Category: Ethics and the Legal Profession Page 4 of 20

The forced resignation of Patrick Brown as leader of the Ontario Conservatives raises concerns of fairness and due process – for him and for the women accusing him. Christie Blatchford has castigated the party and other public officials for abandoning the “presumption of innocence”, and has highlighted the wrong of ruining a man’s reputation based on anonymous allegations. Others agree. Conversely, the Prime Minister reportedly said that women who made allegations of misconduct “must be believed” and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has said “I believe victims when they come forward”.

Is a Bad Lawyer a Bad Person?

By Alice Woolley

On January 9, 2018

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: Is a Bad Lawyer a Bad Person?

In 1976 Charles Fried famously asked, “Can a good lawyer be a good person?” (“The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relation” (1976) 85 Yale LJ 1060 at 1060).

Law and morality are distinct. As a consequence, lawyers sometimes represent bad people, and sometimes help people do bad things. There is thus a legitimate question about whether being a lawyer is consistent with an ethical life. Nonetheless, Fried answered his question “yes”. Because of the law’s legitimacy and justification, a lawyer who assists people to pursue their goals and interests through the law can be – is – a good person. She does a job worth doing.

Ontario’s Law Society: Orwell’s Big Brother or Fuller’s Rex?

By Alice Woolley

On October 31, 2017

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: Ontario’s Law Society: Orwell’s Big Brother or Fuller’s Rex?

On September 13, 2017 Ontario’s Law Society with no name sent a now infamous e-mail to its licensees stating:

You will need to create and abide by an individual Statement of Principles that acknowledges your obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in your behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public. You will be asked to report on the creation and implementation of a Statement of Principles in your 2017 Annual Report.

While some have defended the Statement (see Omar Ha-Redeye here on SLAW and Renatta Austin’s comments on The Current) most commentary has been harshly critical. Bruce Pardy on The Current called it “the most egregious kind of violation of freedom of speech…this is the authorities requiring you to say what it is that they want to hear”. In an editorial in the National Post Pardy described it as “[f]orced speech” of the type that would be imposed in North Korea. In his view the Statement “effectively prohibits Ontario lawyers from engaging in…debate” around the “contours of anti-discrimination laws”. In an equally histrionic editorial in the Globe and Mail, Arthur Cockfield described the Statement’s “chilling Orwellian language” and claimed that it would prevent lawyers from representing certain types of clients, like a person who was charged criminally after calling for the imposition of sharia law. And even Conrad Black saw fit to unleash a polysyllabic spree against the Law Society’s initiative, decrying the Law Society for taking “unto itself the totalitarian power to exclude or otherwise punish anyone who declines to declare total fealty to principles enunciated by the professional self-regulator”. Black went on to condemn the whole lot of us as “a largely venal association of self-serving gougers riveted on the back of society and dispensing a hideously bloated service on a defenceless public as the lawyers jubilate in their 360-degree cartel.”

The Confidential Informant as a Creation of Law

By Lisa Silver

On October 23, 2017

In Criminal, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Lisa A. Silver

PDF Version: The Confidential Informant as a Creation of Law

Case Commented On: Her Majesty The Queen v Named Person A, 2017 ABQB 552 (CanLII)

We are all conversant with a creation story, be it biblical or cultural. We are less apt, however, to recite a purely legal creation story, where the law is not in itself created but creates. In the decision of Her Majesty The Queen v Named Person A, Madam Justice Antonio applies the law and in doing so creates a legally constructed status, as confidential informant, for Named Person A (NPA). The effect of the law or the privilege that arises, requires that NPA’s identity be strictly protected and non-disclosable, subject to the “innocence at stake” exception. This is a status which NPA neither wanted nor asked for. Once NPA became this pronounced creation of law, NPA became nameless. The discussion we will undertake will provide us with the ultimate creation story of how certain encounters can transform a person into a creation of law. With that transformation, comes the full force of the law as legal principles must be and are rigidly applied. The preliminary issue of whether NPA was, in law, a confidential informant is incredibly important. If NPA is not such an informant then the issues flowing from this status are moot. If, however, NPA is a confidential informant, then the court must decide how the Crown can fulfill its Stinchcombe obligations requiring full disclosure of NPA’s criminal file to NPA’s counsel without violating the sacrosanct confidential informant privilege. To disclose or even to edit the disclosure would reveal NPA’s identity. To not disclose would run afoul of NPA’s right to full answer and defence. Alternatively, if NPA’s defence counsel is within NPA’s confidential “circle of privilege”, then disclosure may be made within the safety of that legal privilege. This post considers the initial decision by Justice Antonio to find that, in law, NPA is a confidential informant. It is this finding which engages the law and which matters most to NPA.

In Defence of Lawyers Who Lose

By Alice Woolley

On August 29, 2017

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: In Defence of Lawyers Who Lose

Case Commented On: Engel v Edmonton Police Association, 2017 ABQB 495 (CanLII)

In September 2008 the Edmonton Police Association published an article on its website about cases brought to the Law Enforcement Review Board by Edmonton lawyer Tom Engel, his law firm, and the Edmonton Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association. The Law Enforcement Review Board is the independent quasi-judicial body charged with hearing appeals related to complaints from the public about police officers. The Police Association article claimed that Engel’s firm before the Board was “O for 28!”, that it had a “dismal record” and that in “more than a third of the cases” the firm “started something and failed to finish”: “After 28 incidents of cry wolf, when does someone call B.S.?” (at para 40). The article went on to ask whether this was “incompetence”, “extreme incompetence” or whether “something else was going on here” and queried, “when do these complaints and appeals become frivolous and vexatious?” (at para 41).