The Law Society of Manitoba's poster child?
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Keep your bedroom antics private - a nation doesn't need to know!"Good Morning Mr. Pieuk:
(1) Indeed, on investigation, Mr. Walsh has an extensive history of discipline by the Law Society of Manitoba. Perhaps it is this history that allows Mr. Walsh the fortitude to engage the LSM and his profession head on? Having gone through the digests, despite seemingly serious infractions, the discipline of the LSM was pathetic. (No offence Mr. Walsh, but you’re not exactly the poster-boy for professional conduct!). The LSM certainly has a record of “sweeping issues under the rug” and its decision regarding Mr. King will act as either an endorsement of the payment of “hush money” to Mr. Chapman, or as being a governing body capable of imposing real discipline on its members. I can hardly wait for the decision.
(2) As I understand it, the LSM already has the power to engage a layperson, the Complaints Commissioner is a non-lawyer who can review a complaint filed with the LSM that has been rejected or that the complainant is not satisfied with. According to the The Society's 2010 Annual Report (Page 4), the role of the Commissioner is changing:
“Next year the role of the Complaints Commissioner will be expanded to include reviews of all complaints within the Law Society’s jurisdiction that are not referred to the Society’s Complaints Investigation Committee. This will include decisions to take no further action because a lawyer has provided a satisfactory explanation, the complaint is determined to be of no merit or the lawyer has been reminded of his or her obligations. There will likely be an increase in the number of referrals to the Complaints Commissioner as a result of these changes.”
Should prove interesting, if these changes are actually implemented.
Veritas Justitias Honoris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
Truth To Power (www.accesstoinfo.blogspot.com; vicpopuli1@gmail.com)In the past Mr. Populi has published multiple decisions from the Disciplinary Case Digest involving Mr. Walsh.
To view them visit his site and type "Paul Victor Walsh" in the search box (main page top left-hand corner). Mr. Walsh challenged a penalty (6-month suspension plus $25,000 fine) to the Manitoba Court of Appeal on 3 counts of porfessional misconduct to which he had pleaded guilty. Here's a telling excerpt from its December 2006 decision:
"The appellant has been the subject of formal discipline proceedings on no less than nine prior occasions, with a record that is comprised of two formal cautions and 13 findings or admissions of guilt for professional misconduct. He has already been fined a total of $23,000 and ordered to pay costs of $20,500. Appeal dismissed."
Regarding the upcoming decision in the Alex Chapman complaint, please don't hold your breath. We expect another weasely-like decision from the Disciplinary Committee
(2) Actually, our comments were directed more at placing laypersons on Disciplinary Committees so they impact on a decision before it's made not after. The Complaints Commissioner's role in reviewing a case is to determine only if the correct decision has been made not to pursue a formal investigation vis-a-vis the complaint per se. This raises a few questions:
(i) Is a Disciplinary Committee obliged to follow the recommendation(s) of a Commissioner?
(ii) How is the Commissioner selected, that is to say, what are the criteria? Is there an open, advertised competition?
(iii) How long does a Commissioner serve? What is their rumuneration?
(iv) The current Commissioner is Drew Perry who's serving in an acting capacity. Anyone know who he is and his background?
(v) Could we apply to become the next Commissioner? My goodness were both eminently qualified!
More research for you VJH.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 6:06 PM
2 Comments:
Good Morning,
Interesting that you pose your questions as the LSM releases it's most recent Communique. It seems they are celebrating the appointment of Mr. Perry, and describe his background as follows:
Drew Perry was appointed as the Law Society’s Complaints Review Commissioner at the September 16, 2010 meeting of the Benchers. Mr. Perry is a retired Senior Executive in the Manitoba Public Service who most recently served as Assistant Deputy Minister to the Treasury Board Secretariat of the Manitoba Department of Finance. He also served as Assistant Deputy Minister, Administration and Finance to the Department of Family Services & Housing and Assistant Deputy Minister, Child & Family Services. Mr. Perry was involved in developing new legislation, designing and implementing new public programs and services and led numerous reorganizations and internal reform projects. As a member of the Department of Family Services he had responsibilities in the areas of child welfare, child day care, family dispute services and family conciliation programs.
With regard to your other questions, I can only provide what the LSM is spouting currently on the topic of the role of the Commissioner:
The Complaints Review Commissioner plays a vital role in the Law Society’s complaints investigation process by reviewing staff decisions not to investigate a complaint because it is deemed to be of no merit as well as decisions not to refer an investigated complaint to the Complaints Investigation Committee for its consideration. The Commissioner is an independent member of the public who provides complainants with a second opinion on the resolution of their complaint.
Individuals who request that their complaint be reviewed must do so within sixty days of receiving the Society’s decision. When the Complaints Review Commissioner receives a request for review he will contact the Society and obtain the client’s original complaint file. The Commissioner will then make a decision based on the information found in the file. The Commissioner does not meet with the complainant or the lawyer. In the case of a complaint determined to be of no merit, the Commissioner can either confirm the decision of the Law Society or require that the complaint be investigated. Where a complaint has been investigated but has not proceeded to the Complaints Investigation Committee, the Commissioner can either confirm the decision of the Law Society or require that the complaint be referred to the Complaints Investigation Committee for its consideration.
As for how one applies, who can apply, and what they are paid - for that I suppose you'll have to either ask Mr. Perry himself, or make application under the Freedom of Information Act, but as the LSM is not a public body, rather a private organization with paid membership, I doubt you'll have much success with the latter.
Always fun to provide assistance,
VJH
Thank you .your website is quite helpful to me. I liked the theory of billionaire’s loop hole. And your logic of anonymous transactions, It shows how to avoid taxes legally. Thanks guys. tax heavens
Post a Comment
<< Home