Ontario Lawyer Indefinitely Suspended Following Law Society Tribunal Decision
Thunder Bay – LEGAL – An Ontario lawyer has been indefinitely suspended by the Law Society Tribunal after findings of professional misconduct, according to a public decision released by the Tribunal on November 21, 2025.
In the matter of Law Society of Ontario v. Francis Joseph Thatcher, the Tribunal found that Mr. Thatcher failed to cooperate with an investigation by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), did not provide required documents, and held himself out as entitled to practise law during a period of administrative suspension.
The Tribunal, chaired by Ryan Alford, ordered an indefinite suspension pending compliance, a subsequent four-month definite suspension, and payment of $12,565 in costs to the LSO.
Tribunal Decision Based on Non-Cooperation and Conduct While Suspended
According to the Tribunal’s published reasons for decision, the matter arose from a complaint received by the Law Society in 2024. The complaint raised concerns that Mr. Thatcher may have communicated with a client in a manner that suggested he continued to provide legal services despite being suspended at the time.
The Tribunal found that Mr. Thatcher failed to respond to multiple communications from the Law Society between April and August 2025. These included phone calls, emails, and registered mail. As a result, the Law Society was unable to complete its investigation, leading to the application before the Tribunal.
Mr. Thatcher did not attend the hearing held on October 3, 2025, and was not represented by counsel. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, in accordance with its rules.
Tribunal Considered Texts and Past Conduct
As part of its review, the Tribunal examined text messages between Mr. Thatcher and a client from mid-2024, during his suspension. The Tribunal concluded that while the messages did not definitively establish that he was actively practising law, they did support a finding that he had held himself out as being entitled to provide legal services—a breach of Rule 7.6-1.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Tribunal also took into account Mr. Thatcher’s previous disciplinary history, including a 2016 reprimand for failure to respond to regulatory communications. Additional administrative suspensions had been imposed in 2024 and 2025 for non-payment of fees and non-compliance with continuing professional development requirements.
Penalty and Public Protection
The Tribunal ruled that the indefinite suspension would remain in effect until Mr. Thatcher fully complies with a Law Society request for information made in May 2025. Only then would the four-month definite suspension begin.
In addition to the suspensions, the Tribunal ordered Mr. Thatcher to pay $12,565 in costs. The decision noted that this amount reflected the complexity of the case and the time required by Law Society staff to investigate the matter without the respondent’s participation.
Tribunal Chair Ryan Alford emphasized in the ruling the need for penalties that uphold public confidence:
“There must be a strong message of deterrence,” the decision states, “to ensure public confidence in the Law Society’s regulatory authority.”
Key Takeaways for the Legal Profession and Public
This disciplinary decision, as published by the Law Society Tribunal, highlights the importance of compliance, transparency, and engagement with professional regulators. For clients—especially in Thunder Bay and throughout Northwestern Ontario—it also serves as a reminder to verify the current status of legal professionals before entering into a retainer.
The full text of the Tribunal’s decision, Citation: Law Society of Ontario v. Thatcher, 2025 ONLSTH 171, is publicly available through the Law Society Tribunal’s website and legal reporting databases.
Note to readers: This article summarizes and reports on the findings and orders of the Law Society Tribunal as published in a public legal decision. NetNewsLedger does not make independent findings of fact and all individuals are presumed innocent of any alleged misconduct unless and until determined otherwise by an authorized legal body.