Don't pay the Ferryman (the hooded man at the rudder) 'til the ship gets right-side-up again

 

SELF-REGULATING CIVILITY OF LAWYERS

Proposed amendment: simply remove SELF



Legislation that allowed the legal profession to be self-governing (decades ago) was on the condition that lawyers conduct themselves in a professional manner. The Code of Professional Conduct (“the Code”) is not enforceable by law, but rather a recommendation by The Law Society of Manitoba (the "Society") as a self-governing body. The problem with that concept is that law firms are not regulated.

The ship has long since sailed from whence this ship was launched. It should be apparent the Society has clearly lost its way, somewhere along the shores of a rock and a hard place. We are seeing practices that are in clear violation of its governing authority and criminal. In Manitoba, these include:

• unreported criminal behaviour i.e.,
  - (Jack King's actions required police investigation);
  - knowledge of perjury, obstruction of justice, (many references throughout this blog);
  - price fixing - collusion (Law Society Member-Benched!);
• members starting up a side business of insurance of by and for its members;
• members administering and investigating its own claims;
• members* (judges and masters) judging in court as to whether a claim has any merit;
• members in conflict of interest situations.
• But  WAIT! There's more .... like female lawyers interviewed by The FIRM (as stated in the Society newsletter and posted online) whereby candidates (redundant to say young and female)

1. have been asked whether they intend on having a family then
2. directs those women to go article for the government if they do!  

When a watchdog is on a master’s lap, only justice is kept at bay.

 

The Society’s effectiveness is further weakened with the enactment of the Limited Partnership Act (“LLP”) which allows law firms to distance itself even further  -- and not to CODE.

Note: Firms have become such BIG business that changes are presently under review to allow non-members (as in, people who are not lawyers) to purchase and own law firms. I can just see the lawyer in the not so distant future--looking up the status of a court case online at QB Registry and having an online link to the NASDAQ exchange for quick reference as to who's ahead.

Enough is enough.

 

The time has come for the Government of Manitoba to step in, remove the right to self-govern away from the Society, and let lawyers return back to the practice of law and the novel notion of being a profession. Let's NOT allow big business to further threaten the administration of justice even further than it has--where the greatest impact is on those most vulnerable (that now includes anyone whose personal income is below 6 figures.)

 

When a young man with great potential (LCS Grad of 2012) told me he wanted to be a lawyer, I was very concerned for him and worried whether he could survive The FIRM of 2017--you see, he's never had to experience bullying or forced to do anything he had to lie about. I simply refuse to live life in a doom and gloom world and tell him to abandon his values and principles in order to "go along to get along" in the world of legal society because...

I HAVE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE that we can fix this by then.  I don't think it's too late to turn things around. That's what I believe. That's what I'm fighting for. What -- like it's hard?

I was proud to be a Legal Assistant in the 80's, in the good old days of great legal legends like DeGraves, Mackay, Settle, Buchwald, Sarchuk--a time when even a legend like Richard Shead could fall (charged for fraud 1995, investigated and went to prison). Those were the days when it truly was a profession, and lawyers were the heart of the firm, and an office manager -- an employee. Now The FIRM has a lawyer's heart and soul under contract in exchange for a priviliged life of riches and protection.


The time has come and the time is NOW for an independent (non-member) Lawyer Enforcement Review Agency ( LERA-II). If we can expect this type of an independent review of our police force then certainly we can hold the business of law accountable as well.

Policing is first and foremost a service to the public, the more it is at odds with the composition and values of that public, the less well it works.   

Max Yalden, Chief Commissioner
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Do it for the class of 2012 and those graduating thereafter.

This unpaid political message is brought to you by:

M.A.M.A. 

A Bullish Government
Home of:  Mothers Against Members* Association
 

YUGO Wheels of Justice

Law 4X4:   YUGO Dummy!

Whether Conflict of Interest, Bill 18 or Bill 22 (judges' wage freeze see below) the problem stems from half-cocked bills coming off our elected Legislative Assembly with this disclaimer:  you have an issue with it -- YUGO Law (challenge it in court yourself). 

 

If you're self-represented, you're the only one who does not 'confer a benefit' in this (quasi) ponzi scheme. You're responsible for your own out of pocket costs and can't claim back lost wages due to court attendances. Only lawyer's time is valued.
 

See related Feb 20 2013 posting: The State of the Canadian Constitution eh?

A century that began with children having virtually no rights will likely end with children having its most powerful legal instrument--our Constitution, have virtually no effect at all as our Charter regulators are outsourced. Equality before the law will now cost you a pretty penny (oops), or should we equate that to--pretty loonie? click link to posting 

If you decide you can't afford, or don't want to hire a lawyer, you are restricted from hiring absolutely anyone to help you with any research, organization, preparation, formatting, editing and proofing or even filing your documents at the Law Courts. The Legal Profession Act (to the tune of  Forget You!  aka YUGO Law-- as in, you go to court on your own -- you be on ya own dummy) can charge first time offenders $8000 for violating this law enacted by members. So who are members of this priviliged Society?

See Mar 7 2013: Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Glenn Joyal Don't Stand for No Bullying

"I am still a member of the Law Society of Manitoba," former white collar criminal prosecutor and defence lawyer, Raymond Flett writes after retirement. "Becoming a lawyer, as least in Manitoba, is like joining the mafia; you're in until you're on the other side of the grass." ....  *Masters, judges, government lawyers and BS* politicians continue as members of the law society. (click for * definitions)

Imagine the legal profession in terms of an automotive industry, allowed to run as a monopoly. Your only choice of vehicle is a Yugo (commonly accepted as being #1 worst car in history) and sold 'as is' without warranty. You get no 30 day return policy. When there’s a problem (which members count on) well YUGO back for service, and you need to pay to fix what was broken in the first place. And oh, you need to pay a lot.

Saturday April 6, 2013 WFP article  “Nobody Can Stop the Mayor" reports on a conflict of interest case against Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz. Katz (either personally or through his staff) made arrangements to host a dinner for city councillors and department heads at a restaurant he owned. The bill was paid with taxpayer funds. Justice Keyser ruling was that “... the provincial conflict rules would not apply to a Christmas party."

Where's the media -- missing out on not just one, but two obvious blunders?

1. a guy, written up in Wikipedia as "the first Jewish mayor of Winnipeg" hosting a Christmas party, and
2. it's a well-known fact government cancelled Christmas years ago.

See Nov 28 2011 posting:  MB Gov't OK with flipping 'the Bird flips off Jesus

Employees are to refrain from wishing one another a "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending non-Christian believers. However, there are no restrictions on religious cursing which may in all likelihood offend all Christians....(click to read more)

I can understand why the Judge opted out of making the hard decision and applied YUGO Law, as in you go to the polls next year and make your own damn judgment. But I cannot excuse the judge for charging the business owner $10,000 for exercising his constitutional rights. Costs are not automatic to the #WINNING party. Justice Keyser herself stated, "Mr. Katz has exhibited bad political and ethical behaviour," and because you acted so badly, I'm going to award you the most costs ever in a civil case to be paid by the losing party. Katz's lawyer, Robert Tapper claims, "It's a real message to this guy." It certainly is, as Tapper is tapping his heels all the way to the bank with his $25,000 legal fees plus disbursements.

For similar related story see Nov 13 2011 posting:  Law at Lunch -- More Cowbell

Why go for a quickie resolution when you can be Thompson Dorfman Sweatman, creator of a Seinfeld case where top level execs make a lot of money protracting a complaint based on a defence of nothing.

It would seem that Justice Keyser (having drawn the short straw for bench duty that day) reacted in anger against the plaintiff for putting her in that precarious position,

 “Keyser also had strong words Friday for restaurateur Joe Chan, who brought the case to court by filing a declaration last year that Katz was in conflict … essentially saying he had wasted everyone’s time by filing the legal motion."
 

Bill 22 revisited [Explanation to Media: this is called investigative reporting.]

 

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Not many people (other than the lawyers still returning from the bank) remember the raucous Bill 22 caused (Nov 1994 to Nov 1997) where a civil action CI94-01-81773 was launched, JUDGES vs. THE QUEEN.

 

The Manitoba provincial judges took over three years in meeting, planning, (probably ordered in lunch) and took up valuable court time to launch a complaint about a wage freeze that affected them temporarily. The law was passed as a temporary measure, permitted "in cases of economic emergency" and in the public interest. Once the Bill expired, wages would be paid out on a retroactive basis.

The judges lost their case and then dug in their heels further, racked up more costs with an appeal to the Supreme Court. The judges sure showed those guys over at the Leg' (pronounced 'ledge' to anyone that matters). Any advantage government sought in enacting Bill 22 was clearly offset due to dis-Honourable self-interests.

How is this not viewed as a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers' money? QB Registry (accessible online)  shows the losers (the judges) were not made to pay back costs to the government. There were also additional legal fees incurred as the judges felt they needed legal advice from a lawyer and hired ROBB D. TONN (only the following is made up):

• "What were his fees?"
• "Who's fees?"
• "Ah...TONN."
• "No -- a ton was the lawyer's fees; what was the lawyer's name?"
• "They got ROBB D"
• "Yeah, but who was the lawyer?"

Want to know who paid for all the costs and legal bills?  You go mortgage your home, get stonewalled for months at the Law Courts and pay out all the court costs. Let me know how that works out for you. But I can tell you first-hand what that experience is like. Imagine being in a giant YUGO heading towards a brick wall and OnStar (operated by yes--a member) is only interested in telling you where you should sit. If you don't see any of this as affecting you now, I guarantee you, there will come a time that it does. By then, it might just be too late. 

Access to information is a journalist's reward for promoting stupidity. Despite my best efforts I find myself blocked by mainstream media. But there's more than one way to get the word out. With your help, together we can make a difference.  Please help me in starting a movement for real change. Be aware. Be informed and pass the information forward. If not you -- then who?

To summarize today's lesson:

1. It isn't considered a crime if they don't charge you for it, and
2. If viewed a SUCCESS in a government pre-packaged media release, bear in mind the far side of FAILURE does not transcend to SUCCESS (unless pre-approved by a member) 

As I've said before -- Schmidt happens!