The Law Society Tribunal of Ontario has found lawyer Christos Vitsentzatos committed professional misconduct and engaged in conduct unbecoming a barrister and solicitor1. The findings, detailed in a decision dated October 3, 2025, stem from a series of allegations involving a romantic relationship with a vulnerable client, the creation of false documents, racist and antisemitic text messages, and a hostile confrontation with police officers. The tribunal panel, chaired by Malcolm M. Mercer, concluded that Mr. Vitsentzatos had acted dishonestly, misled the Law Society during its investigation, and failed to act with integrity.
The case centered on four primary areas of concern: Mr. Vitsentzatos’s intimate relationship with a client identified as AX; his involvement in the transfer of a truck from AX using a false sworn statement; offensive communications with AX; and an uncivil interaction with officers from the London Police Service during a traffic stop involving his daughter. The panel found that the Law Society had successfully proven the majority of its allegations, and the matter will now proceed to a separate hearing to determine the penalty.
The most serious allegations related to AX, who first consulted Mr. Vitsentzatos on April 10, 2019. She was seeking legal advice regarding her separation from her common-law husband and business partner of 17 years, WS, whom she described as having been controlling and abusive. AX changed the locks on her home on April 22, 2019. The tribunal noted that within weeks of this event, a romantic and sexual relationship began between AX and Mr. Vitsentzatos, lasting until late August or early September 2019. At the time, AX was a vulnerable person in a high-conflict separation, and Mr. Vitsentzatos was acting for her, having obtained a restraining order on her behalf.
The Law Society alleged this relationship created an obvious conflict of interest, which Mr. Vitsentzatos failed to manage. The tribunal panel agreed, calling it an “obvious and serious conflict of interest.” The panel rejected the lawyer’s submission that the retainer was more of a business matter than a family law one due to shared business assets. To the contrary, the tribunal found this complexity “added risk” and made the situation “more obviously fraught.” The panel ruled that Mr. Vitsentzatos breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by acting while in this conflict.
The misconduct was compounded by Mr. Vitsentzatos’s attempts to justify the relationship to the Law Society. He had produced a document titled “Acknowledgement of Relationship and Independent Legal Advice,” which purported to be signed by AX on May 10, 2019, and witnessed by his assistant, Melanie Letourneau. This document, he claimed, constituted AX’s fully informed written consent. AX, however, testified that she had never been advised to get independent legal advice, had never seen the Acknowledgement, and had not knowingly signed it.
The tribunal’s investigation into the document revealed a profound lack of supporting evidence. Mr. Vitsentzatos claimed the original document was “most likely… shredded in error” and the electronic draft was lost when his laptop was reportedly stolen. Furthermore, no email was ever produced showing the document being sent to AX for review or after its alleged signing. Mr. Vitsentzatos and his assistant both testified that AX signed the document in their office. The panel, however, assessed their credibility and found issues. It determined that the assistant’s testimony was likely based on what she “now believes must have occurred” rather than a specific memory.
Mr. Vitsentzatos’s own credibility was, in the panel’s view, “impeached” by his admission that he had previously misled the Law Society investigator when he denied ever being naked with AX, as well as by findings of dishonesty in other parts of the case. The panel ultimately accepted AX’s evidence on this matter. It found that AX “did not intend to sign the purported Acknowledgement and that she did not knowingly do so.” Consequently, the tribunal found that Mr. Vitsentzatos “knowingly misled the Law Society” when he stated he had obtained her fully informed written consent, which he knew was not true.
Another set of allegations related to the transfer of a 2007 Nissan Titan truck from AX to Mr. Vitsentzatos in August 2019. To avoid paying retail sales tax, a “Sworn Statement for a Family Gift of a Used Vehicle” was filed with Service Ontario. This document falsely claimed that AX and Mr. Vitsentzatos were spouses, that the truck was a gift for no consideration, and that it had been commissioned by the lawyer’s brother. The lawyer’s brother testified he had nothing to do with the document, was not in London on the day it was supposedly signed, and that the signature was not his.
Mr. Vitsentzatos denied involvement, claiming he had purchased the truck for $5,000 cash, delivered to AX via his friend, Rick Wilson. AX denied this, testifying that Mr. Vitsentzatos suggested she “gift” him the truck as a credit toward her legal fees. The tribunal found Mr. Vitsentzatos’s version of events, particularly the undocumented $5,000 cash payment, was not credible. The panel placed significant weight on text messages exchanged between the lawyer and AX. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Vitsentzatos texted, “I will get the form for you to sign to gift it to me, my wife”. AX replied, “Hahaha, will that work?” to which he responded, “It should.” AX then wrote, “Can we scam the government in any other way? I’m broke”. The lawyer replied, “Well we can see”.
The panel found the lawyer’s claim that he was “just joking” in these texts was not believable. It concluded that Mr. Vitsentzatos had “assisted in, encouraged and/or facilitated dishonesty and fraud” by causing AX to sign the sworn statement and facilitating its filing. The panel also found he had lied to the Law Society investigator about the fictitious $5,000 cash purchase.
The tribunal also examined offensive text messages Mr. Vitsentzatos sent to AX. In one exchange about negotiating with a third party, he texted, “But ok guess that you are pulling a Hebrew on him Wednesday.” He later claimed this was a term for being “strong,” a rationalization the panel found “not credible,” concluding it “was, and was intended to be, a reference to the antisemitic trope that Jewish people are stingy or cheap.” In another exchange about AX’s cat, he texted, “if you toss in some garlic and basil I think that I know some Asians that may want her for dinner”. While Mr. Vitsentzatos argued these were private communications, the tribunal rejected that defence. The panel stated, “The lines became blurred as a result of Mr. Vitsentzatos’ decision to become involved with AX. Having made the choice, he bears the consequences”. The panel found these comments were dishonourable, constituted a breach of his duty of integrity, and amounted to professional misconduct.
Finally, the tribunal addressed an incident from November 13, 2018, when the lawyer’s daughter was stopped by Constable Riley Morrow of the London Police Service for using her phone while driving with a suspended license. Mr. Vitsentzatos arrived at the scene and, according to the officer, immediately identified himself as a “criminal lawyer” and “demanded” that the officer “use his discretion and give his daughter a break.” When the officer declined, Mr. Vitsentzatos allegedly became “extremely worked up,” calling the officer a “cocksucker” and “a piece of shit.” He then accused the officer of stealing an envelope of cash from his daughter’s car and threatened to sue him unless the charges were dropped. A second officer who arrived as backup, Constable Kasim Mailloux, testified that Mr. Vitsentzatos identified himself as a “high-profile lawyer” and threatened he “would have their jobs” if the money was not returned.
Mr. Vitsentzatos denied using abusive language and maintained his allegation of theft, claiming the envelope of cash was mysteriously returned to his office mail slot a week later. The panel did not accept the lawyer’s version and found the testimony of both officers to be credible and consistent. The tribunal concluded that Mr. Vitsentzatos’s story about the stolen envelope was a “false claim.” The panel found that he had used his status as a lawyer in an attempt to “influence Constable Morrow’s exercise of discretion.” His conduct was found to be a failure to act with civility and a threat intended to gain a benefit, constituting both professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming.
The tribunal found that the Law Society had proven seven particulars of professional misconduct and one of conduct unbecoming. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine the appropriate penalty for Mr. Vitsentzatos.
Read more about proceedings in regulated professions here.
