Another Accomplice of Darek Tymejczyk , lawer - JEHUDA J. KAMINER

by Administrator 8. October 2012 09:00

Another Accomplice of Darek Tymejczyk , lawer  - JEHUDA J. KAMINER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jehuda J. Kaminer Law     

  Office :   735В Arlington Park Place       Тelephone : (613)384-6663       Kingston, Ontario, Canada,  K7M 8M8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is an excerpt from «LawTimes», dated 26th of March 2012 :

 Lawyer who had sex with family law client in joint retainer in hot water for disclosure

Monday, 26 March 2012 00:00 | Written by Kendyl Sebesta |

inShare

In the months after a Kingston, Ont., hockey coach appeared in Jehuda Kaminer’s office with a 14-year-old player in tow seeking to emancipate her from her parents, Kaminer wrestled with whether or not he should tell the man’s wife, who he would later become romantically involved with, about his encounter with the pair.

 

                A panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada heard the case against Jehuda Kaminer last week.

Kaminer, 64, has admitted to having a sexual relationship with the coach’s ex-wife, J.M. He described the encounter with the coach, D.M., and the girl as a run-of-the-mill event but noted he warned him it was highly inappropriate given the state of the D.M.’s separation from J.M. Kaminer had already been representing both spouses in their separation.

The sole practitioner, who was representing both D.M. and J.M. in their joint separation and subsequent divorce at the time, described what he felt as he made the decision to disclose the confidential information to J.M. during a hearing before a three-member Law Society of Upper Canada disciplinary panel in Toronto last week.
 

The girl wasn’t the couple’s child but a hockey player who at one point had been living with them before their separation. D.M. and J.M. have their own 16-year-old child.

“Mr. M. had brought the 14-year-old girl to me to be emancipated from her parents some time in March of 2006. The girl was living with both Mr. M. and Mrs. M. prior to their separation so that Mr. M. could coach her in hockey, from my understanding.
 

I thought the optics were really terrible and told Mr. M. that it wasn’t appropriate given the state of his marriage. I also advised the girl not to live with him. I thought that was pretty good advice, given the situation.

“I had no idea there was a sexual relationship going on between them at the time.”
D.M. faced criminal charges for sexually exploiting and assaulting the 14-year-old girl in June 2006 but wasn’t convicted criminally until 2008.

Several months prior to the criminal charges against D.M., both spouses had filed for joint separation and retained Kaminer.

In July 2006, J.M. learned of the criminal charges against D.M. and came to Kaminer seeking an immediate divorce. But Kaminer advised J.M. to wait a year rather than cite abuse or adultery as grounds, which he said would be difficult to prove.

Some time thereafter, Kaminer and J.M. began their sexual relationship. It lasted for six weeks.
According to a notice of application filed in June 2011 by the law society, disclosing the information shared between D.M., the girl, and Kaminer to J.M. in October 2006 while still maintaining a sexual relationship with her amounted to professional misconduct.

The law society also alleges Kaminer acted in a conflict of interest by representing both former spouses while initiating and maintaining a sexual relationship with J.M.

During that time, Kaminer also allegedly failed to obtain a divorce order for the pair; to draft a will for D.M.; and to deposit more than $2,000 from the pair into his trust account, the LSUC alleges. None of the allegations have been proven.

Pausing to wipe his eyes under his dark-rimmed glasses and speaking softly, Kaminer said that while he admits that engaging in a sexual relationship with J.M. was wrong and immediately stopped corresponding with her once he “woke up” and realized “the state he found himself in,” he had never seen any red flags from the pair to indicate that he should advise them to seek outside counsel at any time.

As for the money he received in trust, Kaminer told the hearing panel he hadn’t intended to put it into his general account rather than his trust account. He said that as a sole practitioner, he always asked people to make cheques out to him.

“You have to appreciate this isn’t easy for me,” Kaminer told the hearing panel during cross-examination of his testimony.

“I told them both right upfront that I draw the line with any controversy and if there is any, I will send them right away.
 

Yes, I had a sexual relationship with her and I was in a state of shock when I realized the sorry position I found myself in. So, I just stopped calling her and never told him of the relationship I had with his wife.”

Counsel for Kaminer added during the hearing that Kaminer felt it was necessary to disclose the information to J.M. in order to protect her interests as his client.

But the law society’s counsel in the matter, Lisa Freeman, argued Kaminer should have done more.

“The fact is that he had a sexual relationship with a client on the other side of the matter. Mrs. M. wasn’t aware that the girl was living with Mr. M. at the time of the separation, and it wasn’t the kind of conflict that could have been solved with consent,” Freeman told the hearing panel.

“Obviously, it’s a family law case and one should know having sex with his client’s wife is unethical. Mr. Kaminer’s misconduct took place at the precise moment when he knew a sexual relationship was taking place with the 14-year-old child and he ought to either have disclosed that information in writing or not accepted the divorce retainer.
 

He never should have disclosed the particulars of his meeting in March with J.M.”
According to the law society, Kaminer has since reimbursed J.M. in full for the money he received in trust along with an additional $200 given to her without explanation.

Kaminer hasn’t accounted for the remaining $2,000 owed to D.M., the LSUC alleges.
Hearing panel members Bob Aaron, Raj Anand, and Marion Boyd have reserved their decision in the matter until a later date.
 Kaminer’s  trip to the historic homeland of Poland related to the passion of child pornography and pedophilia.
 
Can such a man practice law in Canada?

The excerpts from «The Law Society of Upper Canada», dated 2013 - 2014:

 

The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, 
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N6
Tel: 416-947-3300
Toll Free: 1-800-668-7380
Fax: 416-947-5263
Web: http://www.lsuc.on.ca 
 
Kaminer, Jehuda Julius (2013-09-10)
 

Jehuda Julius Kaminer (1978), of the City of Kingston, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • acting in a conflict of interest while he was representing both members of a married couple in a family law matter by initiating and maintaining a sexual/romantic relationship with the wife;
  • disclosing confidential and privileged information relating to the husband's criminal charges to the wife while he was engaged in a sexual/romantic relationship with her;
  • failing to serve the couple by failing to obtain a divorce order, thereby failing to complete the work he was retained to do;
  • failing to serve the husband by failing to draft a will, thereby failing to complete the work he was retained to do;
  • receiving monies in trust, on three occasions totalling $3,300, and failing to deposit them into his trust account;
  • failing to account to the couple for sums received in trust, on three occasions totalling $3,500;
  • with respect to another client, receiving $2,000 in trust by cheque and failing to deposit those funds into his trust account;
  • failing to account to this other client in a timely manner for $2,000 in trust funds; and
  • failing to provide a complete and substantive response to numerous voicemail messages and letters from Law Society staff.

 

By Decision and Order dated September 10, 2013, the hearing panel ordered as follows:

 

      1. The Lawyer is suspended for six months, commencing on September 30, 2013 or such other date as may be agreed upon by the Law Society and the Lawyer.

 

      1. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Practise while suspended pursuant to this Decision and Order.

 

      1. The Lawyer shall participate in a practice review in accordance with s. 42 of the Law Society Act, at his cost. The Lawyer shall obtain a date for a practice reviewer to attend at his office, and he shall ensure that the attendance takes place within three months of returning to the practice of law, or on consent to an alternate date.

 

      1. The Lawyer shall cooperate with the practice review described in term 3, and shall implement forthwith recommendations made as a result of the practice review. The Lawyer shall also participate in a second practice review, at his cost, six months after the date of the first practice review, the purpose of which will be largely, but not exclusively, to assess the degree to which the Lawyer implemented the recommendations made in the first practice review.

 

      1. The Lawyer shall provide a copy of his monthly trust comparisons, client trust listings, trust reconciliations and trust bank statements to the Monitoring & Enforcement Department of the Law Society within 30 days of the last day of the month in respect of which they are created, for a period of 24 months following the resumption of the Lawyer's practice.

 

      1. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $13,500.  The Lawyer shall pay $2,700 each year for the next five years following the date of this Decision and Order. If any of the five payments is not made as required the remaining unpaid portion of the $13,500, together with interest at a rate of 3% per annum from the date of the Decision and Order, will become due and payable immediately at that point.

 

 

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / the Lawyer was assisted by Duty Counsel)

The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, 
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N6
Tel: 416-947-3300
Toll Free: 1-800-668-7380
Fax: 416-947-5263
Web: http://www.lsuc.on.ca 
 
Kaminer, Jehuda Julius (2013-11-15)
 

Jehuda Julius Kaminer (1978), of the City of Kingston, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • failing to co-operate with a Law Society investigation in three cases by failing to respond to requests from the Law Society made by mail.

 

By Decision and Order dated November 15, 2013, the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Lawyer is suspended for two months, commencing May 7, 2014, and continuing indefinitely thereafter until the following condition is met, to the satisfaction of the Director of Professional Regulation:
    1. the Lawyer has produced a complete response previously required of him as set out in letters from the Law Society, dated January 23, 2013, March 15, 2013, and April 2, 2013 as referred to in Application LCN82/13; and
  2. The Lawyer shall comply fully with the terms of the Law Society's Guidelines for Lawyers who are Suspended or who have given an Undertaking not to practise while suspended pursuant to this Order.
  3. The Lawyer shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $6900.00 by December 31, 2013, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

 

(Counsel for the Society, P. Tamara Sugunasiri / Counsel for the Lawyer, Brian Radnoff)

The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, 
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N6
Tel: 416-947-3300
Toll Free: 1-800-668-7380
Fax: 416-947-5263
Web: http://www.lsuc.on.ca 
 
Kaminer, Jehuda Julius (2014-02-25)
 

Jehuda Julius Kaminer (1978), of the City of Kingston, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for:

  • acting in a conflict of interest while representing a client in a Small Claims Court matter by initiating and maintaining a sexual relationship with the client;
  • receiving cash in trust from the client and failing to deposit the funds into his trust account;
  • failing to account to the client for the cash received in trust;
  • failing to fulfill his personal undertaking given to a fellow legal practitioner in relation to a real estate transaction;
  • failing to respond to eight communications from the fellow legal practitioner;
  • failing to co-operate fully with the Law Society's investigation with respect to the matter complained of by the fellow legal practitioner by failing to produce information and documents requested of him.

 

By Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, the hearing panel ordered as follows:

  1. The Respondent shall surrender his license within ten days of the date of this order, after which if his license is not surrendered it will be revoked.
  2. The Respondent shall pay costs to the Law Society fixed in the amount of $20,000 within six (6) months of the date of this order, failing which, interest will accrue at a rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

 

(Counsel for the Society, Lisa Freeman / Counsel for the Lawyer, Brian Radnoff)

 

  

 SEE Continuation of the main message (2)

PAGE LIST: Scam Victims of Darek Tymejczyk

 

Tags:

Accomplices

Comments (2) -

furtdso linopv
furtdso linopv United States
2/9/2015 12:48:28 PM #

Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My website is in the very same area of interest as yours and my users would genuinely benefit from a lot of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thanks a lot!

Reply

Lannie Flachs
Lannie Flachs United States
8/23/2015 2:12:53 AM #

Thanks for sharing your view I found  it verying interesting.

Reply

Add comment

  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading

Flag Counter