The Law Society of Ontario has revoked the licence of Ottawa lawyer James Bowie, following his convictions for serious criminal offences. The disciplinary action strips Bowie of his right to practice law in the province.
Details of the Criminal Case
James Bowie was found guilty of criminal harassment and extortion in a case that culminated in a court decision earlier this year. The lawyer was seen arriving at the Ottawa courthouse in February 2025 for proceedings related to the charges. The specific details of the harassment and extortion allegations that led to the convictions have not been fully disclosed in public reports, but the severity of the crimes prompted immediate regulatory scrutiny.
The Law Society's Disciplinary Decision
The governing body for lawyers in Ontario moved swiftly following the criminal verdict. A licence revocation is one of the most severe penalties the Law Society can impose, reserved for conduct that is deemed fundamentally incompatible with the duties of a legal professional. This action effectively ends Bowie's legal career in Ontario.
The decision to revoke his licence underscores the Law Society's mandate to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Lawyers in Canada are held to a high standard of conduct, both professionally and personally, and criminal convictions for offences involving dishonesty or threats often result in disbarment.
Consequences and Professional Fallout
With his licence revoked, James Bowie can no longer represent clients, provide legal advice, or operate a law practice in Ontario. The permanent stain on his professional record is a significant consequence of the criminal behaviour. The case serves as a stark reminder to all legal professionals about the stringent ethical obligations attached to holding a licence to practice law.
The revocation was formally announced on December 2, 2025. While the original criminal trial process would have unfolded over preceding months, the Law Society's disciplinary tribunal would have conducted its own separate hearing to determine the appropriate penalty following the guilty verdict.
