What is the case law of an unwitting dupe who was found guilty of misconduct for failing to disclose conflicts of interest?

In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fazio,[14] the appeal panel found that the appellant was an “unwitting dupe.” Nevertheless, his conduct was serious because he was in a blatant conflict of interest, and failed to disclose his financial arrangements and commissions to his clients. He also benefitted from the questionable transaction. However, he did not knowingly facilitate fraud, and the appeal panel referred to a number of other mitigating circumstances (including the fact that the misconduct was admitted) when it imposed a penalty of six months’ suspension.