The Manitoba Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas sex scandal - two lawsuits down one to go!
The all star cast of characters!
Good Day Readers:
A couple quick points about today's hearing. It's interesting to note three different justices have presided over each one that has taken place to date although we don't know whether any signanicance should be attached to that.
Second, Mr. Chapman was represented by a Winnipeg lawyer today unlike last time when his counsel was from out of province.
And this is the really interesting one. It will be instructive to read the Law Society of Manitoba's findings next week on Alex Chapman's latest complaint against Mr. King. There are those who have taken the position the LSM's handling of his original 2003 complaint was less than stellar - and that's being kind.
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
Man in judge controversy fights to save lawsuit
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
CBC News
Jack King accuses Alex Chapman of violating a 2003 confidential settlement and is suing on claims his privacy was breached. (CBC)A man embroiled in a controversy over nude photos of a Manitoba lawyer who is now a judge is back in court in Winnipeg.
Alex Chapman is fighting to keep his $10-million lawsuit against lawyer Jack King from being dismissed.
King is the husband of Lori Douglas, whom Chapman was also suing before dropping the $7-million claim in September.
Chapman has also dropped the $50-million claim he had against the Winnipeg law firm Thompson Dorfman Sweatman.
He filed all three lawsuits on Sept. 1, claiming he was harassed and suffered emotional distress when King tried, but failed, in 2003 to get him to have sex with Douglas.
At the time, both King and Douglas were partners at Thompson Dorfman Sweatman.
Douglas was appointed a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench on May 19, 2005, and then appointed as an associate chief justice of the Court of Queen's Bench on May 14, 2009.
The lawsuit against Lori Douglas was withdrawn but the Canadian Judicial Council is still investigating a complaint against her by Alex Chapman. (CBC)
Chapman first met King in 2002, when he retained the lawyer to handle his divorce.
Chapman claims King showed him sexually explicit photos of Douglas, naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex.
At some point, Chapman claimed, King also directed him to an interracial porn website devoted to interracial sex, particularly between black men and white women.
When his divorce was concluded, Chapman filed a complaint to the managing partners at the law firm. Soon after receiving the complaint, King left the firm and signed a confidentiality agreement with Chapman.
Douglas has temporarily stepped aside from her duties as a sitting judge but remains with the court in an administrative capacity.
The Canadian Judicial Council is also investigating a complaint Chapman filed against Douglas.
Release signed
Chapman first met King in 2002, when he retained the lawyer to handle his divorce.
Chapman claims King showed him sexually explicit photos of Douglas, naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex.
At some point, Chapman claimed, King also directed him to an interracial porn website devoted to interracial sex, particularly between black men and white women.
When his divorce was concluded, Chapman filed a complaint to the managing partners at the law firm. Soon after receiving the complaint, King left the firm and signed a confidentiality agreement with Chapman.
Douglas has temporarily stepped aside from her duties as a sitting judge but remains with the court in an administrative capacity.
The Canadian Judicial Council is also investigating a complaint Chapman filed against Douglas.
Release signed
King's lawyer, Bill Gange, noted in court Tuesday that Chapman was paid $25,000 as part of the confidentiality agreement.
As well, Chapman signed a release, promising not to take legal action against King, his partners or the firm.
As well, Chapman signed a release, promising not to take legal action against King, his partners or the firm.
Alex Chapman is seeking $10 million in a lawsuit filed against lawyer Jack King. (CBC)
Chapman was also required not to discuss the matter and to destroy all emails, photos and other materials sent to him by King.
Chapman kept the material, but after seven years of silence decided to go public with his allegations at the end of August, telling CBC News he felt distraught about the matter.
As a result of Chapman providing the pictures to other individuals, King has filed a lawsuit for invasion of privacy.
Chapman tried to repay the money by cutting King a cheque last month for $25,000.
Gange told Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Menzies Tuesday that Chapman can't sign a release then bring legal action. The release is complete defence against any action, he said.
Also, Chapman's statement of claim was filed more than seven years after the 2003 settlement, extending beyond the six-year limit under the Limitation of Actions Act, Gange argued.
Lawyer Paul Walsh, who was representing Chapman on Tuesday, argued the release is void and unenforceable and offends the law society's code of conduct because the payment and confidentiality agreement is essentially "hush" money.
All lawyers involved in the 2003 agreement had an obligation to report King's misconduct to the law society, not draw up the release, Walsh added.
Chapman kept the material, but after seven years of silence decided to go public with his allegations at the end of August, telling CBC News he felt distraught about the matter.
As a result of Chapman providing the pictures to other individuals, King has filed a lawsuit for invasion of privacy.
Chapman tried to repay the money by cutting King a cheque last month for $25,000.
Gange told Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Menzies Tuesday that Chapman can't sign a release then bring legal action. The release is complete defence against any action, he said.
Also, Chapman's statement of claim was filed more than seven years after the 2003 settlement, extending beyond the six-year limit under the Limitation of Actions Act, Gange argued.
Lawyer Paul Walsh, who was representing Chapman on Tuesday, argued the release is void and unenforceable and offends the law society's code of conduct because the payment and confidentiality agreement is essentially "hush" money.
All lawyers involved in the 2003 agreement had an obligation to report King's misconduct to the law society, not draw up the release, Walsh added.
He also said Chapman was not under the impression that his legal rights had been compromised by the release.
Menzies questioned that argument, asking then why Chapman is not suing the lawyer who represented him at that time for getting him into a bad arrangement.
Menzies has reserved his decision on whether the lawsuit against King will go ahead.
Meanwhile, the Law Society of Manitoba will announce next week how it will respond to a complaint filed by Chapman against King.
Menzies has reserved his decision on whether the lawsuit against King will go ahead.
Meanwhile, the Law Society of Manitoba will announce next week how it will respond to a complaint filed by Chapman against King.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 1:45 PM
2 Comments:
Chapman paid $25,000. Its very expensive for him. But I think it will worth him to win the case.
Dear Mr. Pieuk,
Upon reading the articles about this latest development, I’m not surprised. The lawsuit against the firm was tenuous at best. I do applaud Mr. Walsh for his comments though. All involved should have been reported, and I agree, that there is question as to whether or not King’s actions constituted criminal harassment.
I doubt that the LSM will have the cojones to address this issue as it should. Considering that they have not so much as issued a reminder to the membership regarding the standard of conduct that is to be expected, I doubt they will take action against King. Lawyers have no business governing themselves – nor do the police, nor judges, nor teachers, nor doctors. Expecting professions held to a higher standard of conduct to impose discipline on themselves, knowing that as individuals they could be subjected to the same discipline, is like letting the inmates run the asylum. The LSM and the CJC both have an opportunity to reinstate the faith of the public in the legal profession, but I fear both will fall far short of public expectations.
Trudeau’s famous quote, “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation,” has been bandied about in defence of the behaviours of Douglas and King, but when the behaviour does not remain in the bedroom, and instead is put into the public sphere, indeed, potentially invading every home in the nation through the internet, does the state not have an obligation to hold those responsible accountable? Can a person have faith in a lawyer that makes sexual advances? Can we believe that there are real consequences for that conduct? Have we regressed to the 1950’s when it was okay for women to be objectified and vulnerable people taken advantage of by those in positions of power?
If neither the LSM nor the CJC have the guts to stand up for the victims of persons in power, to whom can victims turn? “Follow the rules! Attend to protocols! Offenders will be disciplined!” Those are the promises made, and it’s time for governing bodies to make good. Examples need to be made that show the public this type of conduct, being shoved into the homes of the nation through the internet, will not be tolerated. That the boundaries of common sense, basic respect, integrity and honour are still valued in our society, and those who offend those boudaries, will be stripped of their status. A message needs to be sent - keep your private business in your bedroom, or suffer the consequences.
I, for one, do not believe that morality and ethics of society have fallen so far as to condone the actions of Douglas and King as acceptable. I only hope that the LSM and CJC do not prove me wrong.
Veritas Justitias Honoris
Post a Comment
<< Home