A brake on lawyers who lie: Me Vivan Nguyen’s call

Ahead of the first Québec Summit on the Rule of Law, a practising lawyer issues a call to her colleagues: that integrity and honesty once again become the absolute rule before the courts. A whistle-blowing text, offered to EnDroit.ca, paired with a message to litigants — you are not alone.

2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for public trust in the justice system. On September 8 and 9, at the Palais des congrès de Montréal, the Barreau du Québec will hold the very first Québec Summit on the Rule of Law, under the theme “Uniting to protect our rule of law.” The finding behind it is stark: according to a Léger survey conducted for the Barreau, 43% of Quebecers feel their trust in public institutions has declined in recent years.

It is in this context that a practising lawyer has chosen to speak out. Me Vivan Nguyen sent us a whistle-blowing text, along with a redacted rebuke email, writing simply: “if you wish to share this text and its attachment, I offer them to you.” We have chosen to publish it. Here it is, in her words, without a single line changed.

A brake on lawyers who lie: a slide to be stopped without delay

Dear Mr. Gagné,

I am writing to you in the context of the first Québec Summit on the Rule of Law of 2026, and in a context where public trust in judicial institutions must be actively preserved — the Québec Ministry of Justice itself recognizing the importance of maintaining a trustworthy and honest justice system.

In the same vein, the Barreau du Québec has as its mission to ensure the protection of the public, to oversee the practice of the profession, and to promote the rule of law. The integrity, honesty and rigour of lawyers in their representations before the courts are in no way optional.

On June 17, 2026, the Barreau wrote:

This quotation is drawn from the following web page: https://www.barreau.qc.ca/fr/nouvelle/communiques/barreau-lance-sommet-proteger-etat-droit-quebec/.

We also find there the following statistic: “Barely 6 in 10 people feel that the principles of the rule of law are well respected.”

As a member of the Barreau and an officer of the court, I too have an important role to play in maintaining public trust in our system. That role means not only complying with high standards of work in the exercise of my profession, but also putting a brake on any slide or slippage liable to undermine public trust in our judicial system.

I am a lawyer. When the opposing lawyer lies to the Court, without shame and with conviction, I dare not imagine what she does, or could do, before a litigant who represents themselves. That is my concern. I am a lawyer accustomed to litigation of extreme confrontation. I tell the true from the false. I tell the law from dishonest tactics. Today I make the choice to speak out publicly to invite lawyers to comply with their duty of integrity and honesty in the strictest way. I speak out publicly to tell litigants that they are not alone. This reminder of the rules that preserve the honour and dignity of the profession is surely not superfluous, in a context where all our institutions are working relentlessly to improve public trust.

I understand that the government invests here and there in order to foster public trust in a better and more accessible justice system. That investment must not, however, exclude addressing problems directly at the source. The actors of the justice system who are in direct contact with the public and with litigants bear the responsibility of carrying on their shoulders the honesty and integrity of the system, in order to set an example and inspire trust.

A situation today leads me to write this whistle-blowing text entitled: “A brake on lawyers who lie: a slide to be stopped without delay.”

The opposing lawyer attempted to submit to the Court that my judicial proceeding complied with neither the rules nor the deadlines, which is completely false. Her conduct harms the sound administration of justice, since she wastes the Court’s time by opening a debate in which I must necessarily take part. She wastes my time and the Court’s. In doing so, she buys time and contributes to a possible postponement of the file, which suits her client. Time is limited in urgent hearings. If she takes 20 minutes away from me by raising a groundless debate, that is 20 minutes less that I have to focus on my real case and my real evidence. An unworthy and dishonest strategy, one that can only undermine litigants’ trust in the legal profession. She asked for 10 minutes to present her scheme, so I set aside 10 minutes to defend myself.

The problem is precisely when the professionals on the front line of the justice system go off the rails.

I took an oath to serve justice. I refuse to stay silent and to condone this slippage through my silence.

I say it again: A brake on lawyers who lie: a slide to be stopped without delay.

We must come together to improve public trust in lawyers and in the justice system. Everyone has their share of responsibility. Mine, today, is to put a brake on this lawyer’s slippage. I offer you the redacted email in which I rebuke her respectfully, but seriously.

The situation experienced that day is not an isolated case. That said, it must be stated that a significant number of lawyers work with integrity and in a manner worthy of their profession, so as to foster public trust in our system. To them, I say thank you.

Mr. Gagné, if you wish to share this text and its attachment, I offer them to you.

This text will eventually be published on my own platforms.

Sincere regards.

A word from EnDroit.caYou are no longer alone

We are publishing this opinion piece because it aligns with a conviction we have defended from the very beginning: public trust in the justice system depends on transparency. Trust is not restored by hiding slippages, but by allowing them to be spoken about.

Me Nguyen is not alone. For months, several lawyers have contacted us to share what they observe from the inside. Many wish to remain anonymous, for reasons everyone understands. Today, they have a place to speak — in the strictest anonymity, or in the open. The choice is entirely theirs. But the door is open, and we are here.

What she describes — two versions of the same reality submitted to a court, only one of which can be true — is not unlike a file we have already documented. In the matter we titled “Where is David?”, lawyer Jean-François Noiseux, of the firm CDNP, mandated by the Professional Liability Insurance Fund of the Barreau du Québec, and lawyer Cynthia Ward, of the firm Spunt & Carin, presented, in official sworn documents, contradictory versions of the same situation. Both could not be true at once. The documents speak for themselves and remain downloadable: the contradictory sworn statement, the statement by Me Noiseux (“Chun in China”) and the sworn statement (“Chun in Québec”). Me Nguyen’s testimony is therefore not an isolated case: it is one more piece in a picture our readers already know.

To the litigants who feel crushed, alone in the face of power imbalances beyond them: legal professionals are speaking out today to tell you that you are not alone. It may be the beginning of something.