A Lawyer Resigns Mid-Investigation, and the Regulators Go Quiet

A resignation in the middle of a disciplinary investigation. An alleged departure abroad. The Bar’s own insurance fund financing the defence of the firm concerned — and sending cease-and-desist letters to journalists. A complaint filed with Quebec’s financial regulator. The Bureau du syndic closes the files, and nothing moves.

I — The lawyerA resignation while under investigation

Me David Chun was a lawyer with Spunt & Carin, a family law firm based in Westmount, Quebec. He is at the centre of allegations of judicial collusion, obstruction of justice and forgery, set out in an originating application filed in the Superior Court of Quebec (file 705-17-011918-255).

On 5 February 2025, Me Chun formally resigned from the Barreau du Québec while he was the subject of an investigation by the Bureau du syndic, the law society’s disciplinary investigations office.

Under Quebec professional discipline law, cooperating with such an investigation is an ethical obligation. According to the allegations set out in the originating application, resigning mid-investigation is in itself a serious ethical breach.

II — The contradictionTwo accounts of where he is, both before the courts

These two accounts cannot both be accurate. One or the other amounts to a false statement before a judicial body. To date, no authority has resolved the contradiction.

III — The syndicClosed, despite allegations of serious criminal fraud

Despite Me Chun’s resignation mid-investigation, the Bureau du syndic has imposed no publicly known disciplinary sanction.

Assistant syndic Me Guylaine Mallette confirmed in writing the definitive closure of the file, declining any fresh request for an investigation on the basis that a decision had already been rendered and upheld by the Comité de révision.

That closure comes in a heavily loaded context.

According to the originating application, the decision concerning Me Cynthia Ward, a partner at Spunt & Carin, was affected by a fundamental factual error acknowledged in writing by Me Mallette herself: the decision confused the applicant’s lawyer with opposing counsel. The application further alleges that the closure of Me Ward’s file was pronounced the day after the applicant submitted evidence from the DPCP — Quebec’s prosecution service — when the day before, the investigation had been confirmed to him as ongoing.

A decisive point: Me Anne-France Goldwater, among the best-known family law practitioners in Quebec, is said to have herself transmitted a report to the Barreau du Québec concerning the facts alleged in this file.

Her son, Me Daniel Goldwater, set out in writing statements of exceptional gravity concerning Me David Chun and the Spunt & Carin firm, characterizing the conduct complained of as serious criminal fraud and a cover-up. These are allegations, not judicial findings.

Even so, the answer from the Bureau du syndic remained the same: closure.

IV — The insurance fundFunding the defence, and writing to journalists

The FARPBQ, whose mission is to handle claims fairly and equitably toward the public, retained and paid Me Jean-François Noiseux to defend the Spunt & Carin firm in the civil action brought by the applicant — the same firm one of whose former members sits at the centre of the fraud allegations.

Acting in that capacity, Me Noiseux of the firm CDNP avocats sent cease-and-desist letters to journalists covering the matter, including to Michel Harnois.

The practical effect of those steps was to slow the public circulation of information about the file. The originating application characterizes this as an abuse of process: the use of a legal procedure not for a legitimate defensive purpose, but to silence a journalist in a matter of public interest. That characterization is the applicant’s, and has not been ruled on.

The application also alleges that Me Noiseux deliberately proposed that Me Chun be examined by videoconference — a step the application describes as intended to conceal Me Chun’s alleged departure rather than permit genuine adversarial testimony.

V — The regulatorA complaint filed with the AMF, and silence since

In October 2025, the applicant filed a formal complaint with the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Quebec’s financial markets regulator, which oversees the FARPBQ.

The complaint describes serious shortcomings and the involvement of the crisis-management firm Clyde & Co.

VI — The criminal branchDropped, transferred, and a witness no one can find

A criminal complaint (file RPY-250224-012) was filed alleging collusion, obstruction of justice and forgery.

The Repentigny police declined to investigate, citing a conflict of interest in the file. The DPCP in turn declined to lay charges because the Repentigny police could not investigate — and because conducting the investigation is not the prosecution service’s role.

On 1 August 2025, Me Yan Vachon confirmed the transfer of the investigation file to the DPCP’s Montreal office, on the basis that several of the individuals concerned were court-system participants in the Joliette district — a decision that itself raises the question of the impartiality of local actors in this matter.

The larger questionBeyond the fate of one litigant

When a lawyer can resign in the middle of a disciplinary investigation without public consequence. When two contradictory accounts of his whereabouts coexist before the courts and no authority resolves them. When the insurance fund meant to protect the public finances the defence of the firm concerned while sending cease-and-desist letters to the journalists covering the story. When a report from one of Quebec’s most respected lawyers is not enough to reopen a disciplinary file. When the police decline to investigate and the prosecution service declines to prosecute.

The question is no longer whether the system failed in one particular case. The question is how many similar cases the same system may have produced in silence.

An autistic father remains separated from his four-year-old twins. The reports favoured him. No one has been sanctioned. And the central witness remains unlocated.

SummaryEight documented warning signs