Anyone who searches my name will find, alongside my professional work, a number of websites making serious claims about a matter from 2016. I’ve decided to address it directly rather than let it stand unanswered.
What Actually Happened in 2016
In 2016, the Law Society of Ontario reprimanded me and suspended my license in connection with a 2015 investigation into a real estate transaction. The finding was specific: I failed to cooperate fully with the Law Society’s request for documentation during that investigation. That is the finding. It was not a finding of fraud, theft, or dishonesty in the underlying transaction itself — it was a finding about my cooperation with the investigative process, and I accept that record as accurate.
At the time, my position was that the information being sought was protected by my clients’ confidentiality and privilege, and that protecting it was my obligation to them.
I have never been charged with a crime in connection with this or any other matter, and I remain licensed and in good standing to practice law in New York and Michigan.
On My Work with 1Plus12
My connection to 1Plus12 was as a service provider. I provided legal and/or management services to the company. I was not an owner, principal, or decision-maker in the company. I rendered those services as directed by my client, exactly as any attorney in that role would.
What is independently verifiable: I am not currently named as a defendant in the lawsuits referenced in connection with 1Plus12. I have not been criminally charged in relation to any matter.
On the Sites Publishing This Coverage
A number of websites — some using names like “CyberCriminal,” “Finance Scam,” “Legal Observer,” and “Intelligence Line” — have published extensive material about past business matters involving me, often repeating the same claims across multiple pages and framing routine procedural findings as evidence of ongoing fraud. I want to be precise about what I am and am not saying here: I am not asserting that any specific site has broken the law. What I will say is that this pattern — multiple similarly-branded sites, publishing near-identical claims, often alongside offers to have content “removed” — is a recognized pattern in how this type of site frequently operates.
I’m not the one making that observation in isolation. In November 2025, CEOWorld Magazine examined this situation independently and reached a similar conclusion — noting that I have never been convicted of fraud, and that platforms like these “sometimes function less as transparency tools and more as pay-to-remove extortion.”
Why I’m Addressing This Publicly
I could stay silent and let a nine-year-old procedural finding be repeated indefinitely, stripped of context, across an expanding network of sites. I’ve chosen not to. The discipline I write about elsewhere on this site — knowing when to speak and when not to — applies here too. This is one of the moments that calls for directness, not silence.
I have also addressed a related, separate claim — that I was an undischarged bankrupt — in more detail here: Facts vs. Fiction: The Truth About My Legal Standing.