FTA Lawyer

I don't follow your logic that because I act on Legal Aid matters, and Legal Aid is only for the "dirt poor" this leads you to conclude that I only reduce my fees for clients who have already re-mortgaged their home and gone bankrupt...? I guess you'll never take my word for it so I won't go on anymore about the efforts I put in to make legal services available to everyone. (You know that pro bono means for free right?) I will concede that more of the general public needs to interact with law on a daily basis than with medicine or other professions and that, therefore, more efforts should be made to de-mystify the law. That being said, you don't need to know the intricacies of the law as it relates to specific intent, voluntariness and self-defence to know that killing is bad, but killing unintentionally can be manslaughter not murder. We certainly shouldn't do away with hundreds of years of development in our legal system just because it would be easier. As for your complaints about getting lawyers out of many disputes, including "minor criminal" matters (in today's context where on conviction for many offences you are prevented from travelling outside Canada and forced to submit DNA samples to the government I'm not sure which criminal charges you would consider minor if you were charged) your misinformation shines brightly again. If people resolve their disputes privately or go ask their priest or a neighbour to settle it for them, then the legal system never gets involved. It's people running off to court for everything that is a major part of the problem. Furthermore, there is no court in Canada that requires you to hire a lawyer. Every individual has the right to represent themselves in any court proceeding and there are rules that judges will use to ensure that a self-represented person is not taken advantage of if the other side has a lawyer. Every day in Calgary alone there are a multitude of persons who appear and handle their criminal and civil matters on their own, and their participation in the justice system costs them little more than downtown parking. Civil Provincial court is especially designed to have simplified procedures and rules of evidence and so on with a view to making most people able to handle matters there without a lawyer (disputes up to $25,000.00 in Alberta). There is a voluntary mediation program wich allows litigants to further avoid lawyers and court. In Queen's Bench (the Superior Court) family cases have mandatory dispute resolution hearings to force people out of court and into a mediation setting, and an incredibly high number of cases are now going to the voluntary "Judicial Dispute Resolution" or JDR program...again, getting out of the traditional courtroom. In criminal matters your suggestion seems to be that for a lawyer to use the intricate details of the Charter to "get off" a client on a "technicality" is an affront to justice but a "counsellor" (that's another word for lawyer you know) ensuring that a person is not unfairly treated (i.e. his Charter rights are not breached) is a knight in shining armour? Confounding... It's also interesting that your definition of "justice" in criminal cases seems to equate only to "conviction". You know, justice is actually done when a guilty person is acquitted because there was not sufficient evidence to prove he did it. Ask Milgaard, Morin, Truscott and other wrongfully convicted persons which version of the system they would prefer. Take Bernardo's lawyer for instance. The end result of those proceedings does not mean what he did was correct or acceptable. My point in mentioning only the charges / discipline proceedings was to show that the view of the state and the regulators is that what he did was completely WRONG no question about it. The acquittal was not a finding of innocence...quite the contrary. Here is a good summary of the outcome: "This was not an easy case to defend. As Mr. Justice Gravely found, Murray's concealment of the tapes had the tendency to obstruct justice. The tapes were the product of crime and were far more potent hard evidence than the oft-mentioned "smoking gun". Once the jury viewed the tapes, Bernardo was left with no defence to anything but the murder charges and little chance of a successful defence on those. Left unsaid by the judge, is the belief held by many that, had the tapes been released earlier, Karla Homolka would also have been convicted of murder. In Murray's defence, it was pointed out that the only official guidance given to lawyers in Ontario was contained in the rule that prohibited lawyers from suppressing what ought to be disclosed. Unfortunately, the rule provides no guidance as to what "ought to be disclosed". As Justice gravely commented, "it is of small help either to counsel or to clients who may believe that both their secrets and their evidence are safe with their lawyers". In the end, Justice Gravely concluded that Murray's concealment of the tapes had the tendency to obstruct justice and that Murray knew it would be obstructing justice to permanently suppress the tapes. Murray may not, however, have intended to permanently suppress them and he may have believed he had no obligation to disclose them before trial. Justice Gravely found that he was left with a reasonable doubt as to Murray's intention to obstruct justice, and he found him not guilty. The Law Society apparently agreed with this position. Discipline proceedings against Murray were discontinued. The Law Society is currently attempting to draft rules that will clearly spell out a lawyer's obligations in similar circumstances." The full article can be viewed at: http://www.lawyers.ca/dharris/articles/kenmurraycase.htm The desicion basically was that the rules were not clear enough and that the offence only was certain where permanent concealment of the evidence was intended. The judge was not satisifed beyond a reasonable doubt that Murray ever had such intention. Obviously the Law Society thought the same, because Murray had in fact called the Law Society before the sh-t hit the fan to ask for their opinion about what he was to do with the tapes. Saying "we need to clarify our rules and we're not sure that Murray truly intended to break them" is far from saying "way to go Murray, you did the right thing"... For someone who indicts lawyers so freely for their peddling of misinformation, you seem to be doing a fine job of it yourself...Just don't send me a bill ok? FTA Lawyer.

Ever heard of somone interested in history...take a look, most universities have whole degree programs in it...law is just a form of history and contrary to what you might think a large research project can be fascinating. Besides, that's like saying that all architects do is sit in a room with a calculator all day and measure angles. I am living out my dream every day of arguing cases in a courtroom with the challenges and unpredictability of witnesses, the adversary on the other side, and the judge who ultimately I am attempting to persuade. I can't argue with you that many people are stuck getting whatever "justice" they can afford. All I can say is that's why I do Legal Aid, pro bono, and reduced-fee work for people who can't pay my normal rates. I make no apologies for having knowledge of a subject matter that many cannot understand...I did go to university for 8 years. Are you suggesting that this is not the case with any profession (or frankly with many non-professional occupations)? Delve into a medical textbook and tell me if it makes any more sense to you than a case report. I don't know the first thing about being an electrical engineer or a marine biologist...they all have their own specialized knowledge / language too. Misinformation can be a very damaging thing...Paul Bernardo's lawyer was prosecuted criminally and underwent Law Society disciplinary hearings for his withholding of the videotape evidence you refer to...because he was required by his legal ethics and the law NOT to do what he did. Here's the charge that was sworn against him as quoted from one of the written rulings in his case: "Murray, a lawyer, is charged with obstruction of justice pursuant to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code. [see Note 1 below] It is alleged that he retained certain videotapes which are products and instrumentalities of crime. The Information reads, in part, as follows: ... did obstruct or attempt to obstruct the course of justice by retaining certain videotapes for approximately seventeen months which are products and instrumentalities of crime, to wit: scenes depicting the unlawful confinement of Leslie Erin Mahaffy, unlawful confinement of Kristen Dawn French, aggravated sexual assault of Leslie Erin Mahaffy, aggravated sexual assault of Kristen Dawn French, aggravated sexual assault of Tammy Lynn Homolka, aggravated sexual assault of Jane Doe by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, when [he] had a positive duty to surrender them to the authorities in a timely fashion, contrary to Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code ..." Not exactly what I'd call "accolades"...please don't keep spreading this wrong example to support your argument. Your other comments lead me to ask if you would support a major increase in funding for Legal Aid programs accross the country to include more cases that get coverage (both civil and criminal) and to give more money to the lawyers who act for these underprivileged people? Is your answer the same if it means increased taxes? FTA Lawyer <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB, Seriously, where is the "glass ceiling" and lack of power for Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin? You've never really answered this. Arguably a Supreme Court Judge is the most powerful occupation in our entire country...even more so than being Prime Minister because of the immense supervisory role created by the Charter. AND SHE'S THE BOSS OF THE REST OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES! This is a women born in Pincher Creek, Alberta who moved to B.C. to practice law and quickly (and meritoriously) worked her way up to the highest position that can be held in the Canadian justice system. Oh woe is Beverly...if only it weren't for that damn glass ceiling holding her back. Vile patriarchal society! I'm sure she wishes every day that her parents would have just dressed her as a boy so that her life wouldn't have turned out to be such a futile struggle to achieve. Since I've harped on about the legal profession mostly up 'till now, take a look at the following link: http://www.profitguide.com/w100/2004/w100.asp Here you'll find the list of the top 100 Women Entrepreneurs for 2004...another scathing indictment of how impossible it is for women to be successful in the "men-only" world of business. At #1, Rebecca MacDonald has 256 full time employees beneath her and her company did a mere 733 million dollars in revenue in 2003. Oh the humanity! If only she could be successful like all men are! The top 38 on the list all run companies (that they created and built) that did over 10 million in revenue in 2003. How much lack of success can any one woman take? Playing the victim role in as thick a way as you are doing is maybe a little like ice fishing in May...you've got nothing left to stand on.

I just about fell off my chair when I got to the end of that article to see "Professor" in the title of the author...then I saw "Emeritus" and I realized it must be one of those lost your marbles "retirements"...No No children, Professor Craig just accidentally free-based some crack, he'll be just fine once he retires and gets the stress out of his life... But seriously though...the sense of proprietary entitlement over "our resources" that is often vehemently displayed by Albertans is hard to fully understand. I was born in Alberta, so I guess I get my 1/3,000,000th of the total assets of the Province whenever I decide to cash in? If I move to B.C. because I get a job out there do I summarily lose my God-given birthright? Because that doesn't seem fair. And when some Newfie shows up in Fort Mac to work the rigs, is he instantly entitled to his 1/3,000,001th of the pie since he has an Alberta address and casts a ballot here for the Federal Election? And speaking of Fort Mac, if we're laying claim to resources, shouldn't the City of Fort McMurray separate on its own and tell the rest of the free-loaders in Alberta to go make it on their own? I was born in a small town, so I guess I get shafted and don't get a full 1/3,000,000th after all! And what would most Albertan's say if you asked them what they would think of the idea of doubling our population...they'd go friggin nuts! Pretty much once (or more) a day I or someone around me bitches about how many people are in Calgary these days and how its just getting too big, too much traffic etc. Don't get me wrong, I have never cast a ballot that wasn't for a small "c" conservative party, and there are a pile of reforms I think are long overdue for Canadian democracy and I can't say I've never wondered what it would be like to be the Republic of Alberta (like you might wonder what you'd do if you won the 6/49) and I absolutely deplore corruption in government (no matter what camp it comes from) I just can't figure how a presumably highly educated person can write such infantile, made for a tailgate party rhetoric and wonder why everyone isn't jumping on the bandwagon. FTA Lawyer

Argus, I have to take great exception to your characterization of lawyers and ethics and the reasons that motivate people to enter law. I cannot argue with the fact that some lawyers are "money hungry trolls" as you have put it, but to suggest that most lawyers enter the profession just to make money is simply unfair. Many lawyers are passionate about the law itself, the drama of the courtroom AND the opportunity to HELP people. Trash lawyers all you want, but God forbid you find yourself injured in an accident...or having injured someone else...or charged with a criminal offense (it doesn't just happen to career criminals you know)...or in a contract dispute with your employer...you will need help and will likely look to a lawyer to get that help. Many lawyers volunteer their services to Boards of Directors of companies and charities, perform pro-bono work domestically and abroad, and accept miniscule compensation to act for people on Legal Aid certificates. Legal Aid currently pays a rate of $80.00 per hour which is less than you will pay for almost any tradesperson to do work for you. Further, coverage is very limited in terms of the total hours you can bill (in most cases you can only get paid for 1 hour of interview time with a client...when on average you will spend 4 times that long dealing with phone calls and meetings to discuss their case). As a result, the notional rate you can get on Legal Aid is often less than $50.00 per hour. Factor in what it costs to run a law practice, and dreams of being filthy rich quickly fade. On your comments about the "ethics of lawyers" I quote to you from the first 6 rules of Chapter 1 of the Law Society of Alberta's Code of Professional Conduct: 1. A lawyer must respect and uphold the law in personal conduct and in rendering advice and assistance to others. 2. A lawyer should seek to improve the justice system. 3. A lawyer must not act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law or justice system or interfere with its fair administration. 4. A lawyer should support and contribute to the profession's efforts to make legal services available to all who require them, regardless of ability to pay. 5. A lawyer must be couteous and candid in dealings with others. 6. A lawyer's position must not be used to take unfair advantage of any person or situation. You may have encountered lawyers who do not follow these rules, but then they have personal problems regarding ethics...their individual bad conduct does not somehow become "lawyers ethics". Hopefully, that is where rbacon's idea comes in about consumer regulation...but that only works if members of the public praise the good lawyers to others, and not just speak foul of the entire profession. FTA Lawyer

I am curious if anyone out there has gone through the process of complaining against a lawyer to the Law Society (of any Province) to know if their experience left them with the bad taste in their mouth that you are not so subtly alluding to.

You're quite right...the Law Society goes to great length to be open and accessible to the public. In fact, the board of directors or "Benchers" of the Law Society who conduct hearings, set rules / policy etc. are not exclusively lawyers. 4 of the 24 benchers are "lay benchers" who are members of the non-legal community that are appointed by the Justice Minister to ensure that public concerns and issues are addressed. You can get alot more info on the LSA's website: http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/ FTA Lawyer

BRILLIANT! But seriously, what's the difference if the government does it. Most of them are/were lawyers too, so who cares? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus - pimps...funny (really, I did chuckle)...but we don't all prostitute ourselves for the almighty dollar. Some of us are even ethical when we ply our trade! cybercoma - the difference is not in the individual doing the review, but the mandate being served. I have brought applications to strike various pieces of Provincial and Federal legislation in different court proceedings. As of right, the Attorney's General of the province & feds can intervene to defend their legislation and often do. Having someone who reports to the Attorney General be responsible for regulating me (with the power to instigate disciplinary proceedings against me) while at the same time someone from the same office coming in to battle it out in court over the life or death of government legislation is a recipe for all kinds of abuses. The AG could leverage disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer to get them to abandon a challenge against the government. Even if they didn't overtly do it, the lawyer might be less than forceful in his or her arguments out of concern for their own self-interest. With an independent Law Society in charge of controlling me, I can throw everything I've got at the government for an unjust law / policy / action without any concern that I'm screwing myself. At the end of the day, it is the interest of the client that gets served by keeping government out of the regulation equation.

Again, we have to be careful with percentages and conclusions about what numbers tell us. 54% women graduating law school does not mean that 54% actually become lawyers...they may go into government, UN posts etc. with their degree. Further, you have to be a lawyer for 10 years to be appointed to the bench, so, if more women than men leave the profession before that point, the fact that only 26% of Federal judges in 2002 were women may have little at all to do with discrimination. Perhaps Alberta is far more enlightened than Ontario if your stats regarding appointment applications are accurate...one thing I'll never profess to understand is what makes Ontarians tick...lol! Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument you are making, what I am saying is that my experience as a lawyer in Calgary tells me the opposite...last I heard a QB Judge (Federally appointed) in Alberta makes $280,000.00 a year, and of the 78 listed for 2005, 25 are female. That's 32% already and considering that many of the male judges have been sitting for 15 years or more, that number is undoubtedly going up. As I've said, its 57% on the Court of Appeal right now. My conclusion is that women are doing pretty damn good as lawyers in Alberta these days, and if I haven't made it clear from my previous posts I applaud the situation...makes me a proud member of the Law Society of Alberta. FTA Lawyer

OH CANADUH!

There is ever-increasing pressure throughout Canada to remove the governance of the legal profession from the Law Societies of each Province and form government regulatory bodies to take their place. The most often cited concern from the public is that lawyers policing lawyers means that regulatory and disciplinary decisions are made for self-preservation and the public at large is put second. The most often cited argument from lawyers is that the profession must remain truly independent if it is to serve the public properly. Lawyers are required to put forth some of the most unpopular arguments on behalf of their clients, and they must be able to do so free from fear of political influence or punishment. I for one side with the lawyer's argument (well I am one) but not without the ability to acknowledge that there might need to be improvements to the current status quo. Consider for example if you hire a lawyer to challenge what you claim to be an unconstitutional act by a municipal, provincial, or federal government. Would you really feel confident in the zealousness of your representation if you knew the lawyer had a personal interest in not rocking the government boat too much (to avoid a rough ride from government regulators)? Interested to hear what others views of this topic are... FTA Lawyer

RB, I don't know where you get your stats from...they may be right, but as usual, percentages are often misleading. If, in fact, 17% more males than females are becoming partners it is because women are choosing to take another path in their careers for any number of what I imagine are generally good reasons. At the firm I used to work for in Calgary, women who were senior to me made more than me, women who were junior to me made less than me, and...lo and behold...women who were called to the bar in the same year as me made the exact same as me for base salary. Lawyers who exceeded their target of 1800 billable hours (male or female) got a bonus equal to 1/3 of the extra revenue they brought in. Lawyers who were not prepared to work so hard (me included) did not get a bonus and were not likely anywhere on the radar screen when it came to partnership. The last two men to be offered partnership put in approximately 2400 and 2200 billable hours respectively, so if you think they were getting favourable treatment your just plain wrong. The senior partners of the firm started practicing in the early 70's, so they were firmly entrenched in the "old boys club" but have clearly left that mentality behind. Lawyers are hired and promoted based on merit these days, and very little matters as far as gender goes. How else can you account for my stats (which come directly from the Courts themselves) that the Supreme Court has 4 women and 5 men and the Alberta Court of Appeal 8 women and 6 men...I noticed you conveniently ignored these facts in your further rant. Would you have me believe that these female justices make 60% of what their male counterparts do? I really am sorry, but if you want to be a crusader on the front lines of women's rights try a place like China who could actually use your tenacity. FTA Lawyer

I have to disagree...my vote was "YES - in 10 years". You cannot underestimate how incredible the "Alberta Advantage" will be after 10 years of building from a debt-free base. Also, the cost of oil doesn't seem to have any chance of dropping, so Alberta will consistently have billions of "extra" cash laying around to continue improving the quality of life of its residents. Ontario will continue to lose head offices to Alberta (be it EDM or CGY) due to the favourable corporate environment. When the moves see some 85% of the employees coming like recently with the Imperial Oil move, Ontario loses critical tax base and loses more ground in the efforts to get its books balanced. I'll see you back here in 2015 and we'll find out who's right!

Interesting how this topic seemed to become a very male vs female thing...and I seem to have been drawn into it by RB: "Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet" I'm not quite sure I get what is being said here...and in any event, I assure you that I change into my gown in the privacy of my own office, or in the mens locker room at the courthouse (and yes of course there is also a women's locker room). Further, I can appreciate that systemic inequalities have historically existed between men and women, but today in a country like Canada, I have a very tough time taking comments like the following seriously: "...men are cruel to some men but cruel to all women." or "...put a woman into this male cruel corporate culture and see how they struggle." or "I don’t know where this line came from but I quote that women have no idea how much men hate them. As I gathered a woman trying to influence even a small change is met with serious resistance." With reference to the legal profession, arguably one of the worst historical "old boys clubs" the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court is a woman (as are 3 others of the total 9) and as an Albertan, the Chief Justice of our province is also a woman (as are 7 others of the total 14 on the Court of Appeal...yes that's 8 women to 6 men...in ALBERTA). To the best of my recollection, our graduating class was approximately 54% women, which is not out of line with many other Canadian law schools, and female Partners are far from an oddity anymore. Canada has had a female Prime Minister (albeit not much of one) currently has a female Head of State in Governor General Clarkson, and has a number of very influential and powerful women in other government and business positions. I hate to break it to you, but long gone are the days that you can credibly spew rhetoric in this country about the cruel struggle that women face when trying desperately to succeed in a male world...it's just simply not true anymore...thankfully I might add. FTA Lawyer

The Charter and the precursor Canadian Bill of Rights (which is not repealed and protects property rights that are left out of the Charter) apply only to government as has been mentioned by other posts. A quick browse through the Canadian Human Rights Act will answer some of the questions that relate to discrimination in private business. http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/h-6/ Again, as has been mentioned, discrimination for a good faith purpose (eg. a women's health club) is excepted from sanction. Otherwise, discrimination on the basis of a "prohibited ground" is illegal. As far as "double standards" that Renegade talks about, they are real and in many cases permissible. For example, "Senior's discounts" are commonly used and widely accepted, so if you as a business owner can show a good faith basis for giving a "Chinese discount" or a "Jehovah's Witness discount" etc. then you would be okay to do so. It may seem hard to think of a good faith basis that would justify such apparently blatant forms of discrimination, but I would think that an argument along the lines of "affirmative action" would likely work in the right circumstances. (e.g. if Chinese people in your city have been historically discriminated against / disadvantaged by the community at large, then a "Chinese discount" with a view to putting right the past wrongs may be completely accepted). In the government / Charter realm, we already have enshrined such practices, so it would seem that to do similar things as amongst private citizens would have to be allowed. Section 15(2) of the Charter reads that: [The right to equality before and under law] does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. FTA Lawyer

The protective legislation that Klein proposes is necessary if we are to allow JP's to refuse to conduct SSM ceremonies. Religious ministers/priests/etc. don't need it because they already have s. 2(a) of the Charter which allows them to exercise their faith even where it breaches another individual's Charter rights (not completely unlimited by the way). A JP on the other hand is required to exercise the statutory duty of conducting marriage ceremonies by virtue of accepting the post. He or she can refuse to do a ceremony because they are too busy or going on holidays or any number of other valid reasons, but to refuse to marry someone because they are gay is contrary to human rights legislation, including s. 15 of the Charter, and therefore cannot be done (just like a private restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve a person if the reason is they are gay, or black, or female etc.). Before the definition change, a gay couple could not get a marriage license, and if you have no licence, you can't be married...so if a JP was approached for a SSM ceremony it was denied for lack of a license, NOT because the couple was gay. Now, the licenses are being issued, so a JP would have to actually deny to do the SSM on the basis of sexual orientation of the couple which, as I've said, is clearly contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. Without a corresponding enshrined right like s. 2(a), a JP would have nothing to use as a shield. Personally, I'd have to say that Klien has actually found a sensible, and defensible middle ground. He's not going to continue to threaten to not allow SSM in Alberta, but he's also not going to force an individual JP to perform one if they are morally opposed to it. I get how this proposal differs from the duty we place on a police officer (i.e. you don't get to pick and choose which laws you enforce), but in this subject area, it is an acceptable concept, and I might add, not outrageous or even new. For example, as a lawyer I am bound by statutory duty to conduct each cause on behalf of a client to the best of my ability within the boundaries of the law...but I am not required to accept a retainer (in fact I'm obligated to refuse it) if I have a personal conflict of interest which might interfere with my ability to act. I don't have to defend a child molester if I feel I cannot morally do so, and I wouldn't have to act for a gay couple who was wrongly denied a SSM license if my personal views on SSM might hinder the level of service those clients would receive. Love him or hate him, Klien is now doing the right thing with SSM's as far as I'm concerned.