« The Bar Didn’t Do Its Job » — Daniel Goldwater

A resignation in the middle of a syndic’s investigation, a closure upheld by the review committee, and an experienced lawyer who publicly criticizes how the Spunt & Carin file was handled.

The statement is short. Direct. Without qualification.

It does not come from an anonymous litigant or from a remark tossed off on social media, but from an experienced lawyer, Daniel Goldwater, who says he knows the elements of the file involving David Chun — formerly of Spunt & Carin — from the inside.

The sentence raises a basic question: did the Barreau du Québec fully discharge its public protection mandate in this particular file?

I — The resignationLeaving the order while under investigation

David Chun, who was working at Spunt & Carin at the time of the events in question, formally resigned from the Barreau du Québec while he was the subject of an investigation by the syndic.

That element alone is arresting.

In professional discipline law, cooperating with a syndic’s investigation is a clear ethical obligation. The Professional Code and the rules governing members of the Barreau provide that a professional must cooperate with the disciplinary authority.

In the file examined by EnDroit.ca, no public disciplinary measure appears to have followed from this sequence of events.

II — The recordSerious allegations, and an official answer

On 23 December 2025, a fresh request for an investigation into Mr. Chun was made, on the basis that information from a member of the Barreau du Québec described conduct amounting to serious criminal fraud, and that the Barreau had not treated the matter with the required seriousness.

The official reply from the Bureau du syndic, signed by assistant syndic Me Guylaine Mallette, was that a decision had already been rendered in the file in which an investigation had been requested, that the decision had been upheld by the Comité de révision — the Barreau’s review committee — and that the office was accordingly closing the file without authorizing any such further request for an investigation.

So despite the elements raised — including the resignation mid-investigation and the allegations made by Daniel Goldwater — the Barreau maintained the closure and refused any reconsideration.

EnDroit.ca does not claim to determine whether the accusations are well founded, nor to substitute its judgment for that of the competent authorities. But the apparent absence of any formal reopening raises a legitimate question: were the disciplinary mechanisms fully exercised?

III — The mandateProtecting the public, or protecting the members?

The Barreau du Québec’s primary mission is the protection of the public. It also administers a professional liability insurance fund intended to compensate the victims of professional errors.

In a file where a member resigns mid-investigation, where serious allegations are made by an experienced lawyer, where factual contradictions are raised under oath, and where no public disciplinary measure appears to have been taken, the question goes beyond an individual dispute.

Does the Barreau sometimes find itself in an institutional tension between protecting the public, protecting the integrity of the profession, and managing its own systemic exposure?

This is not an assertion that a conflict of interest exists. It is a question of public interest.

What is at stakeInstitutional confidence

Confidence in disciplinary institutions rests on transparency and consistency.

When a professional under investigation leaves the order partway through the process, the public is entitled to understand whether the investigation continues, whether conclusions were reached, and whether any breach was found.

In this case, the grey areas remain.

Me Goldwater’s assertion has not been adjudicated. But it now feeds a broader debate about the effectiveness of disciplinary mechanisms, and about whether the system can actually protect citizens once the stakes become institutional.