Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "A veritable Law Society of Manitoba Rogues Gallery?"
Good Afternoon Mr. Pieuk,
A minor research project, but valuable to be sure. Pursuant to the Law Society of Manitoba Rules, the following are the requirements for a pardon:
Application for a Pardon
5-101.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), in circumstances where:
(a) a member’s conduct was censured by the Complaints Investigation Committee and the member accepted a formal caution or
(b) a discipline panel found a member guilty of professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student or incompetence and imposed a reprimand or fine, with or without an order of costs, and no other order, action or penalty was imposed on the member by the discipline panel as a result of that conviction, the member may apply to the discipline committee for a pardon. (ENACTED 03/05)
Application Criteria
5-101.1(3) At the time a member makes an application under subsection (1), the following criteria must be satisfied:
(a) ten years have passed since the date of the censure or conviction
(b) since the date of the censure or conviction the member has not accepted any other formal cautions and has not been found guilty of any other charges of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student or incompetence
(c) there are no charges pending against the member
(d) there are no complaints about the member under investigation
(e) the member has paid the society all money owing by the member to the society and
(f) a discipline panel has not granted any previous application by the member under this rule.
Basically, behave for a decade (and/or fly under the radar) and you can apply to have your reprimand erased. However, considering how many lawyers have been disciplined, there are very few pardons. Perhaps the LSM should take this as an indication that the current state of punishment of the membership is insufficient as they cannot manage to behave for a decade post reprimand?
Still disgusted by the legal community of Manitoba, I remain…
Veritas Justitias Honoris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
On behalf of the readership thank you so much for your excellent research! As we sat listening to Chair Heather Leonoff's pre-sentencing preamble, who by the way is Director of Justice Manitoba's Constitutional Branch, we became a tad suspicious as she, in our opinion, over focused/rambled on about the severity of a reprimand. Couldn't help but wonder if it was tantamount to a pardonable conviction for simple marijuana possession.
We also wondered about her statement to the effect Mr. King had not re-offended since the original incident in 2003. Problem for us is back then half of Winnipeg's legal community seemed to be aware of the Douglas-King-Chapman debacle save for the LSM. Perhaps Ms Leonoff might have been wise to preface her remarks by saying something like, "To the best of our knowledge ..... ."
Given there have been very few pardons this would seem to suggest a reprimand with its 10-year timeline is a contradiction in terms much like the oxymoron "an honest lawyer" or what about, "Trust me I'm a lawyer."
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Good Afternoon Mr. Pieuk,
A minor research project, but valuable to be sure. Pursuant to the Law Society of Manitoba Rules, the following are the requirements for a pardon:
Application for a Pardon
5-101.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), in circumstances where:
(a) a member’s conduct was censured by the Complaints Investigation Committee and the member accepted a formal caution or
(b) a discipline panel found a member guilty of professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student or incompetence and imposed a reprimand or fine, with or without an order of costs, and no other order, action or penalty was imposed on the member by the discipline panel as a result of that conviction, the member may apply to the discipline committee for a pardon. (ENACTED 03/05)
Application Criteria
5-101.1(3) At the time a member makes an application under subsection (1), the following criteria must be satisfied:
(a) ten years have passed since the date of the censure or conviction
(b) since the date of the censure or conviction the member has not accepted any other formal cautions and has not been found guilty of any other charges of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming a lawyer or student or incompetence
(c) there are no charges pending against the member
(d) there are no complaints about the member under investigation
(e) the member has paid the society all money owing by the member to the society and
(f) a discipline panel has not granted any previous application by the member under this rule.
Basically, behave for a decade (and/or fly under the radar) and you can apply to have your reprimand erased. However, considering how many lawyers have been disciplined, there are very few pardons. Perhaps the LSM should take this as an indication that the current state of punishment of the membership is insufficient as they cannot manage to behave for a decade post reprimand?
Still disgusted by the legal community of Manitoba, I remain…
Veritas Justitias Honoris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear VJH:
On behalf of the readership thank you so much for your excellent research! As we sat listening to Chair Heather Leonoff's pre-sentencing preamble, who by the way is Director of Justice Manitoba's Constitutional Branch, we became a tad suspicious as she, in our opinion, over focused/rambled on about the severity of a reprimand. Couldn't help but wonder if it was tantamount to a pardonable conviction for simple marijuana possession.
We also wondered about her statement to the effect Mr. King had not re-offended since the original incident in 2003. Problem for us is back then half of Winnipeg's legal community seemed to be aware of the Douglas-King-Chapman debacle save for the LSM. Perhaps Ms Leonoff might have been wise to preface her remarks by saying something like, "To the best of our knowledge ..... ."
Given there have been very few pardons this would seem to suggest a reprimand with its 10-year timeline is a contradiction in terms much like the oxymoron "an honest lawyer" or what about, "Trust me I'm a lawyer."
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk