Are Law Society of Manitoba "Benchers" repressed judges?

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "If convicted the penalty will be?"

Clare,

My, my how might the mighty fall? A couple of interesting reads that are related to this particular installment in the Douglas/King/Chapman debacle.

First, Alan Fineblit's simpering proclamation of innocence of the LSM in the October Communique:

http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/publications/communique/LSM%20-%20October%202010.pdf/

View page 3 for those who are looking for a good laugh.

Second, an article written by Brenlee Carrington Trepel in the February 2002 edition of the Manitoba Bar Association's publication Headnotes and Footnotes:

http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/equity/equity-ombudsperson/files/articles-1/Concerned.pdf/view?searchterm=sexual

Containing such tidbits as:

"A recent Law Society of Manitoba disciplinary hearing panel concluded that: 'Sexual harassment is a serious type of professional misconduct in that it involves a breach of trust that fundamentally undermines the lawyer/client relationship. As such, the breach can be as serious as, or more serious than, one resulting from the misappropriation of trust funds.'"

And my personal favourite:

"Sexual harassment is also discussed and prohibited in Chapter 20. It is defined to include one or more incidents involving unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when such conduct might reasonably be expected to cause insecurity, discomfort, offence or humiliation to another person or group."

Interesting statements made by the Equity Ombudsman, during a very, VERY suspicious time frame.

Still seeking...

Veritas Justitias Honoris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear VJH:

As always thank you very much for a well-researched and presented e-mail. Keep on seeking!

As for Ms Brenlee Carrington Trepel, with the expensive sounding name and even loftier sounding Law Society title, her article in the Manitoba Bar Association's Newsletter leaves the impression the folks at the LSM are just waking up to the fact sexual harassment seriously distorts the workplace making it a lot less efficient.

As for Mr. Allan Fineblit's contribution like you we too thought it was so good as to be worthy of reproduction.

A lawyer once told us in their view Law Society "Benchers" are drawn to the organization because they're repressed judges who never made it.

Finally, there was a report on CBC Winnipeg Radio this morning (9:00 news) that a Law Society member (unnamed) had stated publicly the 2003 Alex Chapman complaint had not been adequately investigated, however, it was not repeated at 10:00. We're monitoring the CBC Manitoba website to see if it will appear there.

Sinverely/Clare L. Pieuk.

__________________________________________________

Sex, Lies and Videotapes/Allan Fineblit, Q.C./October 2010

There has been a lot of coverage of a story about a lawyer, a judge and the Law Society's investigation of a recent complaint of sexual misconduct. So ... I thought I should write about it, but this is a hard article to write. First of all, a lot of stuff could happen between when I write this and when it gets into your hands. Secondly, as I write, I am constrained by our statute (I can't talk about ongoing investigations) and by a court order.

There are, however, a number of things that aren't going to change that I can write about. There is a lot of speculation, lots of assumptions and on occassion, just plain wrong information being circulated and it is frustrating not to be able to fully engage in that conversation.

First of all, I can tell you that the Law Society always acted on the basis of well established principles and practices. We looked at what was in the public interest and nothing more. We did not engage in a "cover up." Decisions that were made were made carefully and in consultation with others. They were decisions that required that exercise of judgement. They were not easy decisions. In each case we followed the principle and practices that we have always found and that have generally proven successful over the long term in protecting the public.

It is quite likely that some will disagee with those decisions, but that shouldn't be surprising. Any time a decision is made on an important matter that requires the exercise of judgement, right thinking people may disagree on what was the correct thing to do.

We hope to be able to provide considerable detail about what we did and why we did it to enable the public to judge for themselves whether in fact we acted throughout with the public interest in mind. We are also listening to the commentary and advice of thers to see if we need to make changes. My only point is that our motives were to protect the public throughout and that we applied guidelines and practices that are principled and well established and have a very good track record of success.

Our Ruling

Based on Mr. Finblit's comments, this site remains totally unconvinced the Law Society of Manitoba acted in the best public interest which was referenced no less than 4 times in his article.

The LSM based on rumours and allegations, of which The Society has publicly acknowledged it was aware as far back as 2003, should have shown leadership and acted proactively by initiating a full-scale investigation to satisfy Manitoba citizens, as well as , itself all was or was not in order. If failed to do so.

Therefore, it is the decision of CyberSmokeBlog's internet Disciplinary Committee The Society is guilty of at least one MASSIVE count of failing to protect the public interest, as it purports to do, under Chapter 20 provisions of the Legal Profession Act for which a fine of $500,000 is assessed. It may be paid using your installment plan.

Further, The Society effective immediately is suspended for one year from protecting the monopoly and misconduct of its membership. Benchers, your annual protection money payment for 2011-2012 is hereby cancelled.

Finally, Mr. Fineblit is ordered to write the correct spelling of "judgment" 500 times. A Freudian slip?