Over the past year the Law Society of BC has homed in on warning lawyers who risk becoming “tools” or” dupes” of “unscrupulous” clients linked to alleged criminal activity.
In November 2024, the society issued a rare bulletin to the entire legal community — and specifically real estate lawyers — to “be aware” of developer Tarsem Singh Gill and his wife Surinder Kaur Gill, a primary business associate.
The former Gill is accused of being “the directing mind in B.C.’s largest real estate fraud scheme,” the society stated.
Between 2000 and 2002 Gill is alleged to have directed his lawyer Martin Wirick to misappropriate money intended to be used to discharge mortgages toward properties Gill was selling, refinancing or developing.
The alleged mortgage pyramid scheme is said to have diverted money from Wirick’s trust account and into Gill’s numbered companies, ultimately scamming homeowners.
Wirick pleaded guilty to fraud in 2009 and was sentenced to seven years in prison; he was also disbarred.
In 2013, Gill pleaded guilty of two counts of fraud but withdrew his plea in 2014 and has since been in an extraordinary protracted legal proceeding with Crown prosecutors.
Charges against Gill remain unproven in court. The case remains in its pre-trial phase with publication bans in place.
The fraud case, via Wirick’s admission, resulted in claims against the society’s legal indemnity fund, which only held $15 million at the time. Homeowners ultimately claimed over $75 million in losses, and B.C. lawyers were left to pick up the tab by paying higher regulatory fees.
Lawyer misconduct found after taking on client linked to Gill
In a decision issued February 6, a law society hearing panel determined Vancouver business lawyer Daniel James Barker committed professional misconduct while representing a “notorious alleged fraudster.”
Barker “was not on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client or other persons,” and failed to ask reasonable questions pertaining to the business transactions that utilized his trust account.
The circumstances leading up to the misconduct findings began when Barker took on a client, Rajinderjit Singh Bhela, who was associated with Gill in relation to a controversial residential property deal that resulted in a civil litigation trial in B.C. Supreme Court, according to the panel’s written decision.
Barker testified “that he did not know what [Gill] did for a living or how he was compensated, but that he was in financial dire straits. Despite this, [Barker] received hundreds of thousands of dollars directly from [Gill] by way of bank drafts,” the decision stated.
“Given that [Gill] was a notorious alleged fraudster, there was an additional need for [Barker] to identify and verify that the source of funds was flowing from his clients, rather than from [Gill].”
The society also noted that the “notorious alleged fraudster” was not only charged with fraud but also subject to a default judgment due to his alleged involvement with Bhela in a cheque-kiting scheme with Bhela, which was reported by CBC.
Still, Barker did not ask Bhela any questions about Gill’s role in the cheque kiting, the panel found.
Barker defended the accusations before the panel by arguing “there needs to be a nexus between [Gill’s] alleged dishonesty and the properties being foreclosed, such that the direct consequence of successfully defending these foreclosure proceedings would be the commission of a crime or fraud.”
The panel did not agree with Barker’s defence, citing the public’s interest in having lawyers be on guard against potential illegal activity.
“In our view, the protection of the public is jeopardized when a notorious alleged fraudster who has previous experience with a fraudulent real estate scheme, may proceed through the court system without being questioned by any lawyer he hired,” ruled the panel.
Barker still faces a disciplinary hearing. In an interview with BIV Barker said the society’s warnings could put a “chilling effect” on lawyers taking on clients who have had or are experiencing legal trouble.
Society targets three more lawyers for risk of being tool or dupe
The society has also issued suspensions and citations against other lawyers for failing to be on guard “against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client or other persons.”
In December 2024, lawyer Naeem-Ul-Nushad Ahmed signed a consent agreement that suspended him for one month.
Ahmed worked on 15 files for a “known fraudster and undischarged bankrupt,” whose identity is unclear.
Ahmed received more than $31.5 million into and out of his firm’s trust account in 129 property and development transactions.
On July 2, lawyer Robert L. Dick signed a consent agreement that suspended him for two months.
Similarly, Dick failed to be on guard with a client and the client’s associate that Dick understood to be involved in the illicit cannabis industry.
Dick was “aware that there would have to be dishonesty involved in preparing and submitting the licensing application” to the provincial government, yet “made no inquiries to determine whether the true sources of funding for the business were being disclosed” in that process, according to the agreement.
And, the agreement stated, “at the material times, [Dick] was not aware of any legitimate sources of income” for the client.
Unless another agreement is reached, the society is preparing to hold a hearing for lawyer Desmond Balakrishnan for allegedly failing to be “on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client or other persons,” including not making reasonable inquiries on the source of funds, beneficial ownership of certain businesses and relationships between parties, between May 2017 and June 2024. Those allegations remain unproven before a hearing panel.
Right to counsel not a guarantee: lawyer
BIV reached out to the Canadian Bar Association of B.C. for comment on these types of proceedings.
Lawyer and legal observer Rabjeet Wallia, an associate of North Shore Law LLP, said the society’s job is ultimately to protect the public interest by preventing lawyer misconduct from occurring, with the expectation being that lawyers need to be proactively diligent, especially when accepting clients with a criminal history or allegations of criminal behaviour.
However, Wallia said doing so should not necessarily preclude a lawyer from taking on such clients. Lawyers, he said, are governed by a code of conduct and ethics, and representation can stop if a lawyer suspects unscrupulous behaviour.
Wallia said if that occurs, a client does not necessarily have a right to counsel in civil proceedings.
“A client cannot be forced to hire a specific lawyer and a lawyer can choose who they wish to represent,” said Wallia.
