Monday, January 03, 2011
British Columbia's provincial court system: 'a ticking time bomb'
.
BC legal system is 'a ticking time bomb'
By Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun - January 2, 2011
Vancouver. {Snip} ... Main Street is a microcosm of the beleaguered B.C. legal system: Across the province, the most recent accounting shows that five years ago, we had 143 provincial judges; now we’re down to 130.
The B.C. Crown Counsel Association warns that not only are there not enough judges, there are not enough prosecutors either.
Victoria has long promised to add more; it hasn’t happened.
To combat the rise in gangsterism, the government basically shuffled the deck. It did not increase resources, but rather reassigned bodies.
Crown association president Samiran Lakshman said there has been a systematic erosion of the criminal justice system — “from not filling Provincial Court justice positions, to cutting legal aid, to stripping the Crown offices of the ability to do our job and what that means is that we have a ticking time bomb.”
Defence lawyers in various parts of the province — beginning this week in Abbotsford and Chilliwack — have withdrawn services to protest the deterioration of legal aid and the damage that alone has done.
To maintain the budgetary line, the Liberals have neglected the province’s legal infrastructure to an unconscionable level.
They closed 60 legal aid offices, the Vancouver Pre-Trial Centre, 10 jails and 24 courthouses. Pre-trial jails are said to be horrendously overcrowded.
All this at a time when the federal Conservatives were attaching mandatory jail sentences to more offences and threatening tougher enforcement.
It’s absurd — one level of government jacking up penalties while the other slashes funding so cases are tossed out of court for taking too long to get to trial.
What’s with that?
No question the Liberals have faced economic challenges — Provincial Court judges, who are the workhorses of the system, were once considered mid-management and paid accordingly.
Now they’re each pulling in a CEO-level salary of $231,000 plus benefits and six weeks’ vacation.
It was big of them last year to take a pay freeze to help, but let’s not forget they expect to pocket at least $260,000 in 2013.
Prosecutors, too, have done well since their salaries are pegged to the bench.
The government says it now costs $1.6 million annually to support each judge and courtroom — which is not to say they aren’t worth the money.
But that is more than double what it cost 15 years ago.
Most of the problem, unfortunately, is simply the cost of maintaining a fair and accessible legal system.
Under outgoing Premier Gordon Campbell, the Liberals shirked that duty and the new premier and cabinet this year must repair the institutional damage.
In some ways, Victoria’s policies have been penny wise and dollar foolish — seeming savings in legal aid often served to lengthen proceedings and ultimately added to trial costs.
And the mounting chaos in the courts and jails is only one of the legal challenges facing any incoming administration: The coroner’s office is in disarray, the child welfare advocate is pulling her hair out, there is a new RCMP policing contract to be signed, a new independent investigations unit to be established to handle serious allegations of police misconduct and much more.
I hope the would-be premiers had a good holiday: After he or she wins the job, there’s much work to be done.
imulgrew@vancouversun.com
Read more HERE:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+legal+system+ticking+time+bomb/4050479/story.html#ixzz19zHE2GPN
BC legal system is 'a ticking time bomb'
By Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun - January 2, 2011
Vancouver. {Snip} ... Main Street is a microcosm of the beleaguered B.C. legal system: Across the province, the most recent accounting shows that five years ago, we had 143 provincial judges; now we’re down to 130.
The B.C. Crown Counsel Association warns that not only are there not enough judges, there are not enough prosecutors either.
Victoria has long promised to add more; it hasn’t happened.
To combat the rise in gangsterism, the government basically shuffled the deck. It did not increase resources, but rather reassigned bodies.
Crown association president Samiran Lakshman said there has been a systematic erosion of the criminal justice system — “from not filling Provincial Court justice positions, to cutting legal aid, to stripping the Crown offices of the ability to do our job and what that means is that we have a ticking time bomb.”
Defence lawyers in various parts of the province — beginning this week in Abbotsford and Chilliwack — have withdrawn services to protest the deterioration of legal aid and the damage that alone has done.
To maintain the budgetary line, the Liberals have neglected the province’s legal infrastructure to an unconscionable level.
They closed 60 legal aid offices, the Vancouver Pre-Trial Centre, 10 jails and 24 courthouses. Pre-trial jails are said to be horrendously overcrowded.
All this at a time when the federal Conservatives were attaching mandatory jail sentences to more offences and threatening tougher enforcement.
It’s absurd — one level of government jacking up penalties while the other slashes funding so cases are tossed out of court for taking too long to get to trial.
What’s with that?
No question the Liberals have faced economic challenges — Provincial Court judges, who are the workhorses of the system, were once considered mid-management and paid accordingly.
Now they’re each pulling in a CEO-level salary of $231,000 plus benefits and six weeks’ vacation.
It was big of them last year to take a pay freeze to help, but let’s not forget they expect to pocket at least $260,000 in 2013.
Prosecutors, too, have done well since their salaries are pegged to the bench.
The government says it now costs $1.6 million annually to support each judge and courtroom — which is not to say they aren’t worth the money.
But that is more than double what it cost 15 years ago.
Most of the problem, unfortunately, is simply the cost of maintaining a fair and accessible legal system.
Under outgoing Premier Gordon Campbell, the Liberals shirked that duty and the new premier and cabinet this year must repair the institutional damage.
In some ways, Victoria’s policies have been penny wise and dollar foolish — seeming savings in legal aid often served to lengthen proceedings and ultimately added to trial costs.
And the mounting chaos in the courts and jails is only one of the legal challenges facing any incoming administration: The coroner’s office is in disarray, the child welfare advocate is pulling her hair out, there is a new RCMP policing contract to be signed, a new independent investigations unit to be established to handle serious allegations of police misconduct and much more.
I hope the would-be premiers had a good holiday: After he or she wins the job, there’s much work to be done.
imulgrew@vancouversun.com
Read more HERE:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+legal+system+ticking+time+bomb/4050479/story.html#ixzz19zHE2GPN
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BC Mary comment: In BC Supreme Court next Tuesday, January 11, 2011 there is expected to be another excruciating event in the troubled courtroom of Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie. It deserves the closest attention.
At issue will be her ruling on the Crown's demand that the Defence lawyers in the BC Rail Political Corruption Trial (Basi, Virk, Basi) give up all evidenciary documents to the Crown, presumably for destruction.
At issue will be her ruling on the Crown's demand that the Defence lawyers in the BC Rail Political Corruption Trial (Basi, Virk, Basi) give up all evidenciary documents to the Crown, presumably for destruction.
Don't ask BC Mary "What shall we do?" You know what you have to do: be there, if you possibly can. Picket the Law Courts Building at 800 Smyth Street, if you possibly can. Distribute pamphlets. Let it be known that the BC Rail Corruption Trial hasn't been satisfactorily concluded. The trial is now in the streets and coffee shops and kitchens of B.C. That trial ain't over until the previous owners of Canada's 3rd largest railway say it's over.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
That my dear citizens of BC is the real problem with the legal and judicial system. Not "infrastructure", not turning more lawyers into judges.
I've told this joke here before, but:
Q: What do you call a bad lawyer?
A: A judge.
<< Home
"Defence lawyers in various parts of the province — beginning this week in Abbotsford and Chilliwack — have withdrawn services to protest the deterioration of legal aid and the damage that alone has done." - Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun - January 2, 2011
Cry me a river.
Does Ian Mulgrew propose we line all defence lawyers pockets the same way the taxpayers of BC did for Basi and Virk?
To allow an unlimited legal defense budget that cost us all 6M to 18M depending on the estimate, so that defence can plead guilty to house arrest?
Longer sentenses are whats needed so these same criminals dont get the chance to revisit our costly courthouses time and again.
Its too expenses and a drain on our economy to continualy monitor criminals. Once found guilty, lock them up for long, long sentenses.
And reform the corrections at the same time. No reason it should cost 70K per yr to house a fellon. But if thats what it costs, its a much smaller charge against civilizatin if we allowed them to carry on outside of prison walls.
Cry me a river.
Does Ian Mulgrew propose we line all defence lawyers pockets the same way the taxpayers of BC did for Basi and Virk?
To allow an unlimited legal defense budget that cost us all 6M to 18M depending on the estimate, so that defence can plead guilty to house arrest?
Longer sentenses are whats needed so these same criminals dont get the chance to revisit our costly courthouses time and again.
Its too expenses and a drain on our economy to continualy monitor criminals. Once found guilty, lock them up for long, long sentenses.
And reform the corrections at the same time. No reason it should cost 70K per yr to house a fellon. But if thats what it costs, its a much smaller charge against civilizatin if we allowed them to carry on outside of prison walls.
# posted by 
: January 3, 2011 at 8:34 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 8:34 a.m.
Mary, in an unrelated story I see that Hunter Harrison CEO CNR made 17.3 million in salary in 2009. I was just wondering what you think they will pay Gordon Campbell when he is rewarded with a token job on the Board of Directors for selling (giving away) a money losing (B.S.) BC Rail to CN, not unlike what the banks did for Carol Taylor.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 8:46 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 8:46 a.m.
Yayyyy, there's the answer: build more prisons!
Why didn't we think of that?
But with your help, JPC, I can see it now: half of BC locked up in prisons, and half of BC at work happily building more prisons and rounding up more prisoners. Of course! Soon there would be NO MORE CROOKS in BC. It's a miracle!
I think I recognize a graduate of that school with only one seat. And aren't you Just Plain Cranky.
.
Why didn't we think of that?
But with your help, JPC, I can see it now: half of BC locked up in prisons, and half of BC at work happily building more prisons and rounding up more prisoners. Of course! Soon there would be NO MORE CROOKS in BC. It's a miracle!
I think I recognize a graduate of that school with only one seat. And aren't you Just Plain Cranky.
.
Yeah, let's just forget about trials, and put everybody in prison.....actually a lot of the poorer parts of the country, especially where the majority of people have to report to the welfare office to keep from going hungry and/or freezing to death, it's pretty much like house arrest as it is....
but these two tidbits caught my eye:
To combat the rise in gangsterism, the government basically shuffled the deck. It did not increase resources, but rather reassigned bodies.
Yeah, well playing the ol' switcheroo, first on Special Prosecutors, then on the bench, that sounds famliar doesn't it?
And:
Under outgoing Premier Gordon Campbell, the Liberals shirked that duty and the new premier and cabinet this year must repair the institutional damage.
I think Mulgrew's being ironic/understated there. Clearly it's not just the court system he's talking about. It's the whole provincial infrastructure. Or should be; what was done to the court system is only one small aspect of teh wholesale damage done by the "Golden Decade"'s wrecking crew.....
but these two tidbits caught my eye:
To combat the rise in gangsterism, the government basically shuffled the deck. It did not increase resources, but rather reassigned bodies.
Yeah, well playing the ol' switcheroo, first on Special Prosecutors, then on the bench, that sounds famliar doesn't it?
And:
Under outgoing Premier Gordon Campbell, the Liberals shirked that duty and the new premier and cabinet this year must repair the institutional damage.
I think Mulgrew's being ironic/understated there. Clearly it's not just the court system he's talking about. It's the whole provincial infrastructure. Or should be; what was done to the court system is only one small aspect of teh wholesale damage done by the "Golden Decade"'s wrecking crew.....
Unfortunately Mary...The media NOW wants to write the story?????...
"British Columbia, A crime Story"
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2009/09/british-columbia-crime-story.html
"British Columbia, A crime Story"
http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2009/09/british-columbia-crime-story.html
Click my name for British Columbia, a crime story...
Slow courts, delayed courts, no courts, no law, no justice and costs soar..
JPC, you have no idea, our court system now does not work, it`s corrupted...
Or maybe we should adopt our Olympic policiy... "Shut the godamn courts down because no one gives a flying Flock"...Eh JPC
The media decides to roll over and fart!....Never mind media, go back to sleep, we`ll wake you when everything is gone,.....
Sheesh Mary....Really sad, pathetically sad...
Slow courts, delayed courts, no courts, no law, no justice and costs soar..
JPC, you have no idea, our court system now does not work, it`s corrupted...
Or maybe we should adopt our Olympic policiy... "Shut the godamn courts down because no one gives a flying Flock"...Eh JPC
The media decides to roll over and fart!....Never mind media, go back to sleep, we`ll wake you when everything is gone,.....
Sheesh Mary....Really sad, pathetically sad...
"Don't ask BC Mary "What shall we do?" You know what you have to do: be there, if you possibly can. Picket the Law Courts Building at 800 Smyth Street, if you possibly can. Distribute pamphlets. Let it be known that the BC Rail Corruption Trial hasn't been satisfactorily concluded. The trial is now in the streets and coffee shops and kitchens of B.C. That trial ain't over until the previous owners of Canada's 3rd largest railway say it's over."
Amen to these words BC Mary...I agree with you, everyone that can be there needs to show up next Tuesday, now is the time for all to stand up and show our concern...it is not over!!
Amen to these words BC Mary...I agree with you, everyone that can be there needs to show up next Tuesday, now is the time for all to stand up and show our concern...it is not over!!
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 10:42 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 10:42 a.m.
Look at repeate offenders; and those involved in drugs who have money to defend themselves.
These are the people who are overwhelming the courts, the police depts, social services, ambulance and emergency services.
Why is this? becuase they are not in jail, they are largely out of jail committing more and more and more crimes, mayhem, and grief on our communities while we as a society struggle to cover the property crime, the trauma, the policing costs, the legal fees, the court costs and to what end?
To only have these scofflaws repeate the process over and over.
Please explain how shorter jail sentences would reduce crime, save us money and from being victims of crime?
When criminals are taken off the streets, policing costs can be reduced becuase those who commit crimes are in jail, drug crimes disappear, beatings and assaults dry up, etc and so on.
Explain to me the net benefit from releasing criminals into a community.
Are there cost savings from keeping criminals incarcerated, vs in the crime/police/court/probation officer/social services revolving door?
Funny how the province reports that criminal activity is at an all time low, yet we struggle daily with more and more criminal activity, much of it organized, that runs amok from Vancouver to Kamloops to PG.
These are the people who are overwhelming the courts, the police depts, social services, ambulance and emergency services.
Why is this? becuase they are not in jail, they are largely out of jail committing more and more and more crimes, mayhem, and grief on our communities while we as a society struggle to cover the property crime, the trauma, the policing costs, the legal fees, the court costs and to what end?
To only have these scofflaws repeate the process over and over.
Please explain how shorter jail sentences would reduce crime, save us money and from being victims of crime?
When criminals are taken off the streets, policing costs can be reduced becuase those who commit crimes are in jail, drug crimes disappear, beatings and assaults dry up, etc and so on.
Explain to me the net benefit from releasing criminals into a community.
Are there cost savings from keeping criminals incarcerated, vs in the crime/police/court/probation officer/social services revolving door?
Funny how the province reports that criminal activity is at an all time low, yet we struggle daily with more and more criminal activity, much of it organized, that runs amok from Vancouver to Kamloops to PG.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.
Grant G. The reason the costs are soaring, is becuase of the techical nature of getting a conviction and the many "charter" tools available to the defence.
And so it goes, that costs soar and trials proceed at snails pace. For this reason, when a conviction is granted, the punishment should be sever, ie incarceration for 10 yrs minimun, no reduction, no 2 for 1 credits, but hard time.
Also, perhaps we ought to look at offshore outsourcing our prisoners if we cannot run a jail under 70K per prisoner.
We do this already with products and services, why not jails?
We do this already with holidays, why not send prisoners to Mexico?
Maybe that would teach them a lesson, instead of how to free-base cocaine and package it to seel to school kids.
And so it goes, that costs soar and trials proceed at snails pace. For this reason, when a conviction is granted, the punishment should be sever, ie incarceration for 10 yrs minimun, no reduction, no 2 for 1 credits, but hard time.
Also, perhaps we ought to look at offshore outsourcing our prisoners if we cannot run a jail under 70K per prisoner.
We do this already with products and services, why not jails?
We do this already with holidays, why not send prisoners to Mexico?
Maybe that would teach them a lesson, instead of how to free-base cocaine and package it to seel to school kids.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
Don't be fooled by Ian Mulgrew folks.
Norm Farrell flagged Mulgrew's column yesterday at his blog, Northern Insights http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/
in which he applauded Mulgrew for this column, while decrying Mulgrew's spotty record in general, to which I replied:
Canadian Canary said...
JANUARY 3, 2011 7:48 AM
Infrastructure is not the problem. Ian Mulgrew's analysis is incomplete, and he ignores "the elephant in the room", how lawyers and judges conduct their business.
For someone who’s spent years making a living reporting on justice matters, Mulgrew’s analysis is astoundingly shallow. For example, have the number of court cases increased? Crime stats are down from the last decade, so what's going on? It was also just reported that there were only half as many murder trials in Vancouver last year than the year before. The arcane, selectively applied “rules” of court are another cause of the bloated BC legal “system”. More judges needed? Think again.
The real problem is far, far more insidious and serious. The legal trade in Canada is not regulated in any meaningful way. They are a "self-regulated profession", and unfortunately that means the fox is guarding the henhouse (i.e. public).
One of the primary causes of the mess in the court and judicial system is the fact that lawyers get paid to delay matters. And, neither the law society nor judges penalize lawyers for such delays, even if the lawyer’s actions are illegal or malicious. Countless examples abound, but the public will never hear about them because the media “isn’t interested” or they hide behind “can’t report because it’s before the courts”, an excuse that’s selectively used by the media when it suits their purpose.
Unlike other countries, we in Canada are being hoodwinked by the legal trade. In the last few years, other countries (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain) have all done away with "self-regulation" of the legal profession. It just doesn’t work. Independent oversight by the public is essential.
A Dec 2008 article in Lawyer Weekly by Jeff Roberts, which largely worries about the protection of lawyers, not of the public, acknowledges that other countries have eclipsed Canada in regulation of the legal trade:
"Australia has largely moved towards a system in which lawyer oversight is done through a form of co-regulation between the profession and the state. In many U.S. states, oversight is through the courts. New Zealand is in the process of creating a uniform national model of regulation. Nor is the drive for reform limited to the common law world as France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy is attempting wholesale review of the country’s legal profession."
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Time-to-streamline-the-societies.html?print=1&tmpl=component
A decade ago, the BC Ombudsman's Office had received so many complaints about the conduct of the BC Law Society that an Inquiry was launched into the Law Society. However, shortly after Gordon Campbell became premier, he removed the funding from the Ombudsman for that Inquiry and it was shut down before it was completed. The current Ombudsman is a lawyer, Kim Carter, and (surprise!) she shows no interest in investigating problems with the BC Law Society.
Self-interest invariably becomes the primary goal of self-regulated groups. A lack of meaningful scrutiny and accountability then leads quickly to corruption. Hence lawyers and judges can (and do) do pretty much as they please. This is especially so when the main media players are all co-opted (embedded?) into the game.
That my dear citizens of BC is the real problem with the legal and judicial system. Not "infrastructure", not turning more lawyers into judges.
Norm Farrell said...
JANUARY 3, 2011 8:04 AM
Excellent comment that speaks to an important root cause of difficulty. Clearly, this is a subject worth further exploration. Not only Mulgrew's analysis was shallow. Mine was too.
Norm Farrell flagged Mulgrew's column yesterday at his blog, Northern Insights http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/
in which he applauded Mulgrew for this column, while decrying Mulgrew's spotty record in general, to which I replied:
Canadian Canary said...
JANUARY 3, 2011 7:48 AM
Infrastructure is not the problem. Ian Mulgrew's analysis is incomplete, and he ignores "the elephant in the room", how lawyers and judges conduct their business.
For someone who’s spent years making a living reporting on justice matters, Mulgrew’s analysis is astoundingly shallow. For example, have the number of court cases increased? Crime stats are down from the last decade, so what's going on? It was also just reported that there were only half as many murder trials in Vancouver last year than the year before. The arcane, selectively applied “rules” of court are another cause of the bloated BC legal “system”. More judges needed? Think again.
The real problem is far, far more insidious and serious. The legal trade in Canada is not regulated in any meaningful way. They are a "self-regulated profession", and unfortunately that means the fox is guarding the henhouse (i.e. public).
One of the primary causes of the mess in the court and judicial system is the fact that lawyers get paid to delay matters. And, neither the law society nor judges penalize lawyers for such delays, even if the lawyer’s actions are illegal or malicious. Countless examples abound, but the public will never hear about them because the media “isn’t interested” or they hide behind “can’t report because it’s before the courts”, an excuse that’s selectively used by the media when it suits their purpose.
Unlike other countries, we in Canada are being hoodwinked by the legal trade. In the last few years, other countries (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain) have all done away with "self-regulation" of the legal profession. It just doesn’t work. Independent oversight by the public is essential.
A Dec 2008 article in Lawyer Weekly by Jeff Roberts, which largely worries about the protection of lawyers, not of the public, acknowledges that other countries have eclipsed Canada in regulation of the legal trade:
"Australia has largely moved towards a system in which lawyer oversight is done through a form of co-regulation between the profession and the state. In many U.S. states, oversight is through the courts. New Zealand is in the process of creating a uniform national model of regulation. Nor is the drive for reform limited to the common law world as France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy is attempting wholesale review of the country’s legal profession."
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Time-to-streamline-the-societies.html?print=1&tmpl=component
A decade ago, the BC Ombudsman's Office had received so many complaints about the conduct of the BC Law Society that an Inquiry was launched into the Law Society. However, shortly after Gordon Campbell became premier, he removed the funding from the Ombudsman for that Inquiry and it was shut down before it was completed. The current Ombudsman is a lawyer, Kim Carter, and (surprise!) she shows no interest in investigating problems with the BC Law Society.
Self-interest invariably becomes the primary goal of self-regulated groups. A lack of meaningful scrutiny and accountability then leads quickly to corruption. Hence lawyers and judges can (and do) do pretty much as they please. This is especially so when the main media players are all co-opted (embedded?) into the game.
That my dear citizens of BC is the real problem with the legal and judicial system. Not "infrastructure", not turning more lawyers into judges.
Norm Farrell said...
JANUARY 3, 2011 8:04 AM
Excellent comment that speaks to an important root cause of difficulty. Clearly, this is a subject worth further exploration. Not only Mulgrew's analysis was shallow. Mine was too.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
Don`t think you are going to school me JPC...The cost are soaring because there are no courts, no jails, no judges...
And your gobbily goop about outsourcing criminal and prisons is nothing but Hooey...
That is the problem, everything is outsourced, we need honest judges, honest sentencing...They need somewhere to send the prisoners...
When a lawyer asks for a delay, ....They will stop asking if the delay is one day, or two days...
We need court rooms, judges, and sentencing, a judge should not have to worry about no where to send a prisoner because of over-crowding..
That is the reality, Jails and prisons at 400% capacity...Police, RCMP are nothing but traffic fine collectors...
The laws exist, rules, all we need is enforcement....Fewer and fewer people prosecuted for more and more money...
The criminal has been outsourced, outsourced onto the general public...
And the answer isn`t shipping crooks to corrupt Mexican Jails or China..
Sheesh...Wake up!
And your gobbily goop about outsourcing criminal and prisons is nothing but Hooey...
That is the problem, everything is outsourced, we need honest judges, honest sentencing...They need somewhere to send the prisoners...
When a lawyer asks for a delay, ....They will stop asking if the delay is one day, or two days...
We need court rooms, judges, and sentencing, a judge should not have to worry about no where to send a prisoner because of over-crowding..
That is the reality, Jails and prisons at 400% capacity...Police, RCMP are nothing but traffic fine collectors...
The laws exist, rules, all we need is enforcement....Fewer and fewer people prosecuted for more and more money...
The criminal has been outsourced, outsourced onto the general public...
And the answer isn`t shipping crooks to corrupt Mexican Jails or China..
Sheesh...Wake up!
.
Hey ... buy the book. It's only $14. in paperback:
LAWYERS GONE BAD
Money, Sex and Madness in Canada's Legal Profession
By Philip Slayton, a respected corporate lawyer and former Dean of Law (University of Western Ontario).
It's a tough, serious book, but it's also according to Vancouver Sun, a "titillating tell-all [which] punctured the dignity of a stuffed-shirt profession and the howl continues to echo ..."
.
Hey ... buy the book. It's only $14. in paperback:
LAWYERS GONE BAD
Money, Sex and Madness in Canada's Legal Profession
By Philip Slayton, a respected corporate lawyer and former Dean of Law (University of Western Ontario).
It's a tough, serious book, but it's also according to Vancouver Sun, a "titillating tell-all [which] punctured the dignity of a stuffed-shirt profession and the howl continues to echo ..."
.
Mary, I must unfortunately disagree with you about that book, Lawyers Gone Bad. I'm not sure if you read it, but I have, a few years back when it first came out. It's a deceptive puff piece about the lawyers out on the fringe of their own tribe, the legal community.
That book is a clever means by which the public is distracted from the real and more pervasive crimes of the legal and judicial industry. It's a fake expose (please add the accent over the 'e' as I'm not sure if/where I can find that symbol on my keyboard).
The author's publicists (i.e. media) made it look like the book was a real insider's take on how the legal community operates, and how it deals with it's own. Hogwash. The author told the story of maybe 8 or 10 lawyers who were low-life scoundrels or just dreadfully inept. They were the easiest targets to pillory. The author cleverly uses these hapless lawyers to mislead the public with the message that "hey, there's a few bad apples in our industry, buy we deal with them". More nonsense.
That book simply distracts the public from the reality of the situation, namely the devastation wrought by more cunning and careful lawyers (the vast majority) and their legal "system" (it's their game; they make and enforce the rules).
The effect of that book was to make it look like the legal community is doing a great job of regulating itself, and that the vast majority of the legal community are bastions of sterling moral and ethical character who are governed by strict rules. Oh, to be sure there are rules, but they are not enforced. Indeed the rules are used as weapons by the legal trade against the public to fight accountability and justice.
The book is meant to fool the public into thinking that the legal community is doing a fine and transparent job of cleaning up it’s own messes.
That's just not the reality out there.
Please take this from someone who has quite a few years of personal experience with the legal community and the BC judicial system in an attempt to expose the wrong-doing and cover-ups within the BC government, fighting taxpayer-funded government lawyers with my own money.
The book Lawyers Gone Bad is more than a waste of money – spending any money or lavishing any praise on that book just helps to maintain and protect the existing legal and judicial corruption in Canada.
Final note: I do know some very fine lawyers who exemplify the best in ethical, professional and moral standards but they are rare. Nor do I dismiss the harm suffered by the victims of the sorry lot of scum lawyers portrayed in that book. But the book Lawyers Gone Bad is a very clever tool in fooling the public into thinking that’s the worst of what’s being done to this province and this country by the legal trades. Not by a long, long shot.
That book is a clever means by which the public is distracted from the real and more pervasive crimes of the legal and judicial industry. It's a fake expose (please add the accent over the 'e' as I'm not sure if/where I can find that symbol on my keyboard).
The author's publicists (i.e. media) made it look like the book was a real insider's take on how the legal community operates, and how it deals with it's own. Hogwash. The author told the story of maybe 8 or 10 lawyers who were low-life scoundrels or just dreadfully inept. They were the easiest targets to pillory. The author cleverly uses these hapless lawyers to mislead the public with the message that "hey, there's a few bad apples in our industry, buy we deal with them". More nonsense.
That book simply distracts the public from the reality of the situation, namely the devastation wrought by more cunning and careful lawyers (the vast majority) and their legal "system" (it's their game; they make and enforce the rules).
The effect of that book was to make it look like the legal community is doing a great job of regulating itself, and that the vast majority of the legal community are bastions of sterling moral and ethical character who are governed by strict rules. Oh, to be sure there are rules, but they are not enforced. Indeed the rules are used as weapons by the legal trade against the public to fight accountability and justice.
The book is meant to fool the public into thinking that the legal community is doing a fine and transparent job of cleaning up it’s own messes.
That's just not the reality out there.
Please take this from someone who has quite a few years of personal experience with the legal community and the BC judicial system in an attempt to expose the wrong-doing and cover-ups within the BC government, fighting taxpayer-funded government lawyers with my own money.
The book Lawyers Gone Bad is more than a waste of money – spending any money or lavishing any praise on that book just helps to maintain and protect the existing legal and judicial corruption in Canada.
Final note: I do know some very fine lawyers who exemplify the best in ethical, professional and moral standards but they are rare. Nor do I dismiss the harm suffered by the victims of the sorry lot of scum lawyers portrayed in that book. But the book Lawyers Gone Bad is a very clever tool in fooling the public into thinking that’s the worst of what’s being done to this province and this country by the legal trades. Not by a long, long shot.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
I'm wondering, just how badly off is this province? What in the hell has Campbell done? There has to be a lot more we don't know about. Campbell even wants, to tax lottery winners. I feel this province is going to completely crash. Campbell is in a frenzy for money. And, if the judicial system, doesn't work any better, than it did for, Campbell's corrupt sale of the BCR trial. We may as well send the judges to JPC's jail, as well. And, some of the RCMP for good measure. Corruption in BC starts at the top of the food chain, Campbell, and filters right down to the bottom. Stopping that, BCR trial was pure, el torro poo, poo. De Jong thieving the tax payers dollars, to pay the expenses for Basi and Virk, was right out of line. Kick Campbell in the ass, and put him in prison, where he belongs...Many of BC's problems would melt away.
# posted by : January 3, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.
: January 3, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.
Canadian Canary makes great points. There are no simple solutions to crime or inequities in the justice system. More people in jail for longer periods will not result in less crime. America proves that. Better social programs and supports might result in less crime but the Liberals have failed even more in that area. Law enforcement focuses on the easy work, catching low and mid level crooks. The ones at the top of organized crime stay untouched because entirely different investigatory skills are required and government won't pay for those. We jail street dealers on Monday and someone else is selling drugs by Tuesday. Cops can claim progress but it is like whack-a-mole.
Civil courts are priced out of reach for most ordinary citizens unless they have a dead sure case and a lawyer willing to front the costs in exchange for a big share of the ultimate proceeds.
Superior court rooms function 10 to 20 hours a week and sit empty for most of a week's 168 hours. Too much is done by low level masters and by judges in chambers. Legalities triumph over justice.
No person in the legal profession dares to speak up without risking future employment. We keep saying, "Physician, heal thyself." They merely say, "Chill, we'll look after things." Nothing changes except the names and faces.
Civil courts are priced out of reach for most ordinary citizens unless they have a dead sure case and a lawyer willing to front the costs in exchange for a big share of the ultimate proceeds.
Superior court rooms function 10 to 20 hours a week and sit empty for most of a week's 168 hours. Too much is done by low level masters and by judges in chambers. Legalities triumph over justice.
No person in the legal profession dares to speak up without risking future employment. We keep saying, "Physician, heal thyself." They merely say, "Chill, we'll look after things." Nothing changes except the names and faces.
That my dear citizens of BC is the real problem with the legal and judicial system. Not "infrastructure", not turning more lawyers into judges.
I've told this joke here before, but:
Q: What do you call a bad lawyer?
A: A judge.
It was written over 70 years ago, but in my experience the best expose of the combination shamanism/protection racket that is the legal profession. It is called:
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
"A lusty, gusty attack on “The Law” as a curious, antiquated institution which, through outworn procedures, technical jargon and queer mummery, enables a group of medicine-men to dominate our social and political lives and our business, to their own gain."
It was written in 1939 by:
FRED RODELL
Professor of Law, Yale University
It can be read or downloaded for free at:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.rtf
A teaser from the preface:
"No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.
In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out.
At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness of the whole legal process. In a sense, they are the intellectual godfathers of this book. And though all of them would doubtless strenuously disown their godchild, I think I owe it to them to name them. Listed alphabetically, they are:"
This is from the preface so when he says "now" he means 1939.
Thurman Arnold, now Assistant Attorney-General of the United States;
Charles E. Clark, now Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; (The father, I think, of the future AG under LBJ, Ramsey Clark - kc).
William O’ Douglas, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Felix Frankfurter, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Leon Green, now Dean of the Northwestern University Law School;
Walton Hamilton, Professor of Law at Yale University;
Harold Laski, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics;
Richard Joyce Smith, now a practicing attorney in New York City;
Wesley Sturges, now Director of the Distilled Spirits Institute;
and the late Lee Tulin.
"By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar....../snip
When I was mulling over the notion of writing this book, I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?” That clinched it.
F.R.
"
It runs around 70-80 pages, and one of these days I'm gonna just print out a hard copy.
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!
"A lusty, gusty attack on “The Law” as a curious, antiquated institution which, through outworn procedures, technical jargon and queer mummery, enables a group of medicine-men to dominate our social and political lives and our business, to their own gain."
It was written in 1939 by:
FRED RODELL
Professor of Law, Yale University
It can be read or downloaded for free at:
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.rtf
A teaser from the preface:
"No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.
In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out.
At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness of the whole legal process. In a sense, they are the intellectual godfathers of this book. And though all of them would doubtless strenuously disown their godchild, I think I owe it to them to name them. Listed alphabetically, they are:"
This is from the preface so when he says "now" he means 1939.
Thurman Arnold, now Assistant Attorney-General of the United States;
Charles E. Clark, now Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; (The father, I think, of the future AG under LBJ, Ramsey Clark - kc).
William O’ Douglas, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Felix Frankfurter, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Leon Green, now Dean of the Northwestern University Law School;
Walton Hamilton, Professor of Law at Yale University;
Harold Laski, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics;
Richard Joyce Smith, now a practicing attorney in New York City;
Wesley Sturges, now Director of the Distilled Spirits Institute;
and the late Lee Tulin.
"By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar....../snip
When I was mulling over the notion of writing this book, I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?” That clinched it.
F.R.
"
It runs around 70-80 pages, and one of these days I'm gonna just print out a hard copy.
With respect BC Mary, I agree with many of the comments above re: Mulgrew . . . he is the last person to hold up as an ethical example of someone who is working to expose and clean up the rot in the justice system. He was once a good journalist - sadly, no more.
Sadly he has become part of the problem - part of the circle willing to twist and sanitize to subvert the WHOLE truth when he has had plentiful opportunities to do otherwise.
Sliding sideways has never contributed to higher ethical standards, politically, in the justice system or the media.
Happy New Year to you, Mary and all your poster and avid readers.
Here's to faith in a much better British Columbia for ALL who have suffered being OUTSIDE the CLUB'S CIRCLE.
Sadly he has become part of the problem - part of the circle willing to twist and sanitize to subvert the WHOLE truth when he has had plentiful opportunities to do otherwise.
Sliding sideways has never contributed to higher ethical standards, politically, in the justice system or the media.
Happy New Year to you, Mary and all your poster and avid readers.
Here's to faith in a much better British Columbia for ALL who have suffered being OUTSIDE the CLUB'S CIRCLE.
# posted by : January 4, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.
: January 4, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.
JUST OUT Globe and Mail
BC Liberal candidate calls for review of Basi-Virk settlement
IAN BAILEY
Vancouver— Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Jan. 04, 2011 1:17PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 04, 2011 3:35PM EST
Ok its a enquiry of settlement, but its a start, WTG Abbott!!!! Who I dislike very much.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-liberal-candidate-calls-for-review-of-basi-virk-settlement/article1857221/
BC Liberal candidate calls for review of Basi-Virk settlement
IAN BAILEY
Vancouver— Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Jan. 04, 2011 1:17PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 04, 2011 3:35PM EST
Ok its a enquiry of settlement, but its a start, WTG Abbott!!!! Who I dislike very much.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-liberal-candidate-calls-for-review-of-basi-virk-settlement/article1857221/
Funny I had not heard this from Dejong, anyone else?
Later, at a separate news conference, Mike de Jong said there was already a review underway into the policy that led to the coverage of legal costs in the BC Rail case.
He noted that, before he stepped down as attorney-general to seek the leadership, he ordered the review be done "as quickly as possible."
Later, at a separate news conference, Mike de Jong said there was already a review underway into the policy that led to the coverage of legal costs in the BC Rail case.
He noted that, before he stepped down as attorney-general to seek the leadership, he ordered the review be done "as quickly as possible."
Canadian Canary has made good points about Mulgrew's lack of depth but any contribution from the mainstream media is better than nothing. Politicians such as the Attorney General and other BC Liberal cabinet ministers pretend they are not part of the problem. They are, so is the judiciary, the corrections people, the law profession, federal legislators and more.
I've been keen to write about court sanctioned quasi-fraud involving lawyers, accountants, trustees and consultants operating with judicial protection. I refer to receiverships and bankruptcies. It is a daunting task and would be major work. It requires extensive research and needs a well funded organization doing public interest journalism. Examination should also be done of how lawyers tolerate, even cause, delays and benefit financially when cases are spun out over long time periods. Efficiency is not in the justice industry's interest.
People that have real complaints about the system are made to look like paranoid mental cases unable to accept adverse results. Some are, but not all. However, short of morally repugnant acts in public, judges are only subject to review of brother and sister judges. That is about as effective as police investigating police.
I've been keen to write about court sanctioned quasi-fraud involving lawyers, accountants, trustees and consultants operating with judicial protection. I refer to receiverships and bankruptcies. It is a daunting task and would be major work. It requires extensive research and needs a well funded organization doing public interest journalism. Examination should also be done of how lawyers tolerate, even cause, delays and benefit financially when cases are spun out over long time periods. Efficiency is not in the justice industry's interest.
People that have real complaints about the system are made to look like paranoid mental cases unable to accept adverse results. Some are, but not all. However, short of morally repugnant acts in public, judges are only subject to review of brother and sister judges. That is about as effective as police investigating police.
Norman,
Best of luck with your book idea. I sincerely emphasize and underline that. Let me explain why.
Knowing how much hard, lonely work is involved in researching, drafting, re-drafting, and bringing stories (large or small) to the public,
I've been getting just a leetle ... 'ow you say in H'english? ... pissed off with people who rush to attack an author -- not so much for the premise of the book, but because way back in the mists of time, the author may have done something unworthy.
Does nobody believe, anymore, in the perfectibility of man?
Does one misdemeanour wipe out all hope for a person's future? Is redemption inconceivable?
No. I cannot believe that.
So I'm going to say again that I think Philip Slayton has done a good book when he wrote "Lawyers Gone Bad". He's not saying all lawyers are bad; he's describing the circumstances in which lawyers work and live. He says: Almost all the lawyers in this book have been portrayed in a very unflattering way by a variety of commentators -- by their partners and clients, newspaper reporters, judges, disciplinary bodies, Crown prosecutors, the police, and so on. The public is told that they are con men. They are sex offenders. They prey on the innocent and gullible. They betray trust. They have done grave damage to the legal profession. Some have been depicted as monsters.
I have spent time with almost every one of them. Some I have known for years. Others I met only when writing their story. Often I found my subjects plausible, engaging, and even charming ... I defended them in spirited discussions over dinner with lawyer friends and others. I would say, in these discussions, "Everyone makes mistakes born out of weakness. That is what these people did. Unlike you and me, they were unlucky. Their mistake ruined their life, while we went comfortably on, despite the mistakes we made."
And I say that compassion is badly needed, too, with that lonely hero: Paul Nettleton. Is he making a mistake in endorsing Christy Clark? I think so. But I also think that circa 2001 - 2003 he was magnificent -- risking everything and standing alone against the 77 Campbell-louts who were drunk with greed -- yet he stood, right to the end, alone, confident, and with everything to be proud of. Who could forget that?
Someone else rushed to denounce Ian Mulgrew after his excellent column yesterday. Well, Mulgrew was the ONLY journalist who (a) picked up the story of Jasmohan Singh Bains, and (b) gave me full credit -- with URL -- for breaking that important story, whereas no other journalist touched it. Not then. Not ever.
What's going on with people? Is there no love in our hearts for one another ... no shout of joy when their work is good? What has happened to us?
So ... thanks, Norm. Thanks for caring enough to undertake a book. Thanks for being part of a group that tries to make things better.
.
Best of luck with your book idea. I sincerely emphasize and underline that. Let me explain why.
Knowing how much hard, lonely work is involved in researching, drafting, re-drafting, and bringing stories (large or small) to the public,
I've been getting just a leetle ... 'ow you say in H'english? ... pissed off with people who rush to attack an author -- not so much for the premise of the book, but because way back in the mists of time, the author may have done something unworthy.
Does nobody believe, anymore, in the perfectibility of man?
Does one misdemeanour wipe out all hope for a person's future? Is redemption inconceivable?
No. I cannot believe that.
So I'm going to say again that I think Philip Slayton has done a good book when he wrote "Lawyers Gone Bad". He's not saying all lawyers are bad; he's describing the circumstances in which lawyers work and live. He says: Almost all the lawyers in this book have been portrayed in a very unflattering way by a variety of commentators -- by their partners and clients, newspaper reporters, judges, disciplinary bodies, Crown prosecutors, the police, and so on. The public is told that they are con men. They are sex offenders. They prey on the innocent and gullible. They betray trust. They have done grave damage to the legal profession. Some have been depicted as monsters.
I have spent time with almost every one of them. Some I have known for years. Others I met only when writing their story. Often I found my subjects plausible, engaging, and even charming ... I defended them in spirited discussions over dinner with lawyer friends and others. I would say, in these discussions, "Everyone makes mistakes born out of weakness. That is what these people did. Unlike you and me, they were unlucky. Their mistake ruined their life, while we went comfortably on, despite the mistakes we made."
And I say that compassion is badly needed, too, with that lonely hero: Paul Nettleton. Is he making a mistake in endorsing Christy Clark? I think so. But I also think that circa 2001 - 2003 he was magnificent -- risking everything and standing alone against the 77 Campbell-louts who were drunk with greed -- yet he stood, right to the end, alone, confident, and with everything to be proud of. Who could forget that?
Someone else rushed to denounce Ian Mulgrew after his excellent column yesterday. Well, Mulgrew was the ONLY journalist who (a) picked up the story of Jasmohan Singh Bains, and (b) gave me full credit -- with URL -- for breaking that important story, whereas no other journalist touched it. Not then. Not ever.
What's going on with people? Is there no love in our hearts for one another ... no shout of joy when their work is good? What has happened to us?
So ... thanks, Norm. Thanks for caring enough to undertake a book. Thanks for being part of a group that tries to make things better.
.
Just for the record, de Jong requested a review of the "process" involved in the decision to pay off the Bazi Boys.
And, lo'n'behold, he found nothing amiss with the process.
No, siree, the whole charade was acted out perfectly by all the players as per their own rules of deception.
And, lo'n'behold, he found nothing amiss with the process.
No, siree, the whole charade was acted out perfectly by all the players as per their own rules of deception.
# posted by : January 4, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
: January 4, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Abbott's move is interesting, it's also the thin edge of the wedge. An independent investigation looking into the buyout/plea deal is going to want more about the background to the case, including the nature of the defence's strategy to redirect legal attention "upstairs", and also the conduct of the trial overall, including the substitution of judges and the questionable status of the special prosecutor et al. ad nauseam; it's a slippery slope, a pandora's box that once opened, as we all have seen, just seems to be the gift that keeps on giving....like those nested Russian dolls.....and all roads lead to Rome, Rome being the Premier's Office....
But Abbott's taking this position is also indicative that not only has he been reading the public/blog debates about this, and has some sensitivity to it, it also means that this is an issue in the Liberal party rank-and-file......puts Christy's "no inquiry required" evasiveness into context; she lost support within the party for that, I'm sure....I mean "within the party" meaning the membership, not The Cabal.
Ed Mayne's candidacy is interesting and I'm waiting to see what he says about BC Rail....he's the one of them so far that has no connection at all to it. The MLA from Tim Horton's will probably also have a formidable war chest, as well as great p.r. advice.....
But Abbott's taking this position is also indicative that not only has he been reading the public/blog debates about this, and has some sensitivity to it, it also means that this is an issue in the Liberal party rank-and-file......puts Christy's "no inquiry required" evasiveness into context; she lost support within the party for that, I'm sure....I mean "within the party" meaning the membership, not The Cabal.
Ed Mayne's candidacy is interesting and I'm waiting to see what he says about BC Rail....he's the one of them so far that has no connection at all to it. The MLA from Tim Horton's will probably also have a formidable war chest, as well as great p.r. advice.....
John Doe,
I appreciate very much what you have told me.
Somehow I must confirm those facts, so could you write again with more information?
Use the regular COMMENT process, but write NOT FOR PUBLICATION across the top and it will remain private, between us.
Many thanks, if you can do that. I only wish more people would tell what they know.
.
Post a Comment
I appreciate very much what you have told me.
Somehow I must confirm those facts, so could you write again with more information?
Use the regular COMMENT process, but write NOT FOR PUBLICATION across the top and it will remain private, between us.
Many thanks, if you can do that. I only wish more people would tell what they know.
.
<< Home
