It's time to play, "Let's make a deal!

Interesting. Thank you for the address to the blog site but when I logged on, I couldn’t help but notice the blog doesn’t publish the lawyer’s name either.

Hmmmmm . . . .

Alexandra Paul Reporter


News

P: 204.697.7249 C: 204.801.0773 Winnipeg Free Press 1355 Mountain Ave. R2X 3B6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms Paul:

Thank you for contacting CyberSmokeBlog.

For our readers' edification we sent a copy of our reaction (Section 79 Legal Profession Act irrelevant!) to Ms Paul's May 5th article, Lawyer overbills clients by $499K in which the accused involved in a disciplinary hearing before The Law Society of Manitoba could only be identified under threat of penalty after a finding of misconduct.

At the time we cited Section 79(1)(a) and (b) of The Legal Profession Act governing the LSM's operations:

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months,or both; and

(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more then $10,000

In other words, had Ms Paul identified the individual in her article she or the Winnipeg Free Press could have been subject to the aforementioned penalty(ies) which is the exact same reason we didn't.

Consider a couple scenarios. Had the person in question been a non-lawyer investigated by the police a charge would have likely been laid, a trial date set and their identity known long before now. Then we have the Douglas-King-Chapman sexcapade where both the names' of the complainant and accused were publicly available for months prior to the disciplinary hearing. Was anyone fined or sent to jail?

Or what about this? A few months ago we legally published the name of the solicitor in question resulting from a finding of misconduct documented in The Society's own Case Disciplinary Digest. Wonder what would happen if we reproduced it verbatim again or in the alternative provided readers with the posting's coordinates (date and title) so it could easily be Googled? Does that constitute a Section 79 contravention? Besides, any Winnipeg attorney who's even half plugged in will know the person's name.

For the aforementioned reasons this provision of The LPA is antiquated, irrelevant and a throwback to the Middle Ages and Star Chambers. Now for the deal Ms Paul. Pay the $2,000 fine and/or serve the six month jail sentence and we'll reconsider our decision not to identify the accused. Deal/no deal?

You might be best advised to focus your considerable research talents into investigating the case of "Blackie" and his accusers "Mr. Y" (What a guy that "Mr. Y!") a lawyer and "The Bully" a non-lawyer. It's laden with potential precedents which are not far from exploding onto the scene. We remain ready to meet with you to discuss our considerable knowledge of this Law Society action strictly OTR (Off The Record) of course. It has everything you could possibly ask for save the proverbial kitchen sink and a first degree murder - even has a Charter challenge. Once again deal/no deal?
"Enemy to those who make him an enemy ..... friend to those who have no friend - that's Blackie!"

Hmmmmm . . . .

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk