Round 2: Team Accused = 1 Law Society of Manitoba = 0

Good Day Readers:

Attended the second session of a  disciplinary hearing for a Winnipeg lawyer today in which they told their story for more than 6-hours. From a lot of time spent in courtrooms observing trials, there are three factors CyberSmokeBlog has discovered determine which side will win:

(1) Who files the most paper.

Judging by the boxes of documents behind Law Society of Manitoba counsel Rocky Kravetsky advangage LSM although Team Accused likely had enough to wallpaper the room a couple times.

(2) Who talks the most

Team Accused won the day. The accused talked for over 6-hours today in excruciating detail

(3) Who has the nicest shoes

After carefully observing both sides it was a tie.

Overall Advantage? Team Accused.

Upon arrival CSB was asked not to report the names of any of the accused's former clients who may testify. CyberSmokeBlog agreed. However, upon further reflection it was realized this is a grey area. While Section 79 (1), (2)  of The Legal Profession Act of Manitoba clearly set out the penalties for disclosing the identify of an accused before a finding of guilt, where does the LPAM cover that for former clients of an accused? And what would have happened had CSB refused to agree? It complied as a courtesy.

It's clear, at least to CyberSmokeBlog, with just about everyone and their uncle having a blog, Facebook Page or Twitter account law societies will require a much clearer definition of exactly what can and cannot be reported during a hearing.

Oh for sure CyberSmokeBlog could have gone into excruciating detail of the accused's personal life but would you really want to hear that?

Tomorrow's session will be in the Offices of The Constitutional Law Branch of Manitoba Justice 405 Broadway Avenue (at Kennedy Street) Room 1205 beginning at 9:30 a.m..

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk