In family law, we see the best and the worst of human behaviour. Spouses in crisis often come to their lawyers angry, grieving, fearful, or determined to “win”- sometimes at any cost. In that emotional hurricane, even the most seasoned family law practitioners encounter clients who are prepared to lie, cheat, conceal assets, manipulate evidence, or even rope their own lawyers into conduct that edges dangerously close to perjury or obstruction.
This ethical minefield is a reminder of a fundamental principle: a divorce lawyer must never become an extension of a client’s darkest impulses. Our job is to be a sound advisor, not a weapon. And nothing illustrates this better – or more alarmingly – than the unfolding criminal saga surrounding Brampton defence lawyer Deepak Paradkar, now facing extradition to the United States on allegations so extreme that they read like fiction.
While Paradkar is presumed innocent, the allegations are staggering: advising alleged drug lord Ryan Wedding; providing court documents to his criminal associates; facilitating access to individuals under investigation; advising him on murdering a witness; and being referenced in an indictment by his former social media handle “@cocaine_lawyer.”
It is alleged that Paradkar used his professional status to advance a client’s objectives – not lawful objectives but criminal ones.
For the family law bar, this case offers a sobering warning: the moment you allow a client’s agenda to overtake your own ethical compass, your career, your licence, your liberty, and the administration of justice are at risk. Unlike criminal defence – where the stakes involve liberty – family law involves children, property, and sometimes the total dismantling of a family life built over decades. Emotions run high. Clients feel betrayed, furious, terrified. In that emotional state, many spouses:
- exaggerate the other parent’s shortcomings
- minimize or conceal their own behaviour
- hide money, employment, or assets
- make false reports to the police or Children’s Aid Society
- send anonymous tips to Canada Revenue Agency
- manufacture text messages or social-media narratives
- pressure their lawyers to “just say this” or “leave that out”
- ask lawyers to help them shape their affidavit the way they want the judge to see it
Any family lawyer who has been in practice longer than a month has met the charming deceiver, the wounded victim-narrator, the financial manipulator, or the litigant determined to “punish” their spouse through the court process. The danger arises when a lawyer allows empathy, advocacy, or alignment with the client’s narrative to slide into complicity.
Paradkar is presumed innocent. Indeed I truly hope that he is both innocent and declared innocent. But the reputational damage to him and his practice and all lawyers is dire. The general public is following the narrative delivered in the media: a lawyer becoming too close to a client, too drawn into the client’s worldview, too aligned with the client’s goals and forgetting the boundary between lawyer and client.
Family law practice is unique because:
1. Lawyers hear only one side of the story.
2. Clients are often desperate for validation.
3. Lawyers feel pressure to believe what they’re told.
4. The evidence of what occurred is behind closed doors and is often uncorroborated.
5. Much of family litigation depends on affidavits—documents signed under oath but drafted by lawyers.
6. Clients are desperate for vindication.
7. Lawyers are tempted to draft affidavits or make submissions more favourably than the truth warrants.
8. Lawyers may be seduced by charisma, empathy, martyrdom, money, status or gratitude.
The Paradkar case shows that clients could distort a lawyer’s judgment. Since lawyers like to ‘win’, that desire can eclipse the duty to the court, to witnesses and to the administration of justice. But we are officers of the court first, advocates second. As the Criminal Lawyers’ Association President Boris Bytensky reminded the public after Paradkar’s arrest: “Lawyers are not extensions of their clients.” This principle is even more critical in family law, where clients’ personal narratives are often untested, emotional, and sometimes dishonest.
The duty of every lawyer is to:
- verify facts before asserting them
- refuse to swear affidavits that contain inaccuracies
- decline instructions that require exaggeration or misrepresentation
- refuse to act when a client demands unethical advocacy
- report conduct that crosses into illegality
- withdraw when necessary
A lawyer who becomes personally entangled in a client’s worldview is no longer a lawyer. They become part of the story, and that is how careers end. Whether Deepak Paradkar is eventually convicted or exonerated is a question for the courts. But the allegations and the fallout serve as a stark reminder – when a lawyer allows a client’s illicit motives to eclipse their professional obligations, the justice system collapses. Divorce lawyers must remain the adults in the room, the ethical spine of the legal process, and the unwavering defenders of truth. Our profession does not need another lawyer whose career ends in handcuffs.
This article was recently published in LexisNexis’ Law360 at: https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/2418692/don-t-become-the-next-deepak-paradkar
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Editorial note: This article was first published on LinkedIn in December 2025 and is republished here for reference.
Share this article on: