Disbarred!
www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca"In reviewing the statement of claim, I believe that it is serviously flawed. Not only are there issues with respect to its form and content, it may not properly disclose a reasonable cause of action particularly with respect to each and every one of the plaintiffs; however, your statement of defence is also seriously flawed, and in my respectful opinion many of the paragraphs which the plaintiffs seek to have struck will be ordered struck."
Not surprising giving before this lawsuit we'd never set foot inside a courtroom nor did we have any formal legal training whatsoever when we prepared the Statement of Defence.
Mr. Mackinnon then went on to suggest we contact Mr. Byron Williams, Director of the Public Interest Law Centre a Branch of Manitoba Legal Aid specializing in cases involving precedents but were subsequently turned down somwwhat surprising given this litigation contains more precedents than you can shake a stick at! So why the rejection?
Could it have possibly been because the individual who suggested the allegedly defamatory material, wrote it, sanctioned it's posting then neglected to advise us it might/could contain defamatory words was none other than a Legal Aid Manitoba Lawyer at the time? Lionel Chartrand publicly agreed to serve as CSS's General Legal Counsel during mid-September, 2003. As solicitors are fond of saying, we have black print (e-mail) which clearly prove this to be true. His allegedly defamatory posting was displayed on the site during late January of 2004.
We hope The Public Eye a practicing Canadian attorney and Blogmaster who has posted many Discipline Case Digests from Law Societies including Manitoba's will see this and post Mr. Mackinnon's.
As you read the DCD Report a few points are worth noting:
(1) Mr. Mackinnon has been barred from practicing law but has appealed the decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal so the possibility exists the ruling could be overturned
(2) Notice Donald Mackinnon offered to resign rather than be disbarred
(3) Could some of the financial damage have been prevented or reduced had the client exercised more due diligence in overseeing Mr. Mackinnon's activities?
(4) It is our understanding, over and above paying their $1,653.75 in annual dues to the LSM for monopoly and misconduct protection, a floating fund also exists to which all lawyer must contribute to cover such contengencies. Whatever the financial losses resulting from Mr. Mackinnon's actions, or lack thereof, each member will be assessed a portion
(5) Note the size of fine levied
Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk
________________________________________________
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 1:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home