Are law societies like the police? "To serve and protect!"
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Is the Law Society of Manitoba like the Masons?"
Mr. Pieuk:
Further on this topic, and my continuing investigation of the Douglas/King/Chapman mess and all it's subsidiaries, I have found the Law Society of Alberta's hearing of the husband of the woman who filed the second complaint. Ironically, it deals with the exact question you had regarding the LSM dragging people back, though in this instance a Manitoba lawyer was dragged to Alberta to face a hearing.
The case can be found here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2007/2007lsa22
/2007lsa22.html
So, if the Law Society of Alberta has the power, does it not stand to reason that the Law Society of Manitoba does as well?
This has now renewed my interest in the particular attorney, the wife's complaint, and what the outcome will be from the Canadian Judicial Council. Especially since it would appear that the complaint to the LSA was made by the wife! On a search of the lawyer in the Law Society's rolls, apparently he is still suspended in Alberta yet practicing in MB?
I wonder how that is possible ...
VJH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing.
Mr. Pieuk:
Further on this topic, and my continuing investigation of the Douglas/King/Chapman mess and all it's subsidiaries, I have found the Law Society of Alberta's hearing of the husband of the woman who filed the second complaint. Ironically, it deals with the exact question you had regarding the LSM dragging people back, though in this instance a Manitoba lawyer was dragged to Alberta to face a hearing.
The case can be found here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abls/doc/2007/2007lsa22
/2007lsa22.html
So, if the Law Society of Alberta has the power, does it not stand to reason that the Law Society of Manitoba does as well?
This has now renewed my interest in the particular attorney, the wife's complaint, and what the outcome will be from the Canadian Judicial Council. Especially since it would appear that the complaint to the LSA was made by the wife! On a search of the lawyer in the Law Society's rolls, apparently he is still suspended in Alberta yet practicing in MB?
I wonder how that is possible ...
VJH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
As always thank you very much for writing.
To explain. The link to the Alberta Law Society's ruling had to be bifurcated because of its length otherwise it spills over into the right-hand contents of the main page. Simply copy and enter it in the Google search line and voila.
To clarify the situation for you, the LSM Disciplinary Hearing we'll be covering involves a defendant who at the time of the alleged misconduct had previously resigned (voluntarily) to practice in another province. The case is being tried here because it involves litigation currently before the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.
While the MLS purports to be dedicated to protecting the public in reality it's analogous to the federal government's Access to Information Act and Manitoba's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act - sounds good on paper but not very user friendly when accessed.
One of the problems we'll be facing is what can be reported and when. Here are some examples:
(1) If the name of the defendant and complainant(s) are redacted from the citation, legally obtained and is not marked as "Personal & Confidential" can it be published and if so when?
(2) Can a decision by the LSM in a counter complaint filed by the defendant against one of the complainants named in the citation, again legally obtained but this time marked "Personal & Confidential," be internetted if both names are redacted? If yes when?
(3) What about the written decision of the Complaints Commissioner on appeal regarding (2) above given the document is marked "Personal And Confidential" but obtained legally and the appropriate names redacted? When?
(4) Assuming the defendant has filed pre-trial motions with the Law Society are they publishable (names redacted) and if so when?
We have been in e-mail communication with a senior Law Society official who shall remain nameless for now but whom you'd readily recognize. Their response has been they do not intend to to provide legal advice as to what can or cannot be published in respect of a complaint. Further, The Society's decision to take action will depend on whether the legislation has been contravened.
To date Section 69(1) and (2), as well as, Section 79(1) of the Legal Profession Act had been brought ot our attention. When it's pointed out that the questions submitted are interpretative and do not seek legal advice it's the same old stock answer.
It should also be noted the Legal Profession Act encompasses 111 sections most with sub-sections spread over 63 pages. The LSM is well aware we're not Philadelphia lawyers here at CyberSmokeBlog. Do its actions so far sound like serving and protecting the public?
The disciplinary hearing we'll be covering will likely present the LSM with disclosure and internet publication issues the likes of which it has probably never faced in the past.
Regarding the Douglas-King-Chapman fiasco, we'll have to try to find out when Mr. King's disciplinary hearing is scheduled so we can attend.
Finally, switching back for a moment to the Alberta case we note the decision was dated July 17, 2007. Paragraph 11 under Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission of Guilt says:
"Plantje is a member, currently also inactive with the Law Society of Manitoba."
Could Mr. Plantje have subsequently been reinstated here by the LSM? We notice the Alberta Law Society on its webpage lists the current status of:
Disbarments
Suspensions
Conditions
Resignations
Reinstatements
Could that have happened in the case you've cited?
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 2:21 PM
1 Comments:
Mr. Pieuk,
As always, you pose pertinent questions, resulting in interesting discourse.
Apparently, Mr. Plantje’s suspension status in AB is current – I suspect due to failure to appear before a Practice Review Committee after the 30 days expired. I presume the member has no intention of practicing in AB again. He went from inactive to active in MB on January 18, 2008 (Thank You to Google, the LSM Communique, and coffee shops are very enlightening as well.) I find this to be disturbing.
Considering the nature of the disturbing admissions in the hearing before Justice Douglas (conducted post reinstatement and a year after the LSA hearing), combined with his failure to answer to the LSA, I must wonder if the LSM imposed any restrictions and since the Society has no obligation to report restrictions, how can the public know?
Regarding your questions about the publication of information from the hearing, until a decision is rendered by the LSM, you and I both know you cannot release information that may identify the member. I suspect the LSM would prosecute if identification is possibly done obliquely – despite redacted information some particulars of a case can result in learning the names of the members. Consider what we have accomplished with limited information regarding the foregoing as an example. As the complaint forms part of the exhibits to the hearing there will be direction on what can be made available to the public. The LSM effectively has an ongoing “gag order” to protect the reputation of its members. These aspects of the Act indeed give far more protections to the profession than the public – essentially making an LLB an impenetrable shield against the public.
When the LSM has the power to investigate on its own initiative, can access documented evidence in public court materials on members, yet whines their hands are tied because “someone must complain” the true nature of the Society is revealed - the ostrich has firmly lodged its head in the sand while the elephant dances in the courtroom – and for $1,653.75 the profession laughs in the face of the public while they ignore phone calls, overcharge, sexually harass and intimidate? The only time the LSM takes action is when one member reports another and even then the consequences are limited. How can the profession claim to hold its members to a higher standard of social conduct and integrity than that of the public, and then refuse to allow the public the right to determine when that standard has not been met? Very possibly the most flawed argument I have ever heard.
Is it time for Manitobans to collectively “flip the bird” at the membership, boycott all lawyers, and exercise the right of self-representation? After all, I have several degrees, two of them advanced, and I don’t get paid $200.00+ an hour, yet I can read, perform research and interpret law. You can find Notaries in any municipal office. Lawyers must follow the instructions of the client – so if the client is making the decisions, and the lawyer is just a puppet that puts the desires of the client into legalspeak, why not eliminate the middle man, tell the court yourself in plain English and save thousands of dollars!!
I say it is time to flex the capitalist muscle, end the monopoly and punish the profession where it lives - ejecting it from the pockets of the people. Might we actually see justice done?
I, for one, will seriously question the need for an attorney in the future.
Veritas Justitias Honoris
Post a Comment
<< Home