Good Day Readers:As a Citizen Journalist and Blogger representing the public interest we have been closely monitoring Law Society of Manitoba File Number 10-049-CPL-LK a complaint against Blackie by "Mr. Y" (What a guy that Mr. Y!) a Winnipeg lawyer and "The Bully" a non-lawyer.
At least in the past, a 3-panel committee (all lawyers naturally) render a decision which is subsequently published in the LSM's Case Disciplinary Digest. Unless it's an eye-popping case, such as the recent Douglas-King-Chapman sexcapade, it receives scant if any attentention beyond Winnipeg's tightly knit legal community and even at that only those directly involved are even aware of the ruling. For its part, the Winnipeg Free Press only reports by exception.
The Blackie case is fundamentally much different potentially involving multiple-precedents. For that reason we've been giving it maximum coverage. If the complainants feel so aggrieved by his alleged "crimes" (3-counts) why have they not filed a contempt of court motion in Queen's Bench where the standards of proof are much higher? Should The Society have even considered this complaint in the first place? Is the LSM allowing itself to be munipulated for political reasons?
These are just a few of the troubling questions Blackie's case raises. Should CyberSmokeBlog be subpoenaed (Heaven forbid!) to bear witness it will attest to Blackie's high integrity and ethics, as well as, to his pro bono legal services he has provided to the community in the past. Wonder if "Mr. Y" can make that claim much less those who will sit in judgment on the disciplinary panel?
What we're finding is likely because the lead up to a disciplinary hearing is receiving so much unaccustomed intense scrutiny, it would appear there are many grey areas and questions relating to publishability. Our policy is if we receive a reply in a timely manner we will not identify those contacted at The Society otherwise we will.
Below is our question to the LSM and it's timely response for which we'd like to express our appreciation. We have subsequently filed a follow up supplemental.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Name
Title
The Law Society of Manitoba
219 Kennedy Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 1S8
Dear ..... :
I hereby request copies of all documentation on file regarding the complaint against Blackie. This should include the original letters of complaint from complainants "Mr. Y" and "the Bully."
If this request is not acknowledged or responded to within a reasonable period of time, it will be posted on the internet along with the notation the Law Society did not reply to the letter.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Received Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Good Morning Mr. Pieuk,
I am writing in response to your email of yesterday evening addressed to ..... . Complaints with respect to a member's conduct are considered to be confidential pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Professions Act. Details of any complaints may be disclosed for the purpose of a hearing before a discipline committee, but will not be made available to members of the public. Discipline inquiries are, however, open to the public, and at the conclusion of a discipline inquiry the Law Society may disclose the record of the hearing which would include the citation and any exhibits submitted in evidence at the hearing. In the circumstances the Law Society will not be providing to you the requested information.
(ex).jpg)
