Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
Good Day Readers:
As noted this morning, we attended the disciplinary hearing for Winnipeg lawyer Jack King today at the offices of The Manitoba Law Society. Approximately, 25 people attended including the mainstream meadia which was well-represented. The hearing adjourned at noon and in what we found a little surprising returned later with its decision that was then read into the record.
Mr. Alex Chapman circulated a 3-page victim impact statement during the morning session which was subsequently debated by counsel for both sides, as well as, the 3-person disciplinary panel. The hearing was adjourned at noon re-convening at 3:30 to render its decision. During the break we discussed publication of the document with a senior LSM official who politely and respectfully suggested we include a disclaimer to the effect we have not been able to independently confirm its contents - a reasonable request given it's true. So you can look for that very shortly.
After the ruling had been handed down and the media crush was over we had occasion to talk with Mr. Chapman and his lady friend one-on-one outside the Law Society offices for about half an hour. Out of respect for Alex Chapman's privacy some of what was discussed will have to remain confidential at least for now, however, to the extent possible we'll share with you what we can in the furtherance of accountability, transparency and the public's right to know.
We took copious notes during the proceedings so will have much more to say in detail shortly.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 5:54 PM
2 Comments:
Good day to you Mr. Pieuk,
Unfortunately, I’ve been away from the coffee shop, and very busy within the confines of my employment. As such, I’ve not been able to comment or perform research on this seemingly perpetual endorsement of the perverted by the LSM. However, one should not be surprised by the ruling, it is consistent with the decisions of law societies in the past decade. For example:
On Sexual Harassment:
Harry Wiens – Feb 2010. Pleaded guilty to 4 counts of professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of staff. Decision: Reprimand, psychiatric assessment and counselling, $10,000 in costs.
Jeffrey J. Plantje – June 2007. Pleaded guilty to 2 counts of professional misconduct, including sexual harassment of staff. Decision: 30 day suspension, $1,500.00 fine and required attendance before Practice Review Committee prior to reinstatement. Remains listed as suspended in AB. [Alberta Law Society Decision – Practicing member of Law Society of Manitoba]
David H. Davis – May 2001. Pleaded guilty to 1 count of professional misconduct for sexual harassment of a client. Decision: 45 day suspension and $1,000.00 in costs.
On the counts of Breach of Integrity and Promoting Personal Interests, the LSM does not have any digests that are on point. Most hearings conducted find their foundation in financial matters between lawyers and clients, and not involving prostitution of one’s wife and sexual harassment.
Disbarment in MB carries with it a heavy burden of proof, and not just of unprofessional conduct, but either repeated appearances before the Disciplinary Committee or criminal charges. Based on my review of the digests over the past decade, very few members of the LSM have been disbarred, and of those none for sexual harassment.
Gary Dolovich – October 2010 – Disbarred for possession and distribution of child pornography.
Donald McKinnon – March 2010 – Disbarred (Appeal pending) 6 counts of misconduct including: misappropriation of funds ($68,000.00), misleading the client, fabrication of statements of account and reporting letters, misleading the LSM and other counsel.
Henry Carroll – December 2008 – Disbarred (Appeal pending) 4 counts of misconduct including: made himself executor of an estate, failed to report assets to the court, conflict of interest, falsifying documents, and making payments to his spouse.
Ingrid Chen – March 2007 – Disbarred (Appeal dismissed) 12 counts of misconduct including: criminal conviction for conspiracy and breach of conditional sentence.
Victor Savino – April 2005 – Disbarred. Criminal convictions for drug offences, declared an “ungovernable member”.
Douglas Griffin – May 2005 – Disbarred. Theft of $4,200.00 from a non-profit organization while acting as a director and officer of the corporation.
James Bomek – March 2004 – Disbarred. 26 counts of professional misconduct including: falsifying a bill of sale, seeking personal loans from clients without proper legal advice, failing to file documents for clients, etc.
Donald MacIver – August 2003 – Disbarred. 1 count of professional misconduct for 3 convictions under the Income Tax Act and Criminal Code.
Considering the light view that the legal profession takes of sexual harassment, it is not surprising that Mr. King was only reprimanded. Based on my review of the digests over the past decade, in my opinion, Ms. Leonoff’s statement that “A reprimand is a very serious penalty” [Winnipeg Sun – Disgraced Lawyer Reprimanded – March 29, 2011], is hardly accurate. Reprimands are by far the most common decision, and seem to have zero impact in terms of deterrence. One only need look at how many hearings are conducted on an annual basis and how often the same names crop up over and over.
It would appear that sexual harassment is not often reported, as is true with general society, because the victim is put on trial and there is little or no consequence for the perpetrators.
To be continued...
Continuing...
I am disappointed with the LSM as they did have an opportunity to make an example out of Mr. King for the profession and to raise its standards of conduct. Instead, they have reminded the membership that inappropriate sexual conduct is something that can occur, and if you’re caught, the consequences are minimal. A nice message to send to the public, and I doubt anyone will report this type of behaviour in the future.
I wonder, has the LSM ever reported sexual harassment conduct to the authorities when members plead guilty? I note that the Alberta Law Society elected to not advise the Attorney General, but there are no notations in LSM decisions regarding behaviour that can be construed as criminal conduct. Which leads to my final question – do not all lawyers, including those at the LSM, have a duty to report criminal behaviour?
Perhaps sexually harassed clients and staff need to report directly to the police or RCMP rather than the governing body. Then, perhaps, justice may be served. Though, based on recent decisions from the judiciary, that is a question unto itself.
A little more jaded toward the system, I continue to seek,
Veritas Justitias Honoris
Post a Comment
<< Home