You too can be crazy like a tick and still get certified to practice law in Manitoba!

Typical Law Office

Tansi/Good Day Readers:

A special thank you to the reader who sent the following - wonder how many hundreds of dollars per hour he's charging clients? Did anyone think to ask what he was watching on "his colour television?" Sound like anyone you know? Maybe he's not so crazy after all! Found it so weird we're e-mailing a copy to Philip Slayton author of Lawyers Gone Bad: Money, Sex And Madness In Canada's Legal Profession. Perhaps he should add, "And Crazy Too" to the subtitle.

Sincerely,

Clare L. Pieuk

philipslayton@hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Crazy Lawyer

To: Clare Pieuk< pieuk@shaw.ca>

Date: Thursday, 24 April 2008 06:39-0500

Clare,

... and speaking of Law Society complaints, I thought you'd be interested in this record of decision (www.lawsociety.mb.ca/case_digests/case

digest_94_16.htm ) which contains some of the zaniest allegations I've ever seen against a lawyer. It has to be read to be believed.

Despite the not guilty finding, the allegations are not disputed. This lawyer was found not guilty on a technicality - it depends on what the definition of "incompetence" is and apparently it doesn't encompass lawyers who in legal proceedings claim they are one-year-old or who play with cardboard boxes made to look like television sets. Good thing for him he was found not guilty. Had he can you imagine how quickly news of these allegations would spread throughout the profession?

DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST

Case 94-16 Manitoba MEMBER A

Particulars of Charges

Incompetence
- mental incapacity or infirmity

Date of Hearing

September 13 & 14, 1994

PanelDouglas Yard, Q.C. (Chairperson)

Bruce Miller, Q.C.

Hymie Weinstein, Q.C.

Disposition
- Not proven

Incompetence - Facts

Member A appeared before the Discipline Committee on September 13 and 14, 1994.

The Member was charged with incompetence as a result of concerns that he might be suffering from mental incapacity or infirmity which impaired his ability to perform legal services which he had undertaken to perform. The basis for the concerns were incidents that involved:

(i) a Statement of Defence in reponse to a Statement of Claim filed against him for an assault in 1990 wherein he stated that he was incapable of forming and did not have the intent to commit an assualt upon the plaintiff

(ii) at the Examination for Discovery with respect to the above noted matter, he advised that his age was "one"

(iii) he advised the Law Society that he had no respect for psychiatrists or their philosophies or ethics

(iv) a salesperson had attended at his office and was confronted by the member sitting behind his desk holding a box on his lap which had been made to look like a television

The member did not dispute any of the factual allegations against him. Medical evidence was called to show that the member was a manic depressive, however there had been no recent examination of the member by a medical practitioner.

Comments of the Discipline Committee

The Committee noted that there was no direct evidence that the member was suffering from any impairment to perform legal services as there was no legal work of the member brought before the Committee for the examination or any clients brought before the Committee to give evidence. Also there was no evidence from other members of the profession as to their dealings with that member.

The Committee found that they were being asked to infer from a series of discreet incidents occuring over a four year period that the member was incompetent by reason of his suffering from some sort of mental incapacity of infirmity. The Committee noted that although these events were disturbing, bizarre, unusual and inappropriate they could not find that the performance of legal services was impaired as a result.

Findings and Penalties

The Committee was unable to find that the Society had proven a case of incompetence. However, the committee did determine that the behavior the member exhibited in the past was inappropriate and unacceptable. In general terms, they found that much of his behavior was bizarre, odd, eccentric, peculiar, immature and capable of bringing the profession into disrepute.

The Committee advised the member that if it was not already evident to him, if he continued to behave in the way as set out in the evidence, the Society might well be forced to use its disciplinary process against him again.