Tuesday, August 18, 2015

They're not f...ers, rather, misguided little pecker heads more powerful than the Teamsters even without the baseball bats!

Good Day Readers:

Law Societies have no business disciplining their own. Like Great Britain and several jurisdictions in the United States this function should be given to an independent third party it's such a blatant conflict of interest! But it just gets better!

 Back in June of this year veteran Winnipeg Free Press reporter Kevin Rollarson (white hat good guy) wrote a piece about a Winnipeg lawyer who'd temporarily withdrawn from practicing law pending the outcome because he was under investigation. But go to the Law Society of Manitoba's webpage and there it was in boxcar sized letters, "John Doe" has withdrawn from the practice of law blab ... blab ... blab ... blab ... blab."

Yet if someone from the social or mainstream media had published John Doe's name, under Section 79 (1), (2)  of The Legal Profession Act of Manitoba they would be libel to a fine of up to $2,000 and or 6-months in jail. For the latter it's a penalty to a maximum of $10,000. Now wouldn't this be interesting? You can almost hear it now. CyberSmokeBlog publishes John Doe's actual name. "But Your Honour, this information came directly from the LSM's website!" Talk about an interesting lawsuit. But not to worry CSB is not about to spend time with the lads at Stony Mountain. CyberSmokeBlog has always found the folks at the Manitoba Law Society to be nice, polite and respectful albeit a tad misguided.

Here's what Section 68 c (ii) of the aforementioned LPAM says:

"direct the publication of the name of the member, the nature of the matter being investigated and suspension or practice restrictions imposed on the member."

Perhaps it's time for the Law Society of Manitoba and its counterparts to walk the talk for a change. Forget disciplining lawyers (you're not very good at it anyway) and start improving access to justice.

Now doesn't that sound like the work of nice, polite, respectful slightly misguided little pecker heads?
"Discipline" the Law Society of Manitoba cat

Clare L. Pieuk

Lawyers raw words raise eyebrows after disbarment fight

After winning disbarment fight, man takes aim at Law Society with curses and a cat playing dead

Jacques Gallant Staff Reporter
Sunday, June 21, 2015

Paul Robson (Alois/Jam Pack Inc.)

He may have sworn at them, referred to their organization as feces and sent them a video of a cat playing dead, but lawyer Paul Robson says he was trying to make a point: that the Law Society of Upper Canada spends more time disciplining its members than focusing on access to justice.

The language in question was used by the Toronto attorney in messages he sent to the Law Society’s appeal division earlier this year, which was deciding whether to grant Robson his costs after he successfully appealed an earlier decision to revoke his licence.

The five-member panel ruled late last month that neither Robson nor the Law Society should be awarded costs — Robson had asked for $750,000 — and the lawyer gets to keep his licence.

“The Law Society shouldn’t be disciplining its own members,” Robson told the Star, adding he intends to appeal to the Divisional Court. “They have to have a separate body completely independent of the Law Society. The Law Society should be spending money making sure access to justice is provided for.”

The Law Society had argued Robson had not met the preconditions for costs, and in any case, should be disqualified from receiving any money because of his “inappropriate” communications.

A lower panel ordered last year that Robson be disbarred, after it found he concealed assets to the tune of about $1.4 million from creditors before his bankruptcy discharge, but the appeal division overturned that ruling earlier this year.

Robson is still facing a disciplinary hearing for what the Law Society describes in a notice of application as “abusive” and “offensive” communications to two lawyers, which Robson says is “nonsense.”

He was recently in the news as the lawyer representing businessman Michael Elder, who unsuccessfully sought an injunction against Toronto Life to prevent the magazine from publishing a profile of him.

While lawyers interviewed by the Star generally agreed that the Law Society could spend more time on initiatives such as better access to justice, they were unanimous in saying that Robson took the wrong approach.

“I thought that his time as a lawyer was perhaps going to be rather limited,” said criminal defence lawyer John Struthers after reading what Robson sent to the Law Society. “If you’re trying to make a point, you can certainly do so without being rude or vile, frankly.”

“I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to use foul language in written submissions before an adjudicative body, whether it’s your own case or anybody else’s,” said criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown.

Robson’s correspondence to the appeal division dates back to January, when he was requesting access to documents from the Law Society for his submission on costs.

In a series of messages, he used the term “f---ers,” sent the panel a video of a cat playing dead, saying it depicts what the Law Society does for access to justice, and threatened to involve the Premier and Attorney-General. He also wished them a Happy Valentine’s Day.

“The letter appears to refer to the appeal division as ‘f---ers,’ ” the appeal panel said of Robson’s first message.

In one message, Robson accused the society as being an “accessory to murder.” He told the Star he was referring to the death of Zahra Abdillie, a Toronto woman murdered last December along with her two young sons by her husband. The public health nurse had been fighting for custody of her children and wanted an emergency court order, but didn’t qualify for legal aid and couldn’t afford a lawyer.

“The Law Society should be operating low-cost legal clinics and assisting under privileged people in getting access to justice,” Robson told the Star.

Criminal Lawyers’ Association president Anthony Moustacalis said that the Law Society is viewed by some lawyers as a “prosecutorial monolith,” but said it has done work on access to justice.

“It started the Treasurer’s access to justice committee that, for the first time, got government, judiciary, legal aid and all members of the Bar together to try and solve these problems,” he said. “LSUC also has dedicated staff to coordinate and help promote its access to justice mandate.”

Despite Robson’s language, which the panel described as “deeply offensive and appalling,” they still granted him an extension on at least two occasions to file material, but he never did.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home