FROM: MICHAEL SPENSIERI, JD LLM TO:UNDISCLOSED RECIPIENTS
RE: REGULATORY MEETING: RICHARD EMILE ANKA
In March of 2010 the above noted lawyer was found to have engaged in sharp practice and to have written letters to members of the Profession deemed to be uncivil and inconsistent with the proper tone of professional correspondence from a lawyer.
It was noted that the lawyer was in a position to negatively influence younger lawyers (within his firm although this was not made clear). The lawyer has since decided to practise as a sole practitioner.
The allegations stemmed from file 07-CV-329949PD3. The lawyer noted the defendants in default when he had earlier agreed with opposing counsel not to take any fresh steps until two Motions had been disposed of: to dismiss for lack of juridiction and to extend the time for filing a Defence. His conduct was found to be "misleading in the extreme" by Mr. Justice Newbold.
Mr. Anka agreed to all counts of professional misconduct and that he had not acted in good faith, The Regulatory Meeting meted out the appropriate admonitions and determined that no further disciplinary steps were needed.
FILE NO.CV-09 093958-00
The writer wishes to disclose that he is one of three defendants in the above noted file.
We submit that Mr. Anka continues to be engage in sharp practice within the meaning ascribed to that term in his previous Regulatory Meeting. The particulars are as follows:
*) while engaged with opposing counsel in dicussions about available dates to discover his client and the
defendants and without negotiating a plan for discovery and orderly conduct of the action he unilaterally,
surreptitiously and in order to gain a tactical advantage served a Notice of Examination for Discovery
and arbitrarily stated that he would not produce his client until all defendants had been discovered, once
again for the purposes of outmanouevering opposing counsel.
*) the writer secured new counsel with more procedural "lexpertise" and a Court Order was obtained
addressing all the issues, including a Plan for discoveries, the sequence of persons to be
discovered, several other matters, and the delivery of a Trial Record by April 30, 2012.
*) On April 27, 2012 Mr. Anka served the Trial Record and set the action down for Trial all the
while purporting to negotiate availability for discovery dates. Mr. Anka knows, as a senior Barrister, that the
Trial Record was served contrary to the Rules and in particular contrary to the Court Order.
The sole purpose of filing the Trial Record is to "start the meter running" so that discoveries will have to be held helter skelter, consecutive days will not be available to Counsel, parties to the action will not make themselves available for discoveries, and the trial date will be reached sooner than discoveries can be held, with the result that the Trial Record(s) will be the only documents before the trial Judge. Mr. Anka has thrown a live grenade on this very complex matter. He is a menace to any litigation because he cannot resist the overpowering impulse to penetrate with reckless abandon.
MAY 28 2010
KING CITY ON L7B 1H8
905 833 7335 Michael Angelo Spensieri 14563 (Quondam Solicitor)