D'Souza v. Linton, 2012 ONCA 11 holds the Law Society does not, absent special circumstances, have a duty to members of the public at large for the wrongful actions of lawyers. Where there are specific complaints about specific lawyers and those are handled carelessly a different situation may exist. The Court holds:
 The appellants argue that the motion judge erred in striking out the statement of claim under Rule 21 as against the Law Society of Upper Canada. The appellants' claim relates to the actions of lawyers who acted for other parties. They argue that the Law Society of Upper Canada is liable in negligence for failing to take appropriate action against those lawyers. There is nothing in the statement of claim or the reply to suggest that the appellants had any contact with the Law Society of Upper Canada. They assert the claim as members of the public.
 In our view, the claim is precluded by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada,  3 S.C.R. 562.
 We do not accept the submission that the later decision of the Supreme Court in Finney v. Barreau du Québec, 2004 SCC 36 assists the appellants. The decision in Finney turned on the fact that the plaintiff had filed several complaints against the solicitor and that the Barreau dealt with those specific complaints in a seriously careless and reckless fashion. The required element of proximity that arose in Finney because of the direct contact between the plaintiff and the Barreau is absent in this case.