Lawyers Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Retired AF Guy]

Greatest lawyer of all time.

Perry Mason: "Your Honour, I object!"

 

[dapaterson]

Perry Mason: "Your Honour, I object!"

Did Perry Mason ever get Marisa Tomei an Oscar?

 

[OldSolduer]

Ummm, forgive me, but child sex abuser and person of good character don't really go hand in hand with each other...any more than sexual abuse of anyone or thing, considering I seem to recall that the CCofC frowns on that in general and particular. If they're actually on trial for that and they've awaiting a deliberation, well fine, except that being on trial for that (or any other criminal matter) should hold up their ability to be called to practice until it's settled as not guilty. I'm sure @FJAG might have something to add...

And people - usually the mucky mucks who look down on us peasants - wonder why we peasants actually don't admire them and wait on them hand and foot.

 

[FJAG]

Ummm, forgive me, but child sex abuser and person of good character don't really go hand in hand with each other...any more than sexual abuse of anyone or thing, considering I seem to recall that the CCofC frowns on that in general and particular. If they're actually on trial for that and they've awaiting a deliberation, well fine, except that being on trial for that (or any other criminal matter) should hold up their ability to be called to practice until it's settled as not guilty. I'm sure @FJAG might have something to add...

Like everything one has to look at the evidence given before the tribunal in question. Obviously there is a disagreement between the Law Society which did not want to licence him and the appeal panel that heard his appeal from that decision.

I'll simply drop the appeal panels decision here to let people form their own opinions.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlst/doc/2023/2023onlsth99/2023onlsth99.html

 

[medicineman]

Like everything one has to look at the evidence given before the tribunal in question. Obviously there is a disagreement between the Law Society which did not want to licence him and the appeal panel that heard his appeal from that decision.

I'll simply drop the appeal panels decision here to let people form their own opinions.

Interesting....

 

[dapaterson]

British Columbia to disband the bar, replace with a new regulator that would include paralegals and other related occupations.

Despite the new board having a majority of lawyers, the Bar is upset.

Law Society of BC to be disbanded under new legislation

The new law means, in theory, you will be able to have broader access to legal services at a more affordable rate than lawyers. One stakeholder suggests lawyers opposed to the move wish to perpetuate a system that 'does not work for so many people.'

www.vancouverisawesome.com

 

[FJAG]

British Columbia to disband the bar, replace with a new regulator that would include paralegals and other related occupations.

Despite the new board having a majority of lawyers, the Bar is upset.

Law Society of BC to be disbanded under new legislation

The new law means, in theory, you will be able to have broader access to legal services at a more affordable rate than lawyers. One stakeholder suggests lawyers opposed to the move wish to perpetuate a system that 'does not work for so many people.'

www.vancouverisawesome.com

I won't get into a rant over this - was never a member of the BC bar and only lived in BC for 11 weeks when doing my initial Basic Officer Trg.

Two points.

1 - Law societies generally have a small staff and the benchers carry the workload on a volunteer basis. (ask me - I was one for eight years) Once you start appointing benchers from other than the profession you're going to need to start paying. I used to look around the table at our benchers meetings and estimated that we were collectively losing $10,000 in billings per hour in exchange for a free lunch. Self regulating Law Society pick up the tab for self governance - every penny. It'll be interesting how the BC government deals with that. It would piss me off extremely if I had to start paying for government appointees with my practicing fees.

2 - The issue about paralegals and notaries and access to cheaper legal services is a red herring. BC, like all other provinces already had paralegals and notaries practicing in their jurisdictions. Some provinces even put them under law society regulation for the protection of the public. You do not need to change the governing structure like BC did to accomplish that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

British Columbia to disband the bar, replace with a new regulator that would include paralegals and other related occupations.

Despite the new board having a majority of lawyers, the Bar is upset.

Law Society of BC to be disbanded under new legislation

The new law means, in theory, you will be able to have broader access to legal services at a more affordable rate than lawyers. One stakeholder suggests lawyers opposed to the move wish to perpetuate a system that 'does not work for so many people.'

www.vancouverisawesome.com

All part of the NDP master plan to exert totalitarian control over the legal system in BC to make sure the government controls who gets into trouble, and who doesn't, which was initiated through the changes to ICBC insurance legislation

BC NDP bill will exert undue influence, undermine independence of legal system, says lawyer​

Written By Michael Elliott
Published April 12, 2024

“The power that the Law Society of B.C. has to regulate, discipline, and disbar lawyers is too great to be left in the hands of B.C. government-controlled or influenced appointees.”
––Michael Elliott

---

Yesterday the BC NDP Government introduced Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act (2024). It is a disturbing piece of legislation designed to give the government political control over lawyers.

The Legal Professions Act (2024) – more commonly referred to as the single legal regulator reform – is a new piece of legislation from the B.C. government to create a single, centralized regulator to oversee all legal professions in the province, including lawyers, paralegals, and notaries.
The Attorney General’s proposed single legal regulator is designed to replace the existing legal regulatory system, where lawyers are self-regulated through an independent Law Society of British Columbia. Paralegals are not regulated, while notaries are regulated by the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia.

The issue most lawyers have with the BC NDP plan to overhaul regulation of the legal system isn’t with creating a single regulatory entity.
Rather, lawyers are concerned about the radical statutory authorities the government has included in the legislation, and the unjustifiable concentration of more power over the legal system into the hands of cabinet and the Attorney General, and the implications for the integrity of our independence from government.

The B.C. government is preparing to ram through legislation that removes or weakens the current majority-elected Law Society model with the aim of replacing it with a regulatory body made up of a minority of elected lawyers and a majority of other licensees and both direct and indirect/partial government appointees.

Many lawyers are deeply concerned about larger patterns of alarming behaviour exhibited by this government: The lack of transparency around the development of Bill 21, an essentially non-existent public engagement program, and a consultation process limited to a small, select set of stakeholders under non-disclosure agreements who arrived at major changes to the regulation of the legal professions.

The BC NDP have already demonstrated extreme government overreach and control in their efforts to restructure the regulation of other professions, notably the healthcare professions. So, lawyers, other legal professionals, and the legal system as a whole are deeply concerned about the damage Bill 21 will do to the rule of law in B.C.

BC NDP bill will exert undue influence, undermine independence of legal system, says lawyer - Northern Beat

Proposed legislative changes to regulate legal professions will give BC government undue influence and impair independence of legal system.

northernbeat.ca

 

[dapaterson]

Bah. The barristers and solicitors of the left coast are upset that rather than taking over the paralegals and notaries they as a group will instead be subject to greater scrutiny.

Professional self regulation is a privilege, not a right.

 

[FJAG]

Bah. The barristers and solicitors of the left coast are upset that rather than taking over the paralegals and notaries they as a group will instead be subject to greater scrutiny.

Professional self regulation is a privilege, not a right.

Arbitrarily removing a privilege is also an injustice. But it's not just a privilege, its an important aspect for keeping a democratic society free.

Let's put Shakespeare's famous quote in context.

DICK: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Note that Dick is a villainous character—he is a large, threatening murderer, and he is also the right-hand-man of Jack Cade, who is leading a rebellion against King Henry. Cade and Dick are aggressively anti-intellectual; they kill anyone who can read and burn all the books and documents they encounter. They know that they’ll be able to take over an ignorant population with greater ease than one where everyone understands their rights.

A bar and a judiciary independent of the executive, together with a solid constitution, is one of the most significant agencies that a democracy has to keep the executive and even the legislature in check from committing excesses. It's interesting that this done behind closed doors and without public consultation or consultation with the profession.

Chuckle if you will - and you will - this is actually the first step to some serious shit.

 

[ModlrMike]

I can see this going to the Supreme Court.

 

[dapaterson]

Describing the long established practice of legislative delegation through the creation of regulations as "diktat" is not the claim of a credible author. The "indirect government appointees" will in fact be selected by the elected benchers (of all three member types, with lawyers in the majority) and government appointees. Thus, elected benchers will be selecting the remainder.

Mr Elliott's screed notwithstanding, I would like to read some credible opposition.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Describing the long established practice of legislative delegation through the creation of regulations as "diktat" is not the claim of a credible author. The "indirect government appointees" will in fact be selected by the elected benchers (of all three member types, with lawyers in the majority) and government appointees. Thus, elected benchers will be selecting the remainder.

Mr Elliott's screed notwithstanding, I would like to read some credible opposition.

The 'diktat' stuff started a few years ago here in BC:

Trial lawyers to launch court challenge against ICBC changes​

Changes discriminate against individuals with brain and psychiatric injuries, association says​

CBC News · Posted: Apr 01, 2019 6:38 AM PDT | Last Updated: April 1, 2019

Small settlement cases are being moved out of court and will now be heard by the Civil Resolutions Tribunal.

The Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. is planning to take the provincial government to court over the new changes to ICBC's laws for people injured in road accidents

The association is concerned that the changes, which come into effect Monday, will restrict access to the courts and unfairly reduce compensation for those injured on the road.

They are launching a constitutional challenge for courts to determine whether the changes impede on human rights.
The new rules include a $5,500 cap on pain and suffering payouts.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trial-lawyers-icbc-constitutional-challenge-1.5079209#:~:text=They%20are%20launching%20a%20constitutional,on%20pain%20and%20suffering%20payouts.&text=kick%20start%20Monday-,Small%20settlement%20cases%20are%20being%20moved%20out%20of%20court%20and,by%20the%20Civil%20Resolutions%20Tribunal.

 

[FJAG]

Describing the long established practice of legislative delegation through the creation of regulations as "diktat" is not the claim of a credible author. The "indirect government appointees" will in fact be selected by the elected benchers (of all three member types, with lawyers in the majority) and government appointees. Thus, elected benchers will be selecting the remainder.

Mr Elliott's screed notwithstanding, I would like to read some credible opposition.

A bit yes and a bit no.

The roles of paralegals and notaries varies in each province so there isn't much consistency in the various law society acts about them.

It's fair enough to say there are 9 elected professionals on the council (5 lawyers, 2 paras and 2 notaries).

Of the remaining, 3 are non-legal direct gov't appointments and 5 appointed (by the other 12), 4 of which are lawyers and 1 a notary.

BC isn't the first to have gov't appt benchers - Ontario has 40 elected lawyers, 5 elected paras and 8 lay benchers appointed by the Cabinet (in effect chosen by minister of justice)

I quite value lay bencher participation in the work of the governance of the "board" as well as their work on committees. I have zero problem with that. They provide an invaluable reality check on how the actions of the profession and individual lawyers impact members of the public

My problem with BC (like ON) is that the gov't has any appointees on the board regardless of number at all. I prefer something like Manitoba which has a good variety - 8 elected lawyers, 1 articling student elected amongst the students, the immediate past-president (who was elected previously), the dean of the faculty of law, 4 practicing lawyers selected by the benchers, and 6 non-lawyer lay benchers selected by a committee of the chief justice of Manitoba as chair, the minister of justice, and the president of the association of Manitoba municipalities. - no direct gov't appointments but the ability to influence who becomes one of the 6 lay benchers.

Quite frankly, IMHO, there are not enough lay benchers on the BC council. If there were more than 3 and appointed by a selection board like Manitoba, I would have zero problem with it. Govt should have no voice in inserting individuals into a body that has the purpose of protecting the public (and believe me they do - and at great expense) and in serving a profession. Govt can speak through its laws - it doesn't need to insert itself in the execution of the processes.

 

[ModlrMike]

It is the role of government to craft the law, and to prosecute those who are believed to have violated it. It is not the role of government to have any influence over those who represent the offenders. This action potentially allows the government to have a hand in both parts of the process.

 

[FJAG]

I can see this going to the Supreme Court.

It may, but I doubt they SCC will interfere. In a previous case the SCC said:

“The independence of the bar from the state in all its pervasive manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently, regulation of these members of the law profession by the state must, so far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from state interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to the individual citizens in the state, particularly in fields of public and criminal law. The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive than the independence, impartiality and availability to the general public of the members of the Bar and through those members, legal advice and services generally.” (Emphasis Added)

A.G. Can. v. Law Society of B.C., 1982 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 307 at 335–336.

The words are not determinative to the issue on appeal (which concerned a lawyer being disciplined by the law society for improper public advertising and the his initially successful attempt to have the director of the investigations branch under the BC Combines Investigation Act bring a hearing into the processes within the Law Society)

The SCC - in short - held that the relevant part of the CIA was not applicable against the Law Society, and states what the SCC saw as the role of the Society.

All that said, however, I do not see the SCC preventing the BC legislature from passing a law within its power to enact.

 

[dapaterson]

Threaten to have someone's children seized unless they perjure themselves in front of a judge you're having a long term affair with? Ignore the detective who works with you to put innocent Black Americans into jail while he runs a sex trafficking business on the side?

Kansas prosecutor who framed innocent man surrenders law license, will soon be disbarred

Terra Morehead, who retired as a federal prosecutor last August, has agreed to turn over her law license as part of an agreement with a Kansas disciplinary board. As a Wyandotte County prosecutor in the 1990s, Morehead helped KCKPD Detective Roger Golubski frame an innocent man who spent 23...

kansaspublicradio.org

 

[FJAG]

Disbarment is really not enough but is the best that a governing body can do. The one thing that I do not see in the article is that she is being pursued on criminal charges. She deserves time in jail for this.

 

[OldSolduer]

Threaten to have someone's children seized unless they perjure themselves in front of a judge you're having a long term affair with? Ignore the detective who works with you to put innocent Black Americans into jail while he runs a sex trafficking business on the side?

Kansas prosecutor who framed innocent man surrenders law license, will soon be disbarred

Terra Morehead, who retired as a federal prosecutor last August, has agreed to turn over her law license as part of an agreement with a Kansas disciplinary board. As a Wyandotte County prosecutor in the 1990s, Morehead helped KCKPD Detective Roger Golubski frame an innocent man who spent 23...

kansaspublicradio.org

JAIL - for a very very long time..
WTF is wrong with some people?

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe you don't want the smartest lawyer, after all...

In a proposal under Rule 4-29 of the Law Society Rules, Lauer admitted to committing 11 instances of professional misconduct between January and August 2021, including five instances of misappropriation totaling nearly $10,000, two instances of breaches of accounting rules, three instances of failure to provide clients with the quality of service expected of a competent lawyer, and one instance of misrepresenting to a client the status of their matter. Three of the misappropriations involved client trust funds and two involved funds from a law firm.

B.C. lawyer once crowned 'Canada's smartest person' suspended from practice

In 2014, Braden Lauer gained national attention when he won CBC's Canada's Smartest Person game show.

www.vancouverisawesome.com

Former lawyer Braden William Lauer barred from practicing law for 10 years | The Law Society of British Columbia

All about Law Society

www.lawsociety.bc.ca