When Gross Misinformation is considered “Political ” by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), We All Lose

Few things surprise me after the Trump Presidency, this Pandemic, and the age of Misinformation. This partially retired physician has devoted some time toward public health advocacy, especially locally in my Windsor-Essex region. It’s been an remarkable and unfortunate learning experience. I have learned a great deal from experts in infectious disease, public health, epidemiology and physics. Though I may gripe about Premier Ford and Prime Minister Trudeau on my twitter feed, and what they aren’t doing; I am secretly grateful they have listened to science, even if sometimes reluctantly.

I was feeling fairly good about Canada’s response to COVID19. Of course, the recent conditions in Alberta, Saksatechewan and British Columbia are just terrible, and largely a failure of government to promote vaccination and maintain public health measures.

Q. How does that happen in Canada where education levels are high by OECD standards? A. Misinformation, which is especially rife in our western provinces.

So that slightly warm feeling I had about Canada’s COVID19 response was recently doused by a bucket of freezing water when I saw Tweet from one of Canada’s Member of Parliament (Conservative Party of Canada):

When I see statements like this from professionals, I may consider the following questions:

1. Is this stated as an opinion or a fact?
2. Is the individual speaking as a professional or an individual?
3. If he or she is a professional, is the statement ethical?
4. What are the public health ramifications from the Tweet? Higher profile individuals with many followers obviously carry more weight.
5. Does it violate the “Twitter Rules” https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
6. How is the individual identified on their profile, and how may he/she/they be perceived by their tweets.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons has developed, with membership input, an ethical framework for the use of social media. It’s straight forward yet, we have still ahve had members disseminate misinformation. They have have been disciplined. It’s the approach we need. Misinformation is killing Canadians, especially in our western provinces.

Had the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) enacted a simple Policy on the Use of Social Media, I am certain Dr. Leslyn Lewis would not have tweeted that statement. I am shocked such a policy does not exist.

I will share the comments I made to the LSO in my complaint v. Dr. Lewis but I should note the following. My complaint was dismissed about 26 hours following email notification that it was assigned a case number.

My impression is presently, complaints v. public statements by members are summarily dismissed if not concerning a client. There are LSO Rules of Professional Conduct, which I referred to Ch. 2, the section on Integrity:

“Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct”.

My Complaint:

The basis of my complaint was the unethical dissemination of dangerous misinformation during a lethal viral respiratory pandemic. We have on record, numerous hospitalized individuals regretting the failure to get vaccinated and referring to various sources of misinformation as causing fear that dissuaded them. These are not irrational people dying from COVID19. These are normal folks who are trying to discern fact from fiction on unfortunate sources: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.

Therefore, educated, high profile Canadians must strive to tell the truth.

I noted that Dr. Lewis identifies herself as a MP, a lawyer (JD), MES, and PhD (International Law) on her Twitter Profile. However when she tweets, the only identifying term is “Dr.” ie a PhD Lawyer not a Member of Parliament. On this occasion, she made a statement only on a medical issue and as it was factual (not a view or opinion). This has been retweeted and it’s clear some believe she is a medical doctor by the “Dr” designation. Not every reader refers back to the Profile. Many physicians immediately condemned her tweet.

I noted that Dr. Lewis tweeted her statement as it was factual. She said “ …when the treatment [sic vaccine] neither prevents transmitting or getting the virus.” This statement does endanger public health given her prominence as a lawyer and Member of Parliament. People who trust her will believe this to be true.

The LSO took the position that this was an “opinion” and that she was making a “political” argument, ie she was speaking solely as a Member of Parliament not a lawyer. The political discourse about vaccine mandates was mentioned, at least in my conversation with their Intake Officer.

I do not know how the LSO can discriminate what is tweeted as a lawyer and what is tweeted as a Member of Parliament? She identifies herself as all these things in her profile but tweets as a PhD in law. I asked whether the Rules of Professional Conduct still apply if a lawyer becomes an MP? And did Dr. Lewis resign from the Ontario Bar? I received no direct replies but I assume yes and no, respectively.

Most lawyers are trained not to make factual statements without evidence. Her statement was clearly not identified as an Opinion. Opinions are predicated with “IMHO” ie In my humble opinion, or by “In my Opinion”. This was clearly missing from her statement.

She has provided no evidence that the COVID19 vaccines “…neither prevent transmitting or getting the virus”. Why? Because that is exactly how vaccines work. And the mRNA COVID19 vaccines are among the most effective vaccines of the past century. No vaccines are perfect and we are seeing some breakthrough infections, though the vast majority do not lead to serious illness. We know a 3rd innoculation will be necessary. These have already begun among higher risk populations.

I expected more from an accomplished and prominent Canadian lawyer. I especially hoped a Member of Parliment would not spread frank misinformation that would dissuade Canadians from obtaining vaccinations during a lethal pandemic and public health emergency. I am astonished that there appears to be no recourse for such actions.

Twitter has refused to remove the tweet. The LSO has refused, thus far, to review my complaint in any depth, though I had a civil and respectful dialogue with their Intake Officer. I felt she appreciated the rationale for my complaint. I do hope they consider a formal Social Media policy.

I have made an appeal to the Complaints Resolution Commissioner of the LSO. Hopefully they will follow the Law Society of BC: https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/Website/media/Shared/docs/practice/resources/policy_social-media.pdf Stay tuned!

So back to my questions:

1. Is this stated as an opinion or a fact? Fact
2. Is the individual speaking as a professional or an individual? Professional
3. If he or she is a professional, is the statement ethical? Unethical !!— Not factual. Misinformation about vaccines during a lethal pandemic from a highly contagious respiratory virus. LSO Professional Conduct Rules were violated, IMHO: “Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct”.
4. What are the public health ramifications from the Tweet? Higher profile individuals with many followers obviously carry more weight. Very serious. She is a PhD Lawyer, International Law Expert and MP; disseminating lies that may dissuade Canadians from becoming vaccinated. Her tweet may lead to the death of Canadians.
5. Does it violate the “Twitter Rules” https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules YES. Reported by many.
6. How is the individual identified on their profile, and how may he/she/they be perceived by their tweets? She is identified as a MP, JD [lawyer], MES, and PhD on her profile. Her tweets are preceded by “Dr.” without her degrees. Tweets entirely on a medical issue without context maybe retweeted and perceived by readers as coming from a medical professional. That should be obvious.

/End

Epilogue

The Complaints Resolution Commission for the LSO heard my complaint on March 7, 2023, in a private meeting without a public record. I received a written explanation of her decision not to refer the complaint back to the LSO for further investigation. She acknowledged risks to the public may exist by social media postings but the role of the Complaints Resolution Commission is simply to assess whether professional misconduct has occurred. It was my recommendation the LSO adopt a policy for the professional and ethical use of social media.