the First Nation and delivered a blistering assessment of the lawyer’s actions.
The judge in the Northwest Territories case described Rogerson’s conduct in litigation as “reprehensible” on multiple fronts. The court found that Rogerson had refused to be cross-examined by the First Nation’s female counsel, dismissing her with what the judge labelled a sexist remark. The judgment quotes Rogerson as telling the lawyer, “really sorry, you’re a nice person, Ms. Kras, you have a lovely smile, I can tell you’re a nice, decent, genuine, person, but you cannot cross-examine me.” The judge noted that Rogerson had previously been disciplined by the Law Society for sexual harassment.
The court also found that Rogerson failed to provide a proper accounting for the $90,000 retainer. It noted a series of withdrawals from his trust account between May and November 2023 that totalled exactly $90,000. Rogerson produced no bills or dockets to justify the withdrawals and could not state what his billing rate was. The judge concluded the “purported fees were contrivances to justify draining the retainer.” Furthermore, the court found that Rogerson had used $10,000 of the frozen retainer funds to help his client, Barlas, move over $1 million in gold and silver from the Northwest Territories to Ontario, a move made in knowing breach of the injunction. Based on this conduct, the court ordered Rogerson to immediately repay the full $90,000 and to personally pay the First Nation’s legal costs of nearly $47,000. The judge ordered that his reasons be sent to the Law Society of Ontario.
Following this referral, the Law Society brought a motion to the Law Society Tribunal seeking an interlocutory suspension of Rogerson’s licence. An interlocutory order is a temporary measure taken while a full investigation and disciplinary hearing on the merits are pending. The hearing took place by videoconference on July 4, 2025. Rogerson, who represented himself, had failed to file his evidence on time and requested another adjournment, which the panel denied. The panel did, however, permit him to file over 700 pages of documents on the day of the hearing and gave him extra time to provide written submissions.
In its decision, released on August 7, 2025, the Tribunal panel explained that it could only issue an interlocutory suspension if there were reasonable grounds to believe a significant risk of harm exists. The panel, chaired by Paul Aterman, found this standard was met. It determined that the court’s findings provided a “credible and compelling foundation” for the allegations. The panel found reasonable grounds to believe Rogerson misappropriated or misapplied trust funds, which, if proven, is a form of dishonest conduct that represents a significant risk to the public, particularly his own clients.
The panel also found that his defiance of the Mareva injunction and his failure to comply with the court’s order to return the $90,000 posed a clear risk to the public interest in the administration of justice. The panel stated that if the allegations are proven, they “would demonstrate a persistent defiance of a lawyer’s proper role in litigation and a contempt for the integrity of court processes.” The allegations of sexist behaviour were also noted as representing a significant risk to the public.
The Tribunal concluded that merely placing restrictions on Rogerson’s practice would be inadequate. Given that the lawyer’s integrity and willingness to comply with his professional duties were in serious question, the panel stated it could not be confident that any restrictions would be honoured. Therefore, the panel determined that the only way to ensure the protection of the public was to suspend his licence to practise law effective immediately, pending the outcome of a future hearing on the merits of the allegations.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
