79(1) A person who publishes or broadcasts the name of a member in connection with a complaint, investigation or charge before the member is found to be incompetent or guilty of professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction,(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both; and
(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $10,000
Good Day Readers:
You'll notice in the Winnipeg Free Press article reproduced below the lawyer involved cannot be identified yet within an hour of its publication we received an anonymous e-mail containing the individual's name. Then there was this again sent anonymously:
"It's funny that the Free Press won't identify the lawyer's name but it's on the public record at Queen's Bench and the entire case is on CanLii. And it was argued in open court!"
BTW, CanLii is a specialized online search engine used by solicitors to research precedent legal cases.
Much like the Douglas-King-Chapman sexcapade it would appear most of Winnipeg's legal community had been aware of the situation for years before Mr. Alex Chapman finally went public last year.
In her article WFP reporter Alexandra Paul states:
"Last summer, the law society suspended the same lawyer for 70 days after he pleaded guilty to misconduct involving a retainer he'd failed to properly deposit in a trust account."
Last year we published the LSM's publicly available Case Discipline Digest which clearly identified the attorney, the multiple counts with which he was charged (and convicted), as well, the outcome of the disciplinary hearing (penalty phase). We'd venture to say if you undertook a survey of Winnipeg solicitors after the article appeared 80% if not more could readily name the individual involved.
Still not convinced? Consider the following. Had, let's call him "Mr. X," not been a lawyer and investigated by the police you would now know his name and likely have a trial date. Why should solicitors enjoy a special status? The LPA's Section 79 is a throw back to the Middle Ages and the Star Chamber.
As our readership knows, we've been closely following the case of another lawyer. Because of the Section 79 provisions we've had to resort to ridiculous lengths. The accused is "Blackie" the complainants "Mr. Y" (What a guy that "Mr. Y!") a Winnipeg lawyer and "The Bully!" a non-lawyer.
But it doesn't end there it just keeps getting better. Blackie it would appear is an advocate of freedom of speech and expression and is not prepared to go down without a fight. To this point he has filed a Charter challenge, motion and affidavit. Our sense is more is coming.
Are these filings publishable under provisions of The Legal Profession Act? The LSM is attempting to block us in our capacity as a Media Citizen Journalist from attending the next preliminary meeting (June 2, 2011) to discuss Blackie's case not withstanding we've attended the previous five. Yet The Society is fond of telling the public it acts in the public interest and its hearings are open. Balls! They are selectively open.
But it just keeps getting better. At the previous pre-hearing conference (the fifth - May 3, 2006) at which we attended Blackie specifically requested CyberSmokelog be present to which both they and us agreed. No one objected! Later that same day a lawyer representing The Society who was present now indicated CyberSmokeBlog could not have a presence suggesting a pre-conference hearing is not a public hearing yet in the same breath says there is no specific rule. Get this, we sat next to him at an earlier pre-conference at which time he raised no objection. Needless to say CyberSmokeBlog is fighting this.
Here's the LSM's problem. It's not used to having so much attention paid to a case especially at such an early stage in its life cycle. Therefore, it's facing information requests the likes of which it has probably not seen before. Alternatively stated "it's wobbling" and appears to be in maximum damage control mode.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
alexandra.paul@freepress.mb.ca
___________________________________________________________
Lawyer overbills clients by $400KRepresented residential school survivors
By: Alexandra Paul
May 5, 2011
A Winnipeg lawyer overbilled survivors of residential schools who were owed compensation for years of physical and sexual abuse by nearly $400,000.
The lawyer is now in legal hot water with both the Law Society of Manitoba and a federal adjudicator acting for residential school survivors.
The details of the case came to public attention in a written ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench after the lawyer challenged an order from the law society to pay $388,477.50 into a trust account by April 9. It was a bid he lost.
The lawyer does not deny he overcharged 26 residential school clients.
Yet, he ignored an order from the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat to refund his clients once Ottawa discovered his overbilling.
He also never challenged the authority or the jurisdiction of the adjudicators to reduce or disqualify his fees, nor did he appeal the decision.
Faced with the apparent defiance, Ottawa's chief adjudicator, Daniel Ish, filed a formal complaint against the lawyer with the Law Society of Manitoba.
The Free Press can publish the findings of the ruling but is forbidden by the Legal Professions Act from reporting the lawyer's name while he awaits a law society disciplinary hearing on misconduct charges.
Some of the money he received from survivors went to buy land and apartments in Israel, but the lawyer holds few investments in Manitoba, raising suspicions he could be a flight risk.
In the ruling, Justice Shane Perlmutter dismissed the lawyer's court challenge. The lawyer had pleaded for leniency and asked for an extension to the law society's deadline to pay the money back.
In a 30-page written ruling, the court suggested there were too many things that didn't add up.
"(The lawyer) professed to be able to net $200,000 in fees over a four-month period. However, he has negligible assets in Manitoba. He has substantial assets in Israel which, at least in part, he acknowledges were purchased with fees generated from his residential school clients," the judgment reads.
There was a $100,000 investment in a land company in Israel, chunks of real estate plus seven apartments in that country.
The ruling then muses on what might happen if the lawyer was shown leniency.
"Should (the lawyer) choose to leave the jurisdiction, or dissipate his assets... Those clients would be left without any recourse," the ruling reads.
The judge did not believe the lawyer's protest of financial hardship.
"I'm not satisfied (the lawyer) has showed that he exercised all the due diligence in attempting to raise the funds... I am further concerned about the protection of the public... Particularly when it appears the majority of the assets are outside the jurisdiction," the judgment read.
The ruling is the second strike against the lawyer.
Last summer, the law society suspended the same lawyer for 70 days after he pleaded guilty to misconduct involving a retainer he'd failed to properly deposit in a trust account.
The law society is satisfied with the restrictions it has imposed on the lawyer's practice.
Supervisors cannot allow any payments out of his trust fund in excess of what an adjudicator orders and he must repay the money on schedule. The lawyer was not under any restrictions when the residential school billings became a problem.
All the money will be paid into the trust by May 30.
The judgment does not fully explain how the lawyer overbilled the clients.
Under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, Canada pays the claimant's award and an extra 15 per cent of the award as a contribution towards legal fees. A lawyer may charge up to an additional 15 per cent, to come out of the claimant's award, for a maximum of 30 per cent.
alexandra.paul@freepress.mb.ca
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 5, 2011 Page A4
(ex).jpg)
