Buddhas Hand Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 That is not the case in BC. In BC if there are allegation of negligence or professional misconduct by a lawyer, the allegations are published as well as the decision and any punishment imposed. The details are published in the BC Law Society Discipline Digest and now also published at the BC Law Society website. It has been thus for over 20 years. Records are also available in a database to the public who want to check out any lawyer before retaining his/her services to see if there has been any such discipline proceedings. In Canada there is a difference between professional negligence and wrongdoing by lawyers. I have no idea what goes on in other countries. Here professional liability Insurance covers the former but not the latter. The BC Law Society has a fund (the Special Compensation Fund) paid for by its member lawyers to compensate those who were victims of criminal/civil fraud by lawyers and if the amount is substantial the Law Society imposes a special levy on all practising members to fund the payments to the aggrieved parties. Recently there was a case of a BC lawyer Martin Wirick (since disbarred) accused (and later convicted) of theft and fraud relating to more than 100 real estate transactions between 2000 and 2002. The one odd thing about the case was that Wirick did not personally profit from the proceeds of the criminal activities (unlike his client who is still before the criminal courts) other than to charge the usual legal fees for real estate conveyancing, etc. As a result of the actions a hundreds of persons were put at risk of losing their homes and the losses ran into the millions of dollars. In that case the Law Society used its Special Compensation Fund (which is funded yearly by member lawyers as part of their annual dues) and when that proved insufficient a special levy was imposed upon all BC lawyers to make up the shortfall. In 2003, the Law Society increased the assessment paid by lawyers for the Special Compensation Fund from $250 to $600. Although the fee has now been reduced from its high point, lawyers continue to pay for Wirick's misconduct in their yearly assessments. The Law Society Rules at that time capped the annual aggregate payments made from the Fund at $17.5 million, the Benchers (elected members of the Bar who govern the Law Society) agreed to remove the limit to ensure all valid claims would be covered. The Law Society also provided free legal counsel for the affected homeowners to appear on their behalf in any foreclosure proceedings being brought by lenders to ensure no one lost their home while the compensation was being assessed and paid. In BC lawyers are most assuredly responsible for their actions and there is a duty to on all members to report suspected misconduct and lawyers who have received complaints of negligence or wrongdoing or even threats of same are required to immediately report the circumstances to the Law Society. Failure to report can result in lawyers being required to fully reimburse any payouts made by the insurer and/or the Law Society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 This guy seems to have some serious problems constructing a logical and rational argument. Also the phrase "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!" does not come from Caesar but rather from Shakespeare by way of a character in a play and the meaning is not what is now attributed. The reason to kill the lawyers was because they would oppose an illegal overthrow of the government and champion rights and the law. Lawyers were seen as an impediment to a dictatorship. Cade: I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord. Dick: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78 Dick the butcher, a character no one remembers, utters one of the few memorable lines. Dick's Utopian idea to kill all England's lawyers is his addition to the promises of the traitorous Jack Cade, who envisions a revolution overthrowing the Crown, with himself installed as dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Good Pull on the quote , but you have not addressed the main substance of the argument . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 This system sounds very similar to what we have here in Australia. Misconduct is handled by Tribunal; the amount of compensation is capped and extremely low. If an ordinary person attempts to bring an action against a lawyer, which will involve equitable compensation, that is handled by a court action and in these cases the ordinary person will generally be fighting an insurance company irrespective of whether or not the lawyer acted properly or wrongly. They always try to settle out of court. If an action settles out of court then the lawyer is NOT disciplined and NO wrongdoing is recorded against them. Of course a complaint system exists (with our various law societies - who at the end of the day are societies set up BY lawyers FOR lawyers) but it is a toothless tiger to placate the masses. In my opinion, all it does is maintain the fiction. Reporting of lawyers by lawyers is inhibited. In general, the legal fraternity exist in a closed, exclusive society. They are reluctant to report each other and are always rationalising. They are also reluctant to bring actions against each other - leaving the ordinary person with very little support and advice. After all, if more and more lawyers are found to be in the wrong, ALL lawyers' insurance premiums go up. Therefore, only those few wrong-acting lawyers who have not managed to settle out of court and have been successfully taken to task for their actions are the only ones who end up 'published' and the much larger volume of wrong-acting lawyers who did manage to take advantage of 'their' system effectively roam free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What you describe bears no resemblance to how things operate in BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What argument? It is an ill-written rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 GIve it up. He'll insult you and dismiss you while telling you how well informed and what vast experience he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Are Lawyers Ethical? By Lance Winslow Many believe that Lawyers are not ethical human beings and that they do not enforce the law or protect the rights of our society. Many believe that lawyers merely use the law and re-interpret the law for the advantage of those paying them to do so. Therefore they are being unethical to the law the purport to serve, as they manipulate the law to mean whatever it is that they wish it to mean for the highest paying clientele. Now some would argue that they are ethical and helping their clients from being abused by law. Yet if so they are not enforcing the law, but modifying either its intent, definition or letter of the law using case law and arguments which are vaguely relevant to any particular reality of the law. So when arguing the question are Lawyers Ethical, one would have to come to the conclusion that they are pragmatic at best and outright criminals at worst. Yet any lawyer worth his salt will immediately object to such statements and say ask the questions; What do you mean when you say Ethical? What is your definition of Law? What do you consider a definition? What exactly is a client? What exactly is reality? What do you mean by the comment of pragmatism? This is how a lawyer can justify their criminality or decisions to hide in the shawdows of the gray area of law and proclaim themselves members of a noble and ethical profession and slayers of evil as they enforce the laws for the betterment of the whole of our civilization. Of course all their talk and boloney is pure and utter hokum, but it is nice to know where they are coming from as the refute Caesars best advice; "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!" In fact if lawyers were as ethical as they say, we would not have to kill them, as they would kill themselves to save our civilization from their obvious attacks on the truth and our laws. Think on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 I argue that { to use lances words} , many believe that Lawyers are not ethical human beings and that they do not enforce the law or protect the rights of our society. Many believe that lawyers merely use the law and re-interpret the law for the advantage of those paying them to do so. Therefore they are being unethical to the law the purport to serve, as they manipulate the law to mean whatever it is that they wish it to mean for the highest paying clientele. Now some would argue that they are ethical and helping their clients from being abused by law. Yet if so they are not enforcing the law, but modifying either its intent, definition or letter of the law using case law and arguments which are vaguely relevant to any particular reality of the law. So when arguing the question are Lawyers Ethical, one would have to come to the conclusion that they are pragmatic at best and outright criminals at worst. Now PROVE that this statment is untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree but my experience tells me that it would be misleading to use blanket statements such as "bears no resemblance". I don't believe that it true. It is extremely hard to quantify 'confidential settlements reached out of court' unless you are an insurance company insider and your law society will not publish such things nor will those cases have reached a court or a tribunal. At the end of the day, the ordinary person hasn't got much of a hope for traditional concepts of justice and equity unless they have buckets of money. The law is, after all, not about those concepts - it is blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That article is horrible. Certainly there are better anti-lawyer ones available, if that's what people want to make this thread about now. I don't picture Freemen of the Land as anything but criminals that want to go off-grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 That article is horrible. Certainly there are better anti-lawyer ones available, if that's what people want to make this thread about now. I don't picture Freemen of the Land as anything but criminals that want to go off-grid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Or just people who believe in bizarre conspiracy theories and are easily misled. The unknowing and uninformed leading the gullible seems the most accurate assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 While this incident may be isolated, it went to show how this movement, as baseless and ridiculous as it is, has been effectively used to render 'the law' completely powerless. (But if they weren't being filmed at the time, that guy would be TOAST.) I think it's hilarious how easy it is to circumvent government and the law. Just disregard it? Really? We're entering a troubling age here, if that's the case. Eventually (at least you'd think) the government will have to step up and do something about it. And it's not going to look pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Wondering... Aren't the leaders of these kind of movements generally 'offed' right away? How inept is Homeland Security down there that they let these guys slip through the cracks? Homeland Security's ineffectiveness here is worth noting. Um, WHERE is all that money going, if not actual 'Homeland Security???' Certainly adds fuel to conspiracy talk, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Wondering... Aren't the leaders of these kind of movements generally 'offed' right away? How inept is Homeland Security down there that they let these guys slip through the cracks? Homeland Security's ineffectiveness here is worth noting. Um, WHERE is all that money going, if not actual 'Homeland Security???' Certainly adds fuel to conspiracy talk, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Wondering... Aren't the leaders of these kind of movements generally 'offed' right away? How inept is Homeland Security down there that they let these guys slip through the cracks? Homeland Security's ineffectiveness here is worth noting. Um, WHERE is all that money going, if not actual 'Homeland Security???' Certainly adds fuel to conspiracy talk, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Dang lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Disprove an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 As I said I have no idea what goes on in Australia but I do know what happens in BC and it is quite different from what you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.