Announcing our inaugural Golden Pompous Ass Award for Excellence in Legal Eloquence!
Good Day Readers:
The Law Society of Manitoba in it's preoccupation with protecting the public interest against bad lawyering is silent in it's definition of misconduct as it relates to solicitors who make beyond asinine statements. To remedy such an obvious shortcoming we've taken it upon ourselves to introduce The Golden Pompous Ass Award for Excellence in Legal Eloquence or GPAAELE.
Consider some of what our leading candidate (A shoo-in!) has said recently:
Paragraph 2(b) Page 3 from a Statement of Claim filed (March 31, 2005) in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench:
"An order prohibiting these defendants from causing to be published on the internet website www.cybersmokesignals.com or any other internet website, any message, letter, or article purporting to be from any individual other than themselves unless that indivudual's actual legal name is published together with the accompanying message, letter or article."
The ultimate "oy vey" moment!
File FD (Family division) 99-01-56515. "Star candidate" as part of a Queen's Bench divorce proceeding filed his completed 1998 income tax return. As of last summer it was still there for the world to photocopy. Why or why as a lawyer no less did he not ask a judge for a sealing order. Identity theft doesn't get any easier!
Or huh?
"Upon investigation, the plaintiff was able to ascertain that in October, November and December 2003, a person or persons unknown to the plaintiff had deposited money into the plaintiff's Royal Bank chequing account which money was then automatically withdrawn by Chrysler to pay the monthly payments on the vehicle. The December amount of money deposited to the plaintiff's account by the person or persons unknown was insufficient to cover the December payment of Chrysler with the result that other cheques written by the plaintiff were returned NSF and the plaintiff incurred bank service charges as a result." (Statement of Claim filed by our leading candidate on behalf of the plaintiff August 26, 2005)
Still unconvinced?
"As I was leaving the Court room you said, "it's far from over Murray." I will repeat what I said to you in Court namely that it does not behoove you as counsel to make threats to me as I am leaving the Court room. I had not engaged you in any discussion following the decision. You stated that your statement was not a threat. I request that you keep such comments to yourself in the future. (Correspondence of April 19, 2010 from candidate to attorney for the defence)
Then there was this little gem written to a Court of Queen's Bench Pre-Trial Justice by our leading candidate:
On April 15, 2011 Mr. Pieuk who was formally self-represented, appointed Mr. Bruun as counsel of record.
The usual practice for civil pre-trial conferences is that clients do not attend and only counsel attend. As a result I have communicated with Mr. Bruun seeking his confirmation that Mr. Pieuk will not be attending on June 30. Mr. Bruun advises that he expects Mr. Pieuk to attend and that if I object I can raise the matter with you.
I do object. By June 30 Mr. Bruun will have been Mr. Pieuk's counsel for some 2 and 1/2 months. He can review all case conference memos and pre-trial conference memos issued previously by Justice Simonsen. He can speak with his client and obtain instructions with respect to those matters to be dealt with at a pre-trial conference.
There is no reason for Mr. Pieuk ot be in attendance on June 30th and no reason for an exception to be made to the normal Court practice.
I am raising this now with a request that you provide us with direction so that we do not have to spend any part of the limited time available on June 30th dealing with this issue.
Footnote: And where might you think Mr. Pieuk spent the morning of Wednesday, June 30, 2010 beginning at 10:00 a.m.?
Join us on June 2, 2011 starting at 9:30 a.m. when we announce the winner of our first prestigious Golden Pompous Ass Award for Excellence in Legal Eloquence.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
The Law Society of Manitoba in it's preoccupation with protecting the public interest against bad lawyering is silent in it's definition of misconduct as it relates to solicitors who make beyond asinine statements. To remedy such an obvious shortcoming we've taken it upon ourselves to introduce The Golden Pompous Ass Award for Excellence in Legal Eloquence or GPAAELE.
Consider some of what our leading candidate (A shoo-in!) has said recently:
Paragraph 2(b) Page 3 from a Statement of Claim filed (March 31, 2005) in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench:
"An order prohibiting these defendants from causing to be published on the internet website www.cybersmokesignals.com or any other internet website, any message, letter, or article purporting to be from any individual other than themselves unless that indivudual's actual legal name is published together with the accompanying message, letter or article."
The ultimate "oy vey" moment!
File FD (Family division) 99-01-56515. "Star candidate" as part of a Queen's Bench divorce proceeding filed his completed 1998 income tax return. As of last summer it was still there for the world to photocopy. Why or why as a lawyer no less did he not ask a judge for a sealing order. Identity theft doesn't get any easier!
Or huh?
"Upon investigation, the plaintiff was able to ascertain that in October, November and December 2003, a person or persons unknown to the plaintiff had deposited money into the plaintiff's Royal Bank chequing account which money was then automatically withdrawn by Chrysler to pay the monthly payments on the vehicle. The December amount of money deposited to the plaintiff's account by the person or persons unknown was insufficient to cover the December payment of Chrysler with the result that other cheques written by the plaintiff were returned NSF and the plaintiff incurred bank service charges as a result." (Statement of Claim filed by our leading candidate on behalf of the plaintiff August 26, 2005)
Still unconvinced?
"As I was leaving the Court room you said, "it's far from over Murray." I will repeat what I said to you in Court namely that it does not behoove you as counsel to make threats to me as I am leaving the Court room. I had not engaged you in any discussion following the decision. You stated that your statement was not a threat. I request that you keep such comments to yourself in the future. (Correspondence of April 19, 2010 from candidate to attorney for the defence)
Then there was this little gem written to a Court of Queen's Bench Pre-Trial Justice by our leading candidate:
On April 15, 2011 Mr. Pieuk who was formally self-represented, appointed Mr. Bruun as counsel of record.
The usual practice for civil pre-trial conferences is that clients do not attend and only counsel attend. As a result I have communicated with Mr. Bruun seeking his confirmation that Mr. Pieuk will not be attending on June 30. Mr. Bruun advises that he expects Mr. Pieuk to attend and that if I object I can raise the matter with you.
I do object. By June 30 Mr. Bruun will have been Mr. Pieuk's counsel for some 2 and 1/2 months. He can review all case conference memos and pre-trial conference memos issued previously by Justice Simonsen. He can speak with his client and obtain instructions with respect to those matters to be dealt with at a pre-trial conference.
There is no reason for Mr. Pieuk ot be in attendance on June 30th and no reason for an exception to be made to the normal Court practice.
I am raising this now with a request that you provide us with direction so that we do not have to spend any part of the limited time available on June 30th dealing with this issue.
Footnote: And where might you think Mr. Pieuk spent the morning of Wednesday, June 30, 2010 beginning at 10:00 a.m.?
Join us on June 2, 2011 starting at 9:30 a.m. when we announce the winner of our first prestigious Golden Pompous Ass Award for Excellence in Legal Eloquence.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home