An Ontario lawyer has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct after a Law Society Tribunal panel concluded he allowed two separate personal injury lawsuits to be dismissed for inaction and then misled his clients for years, fabricating court documents to make them believe their cases had been successfully settled1. The decision against Alpesh Patel was released on September 12, 2025, following an eight-day hearing held in April. The panel found Mr. Patel failed to act with integrity, failed to serve his clients, and failed to report a negligence claim to his professional insurer.
The case involved two vulnerable clients, both of whom were immigrants to Canada with a limited ability to speak or read English. The first client, identified as Client A, was a 72-year-old man who suffered devastating and permanent injuries after being a passenger in a catastrophic motor vehicle accident on July 7, 2011. The collision, in which another person died, left Client A with multiple fractures to his leg, knee, and hip, requiring extensive surgery and hospitalization. Medical reports from the time, including one from an orthopaedic surgeon hired by an insurance company, described his prognosis as “poor” and noted he had sustained “permanent impairment in function.”
Client A retained Mr. Patel, who was related to him by marriage and spoke his native language of Gujarati. Mr. Patel was hired to handle both the accident benefits claim and a lawsuit, or tort claim, against the parties responsible for the accident. In July 2013, nearly two years after the accident, Mr. Patel filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court on behalf of Client A and his wife, seeking $1.5 million in damages. However, the claim was never served on the defendants. Consequently, the court sent a notice in January 2014 warning that the action would be dismissed for inactivity. When no steps were taken, the lawsuit was formally dismissed as abandoned on February 28, 2014.
Client A testified that he was never told his case had been thrown out. Instead, he said that in 2017, Mr. Patel informed him that the case had been settled. The client told the panel that Mr. Patel repeatedly promised that a large sum of money would be arriving by courier, mail, or direct deposit, even asking for his banking information at one point. When the money never materialized, Client A said Mr. Patel arranged to meet him at the Toronto courthouse on University Avenue on two occasions to supposedly check on the funds. Following these visits, Mr. Patel provided him with a set of “settlement documents.”
These documents, which the Law Society submitted as evidence, were found to be fabrications. They included a purported court order dated March 23, 2017, ordering the defendants to pay all settlements and costs. The order was signed by a “Marchall, J.”, a judge who does not exist in the Ontario Superior Court. The signature itself was found to be the electronic signature of Carrie Johnston, the principal of a law firm where Mr. Patel worked between 2012 and 2019. Another document, a “Release of Settlement Funds,” claimed a settlement of $1,113,400 had been reached and was signed by a non-existent “Jansen, J.”, again using Ms. Johnston’s electronic signature. A third document, an information form, appeared to bear Mr. Patel’s own notarial stamp. The deception only came to light in 2019 when Client A, having never received any money, hired a new lawyer who investigated the matter and discovered the truth before filing a complaint with the Law Society.
Mr. Patel denied the allegations, testifying that Client A had actually instructed him to let the lawsuit be dismissed. He claimed his client was uncooperative and was afraid of the potential for an adverse costs award if the case was unsuccessful. Mr. Patel told the panel he informed Client A of the dismissal in person in March 2014. He had no explanation for the fabricated documents, suggesting Client A or his family may have created them, and denied placing his notarial stamp on one of them. He claimed the courthouse visits years later were at the client’s insistence to get a “static update” on a matter that was long over.
The tribunal panel rejected Mr. Patel’s version of events, finding it was not in “harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities.” The panel noted that given the severity of Client A’s injuries and the fact that he was a passenger with no liability for the accident, it was extremely unlikely he would face a costs order against him. The panel found it unbelievable that a lawyer, having received instructions to abandon a multi-million dollar claim for a seriously injured client, would fail to document those instructions in writing. The evidence produced by Mr. Patel just two weeks before the hearing, including handwritten notes on sticky pads and a questionable email allegedly sent in 2017, were also determined to be recent fabrications. The panel concluded that only Mr. Patel could have created the sophisticated fake settlement documents, given his access to the court file number, his notarial seal, and the electronic signature of his former colleague.
A second set of allegations involved another client, identified as Client B, a 69-year-old woman injured in a car accident in March 2009. Mr. Patel was retained in March 2011, just before the limitation period expired, and filed a lawsuit seeking $800,000. Much like the case with Client A, the lawsuit languished. After an examination for discovery was cancelled in 2012, no further steps were taken, and the court administratively dismissed the action for delay on September 17, 2013.
Client B testified that after 2013, Mr. Patel “disappeared” and would not return her calls. He eventually contacted her to say her case had been settled for $83,000. She said he took her and her husband to the courthouse, where he gave them a document titled “Notice of Payment into Court.” This document, dated July 23, 2018, appeared to be an official court form indicating a judgment of over $83,000 had been awarded in her favour. Client B said Mr. Patel promised to bring her a cheque, but it never arrived. She learned the truth after hiring a new lawyer in 2020.
Mr. Patel again testified that his client had acquiesced to the dismissal. He claimed Client B was uncooperative and reluctant to proceed because one of the defendants was her own daughter. He said he informed her of the dismissal in October 2013. The panel again found Mr. Patel’s testimony lacked credibility. It noted he had not raised the issue of the client’s alleged reluctance to sue her daughter during the Law Society’s investigation. As with Client A’s matter, the panel found the late production of a sticky note purporting to confirm delivery of the dismissal order was a fabrication. The panel concluded that Mr. Patel had misled Client B about the status of her case and provided her with a fabricated document.
The tribunal also found that Mr. Patel had failed to report to his insurer, LawPRO. After Client A sued Mr. Patel for solicitor’s negligence in 2020, LawPRO wrote to Mr. Patel twice to inform him of the claim and his obligation to report it. Mr. Patel did not respond. The Law Society eventually had to report the claim on his behalf in September 2020, months after he was made aware of it. The panel had “no hesitation” in finding Mr. Patel failed to report the claim promptly as required by the rules.
Mr. Patel’s license to practise law has been under an interlocutory suspension since February 2022. He was also previously suspended in 2020 for failing to co-operate with Law Society investigations. Having found professional misconduct on all five particulars, the tribunal will schedule a future hearing to determine the penalty and any costs.
Read more about proceedings involving regulated professions here.
