Maclean’s vs. lawyers, round 2
The Canadian Magazines blog is keeping track of the battle between Maclean’s and the Canadian Bar Association in the wake of last week’s interview with Lawyers Gone Bad author Philip Slayton and the subsequent heated reply from the CBA. An editorial in the Aug. 13 edition of Maclean’s (which was also publicized with a press release) maintains that while the editors had some misgivings about the splashy “Lawyers are rats” cover headline, they stand behind it and the issues raised in the story, because (they say) other legal experts have brought them up before.
In an introductory note to the editorial, they also accuse the CBA of leaning on the magazine’s financial backers to force an apology.
Furthermore, the CBA has repeatedly attempted to apply financial pressure to our parent companies, Rogers Publishing and Rogers Communications Inc., in order to force an apology from Maclean’s.
Ken Whyte, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Maclean’s, made the following comments: “That the CBA would refuse to debate the serious issues raised by our piece and instead try to — let’s put the best face on this — use its financial muscle to purchase an apology from us rather confirms the sentiment of our cover line.”
Ouch. Lawyers, back to you.
Meanwhile, in Sunday’s Toronto Star, regular crime fiction reviewer Jack Batten looks at Slayton’s book through the lens of Batten’s own time at the University of Toronto Law School. Batten says he’s seen some legal rats himself, and deems the book “smart and lively.”
I think the Lawyers Gone Bad book should be read by anyone in the U.S. who is considering a divorce or investing in a business. As far as the Canadian Bar Association goes, why do they keep their bylaws secret?
Yeah read lawyers gone bad—that will help all US citizens divorce and start businesses—good one Kay! Im sorry that you cannot accept that lawyers make lots of money and work extremely hard for their clients in order to make that money. Perhaps, all US citizens should read doctors gone bad, accountants gone bad, and dentists gone bad…and maybe reconsider using their services..yes, now there’s a good idea. Society should overthrow all professional groups whose members have engaged in misconduct. And then Kay will step in their place because he or she is an all-ethical, all-moral super-professional who will show society how things should really be done.
If you don’t like the service you are getting-don’t pay. It’s quite simple actually. It’s called capitalism. Nobody’s asking society to pay Barry Bond’s multi-million contract for playing baseball, but people still pay. So unless you wish to overthrow the economic system in North America and replace with something a bit more socialist, then quit complaining about lawyer fees.
Anonymous Jim is exaggerating. Mr. Slayton is a law professor who advocates external regulation of the profession. In the U.S., law professors from Yale and Stanford have also written books about the problems of the industry. Various state bar associations have suggested that self regulation does not work. The UK is increasing their government regulation of lawyers. It is a condition of entry to the EU that attorneys and judges not be given immunity.
It is a recognized concept in law that where the regulator is paid by the regulated, there is no procedural due process . The concept is the chickens guarded by the foxes.
The fact that sexual indiscretions is a part of the problems with the profession is shown by the fact that in the United States, federal judge Edward Nottingham, according to AP, attended a strip club on multiple occasions passing out drunk there. This strip club, the Diamond Cabaret, is 3 minutes from the U.S. courthouse in Denver and is apparently a regular meeting place for insurance defense attorneys. Judge Nottingham also, according to AP, repeatedly used his federal computer in his chambers to access a paid on-line dating service with nude pictures of women ‘available for sex tonight’. Thus, Judge Nottingham has made himself vulnerable to blackmail. After taxes, Judge Nottingham makes about $300 per day but on just one occasion he spent $3,000 at the strip club. One question is who paid for the judge’s other visits to the strip club. Another question is whether he visited with defense counsel at the strip club. A 3rd question is whether the defense counsel saw Judge Nottingham drunk at the strip club and used the knowledge that the judge was drunk at the strip club to pressure him to bend the rules of civil procedure (which I can document and other parties have also documented). A 4th question is whether the judge was actually purchasing sex and if so, were insurance defense lawyers aware of this and/or paying for it. All litigants before Judge Nottingham have a right to know. At the request of lawyers representing Lloyds of London and Mutual Insurance of Bermuda, Judge Nottingham put me in jail the same weekend that he passed out drunk at the strip club. I was not accused of breaking even a little law and I was told in court that I was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. My wanting to know why I was put in jail does not make me a “super moralist”. I have no criminal record at all but was jailed on 3 occasions at the request of Judge Nottingham for 5 months total. He even signed a form stating that I was a felon and should be held in maximum security. Then he let me go and said “whoops, maybe I acted too soon”. Well, “whoops” isn’t good enough for me. I want to know why my rights were invaded under color of law and what this has to do with Judge Nottingham, the IPayForFriends.com web site, and the Diamond Cabaret strip club. My pursuit of my rights under the U.S. code and the International Covenant doesn’t make me a “super-moralist”.
correction to my previous post. Judge Nottingham might not have passed out at the strip club. He is quoted as saying he doesn’t remember what happened or something similar.
There has been quite a lot of discussion of this, and my complaints that my rights were deprived by Judge Nottingham, on blogs at 9 News in Denver and the Denver Post and the Judge has made no corrections, nor has anyone acting for him. I haven’t received any letters, emails or phone calls from anyone associated with the defense asking me to change my representations about anything other than the identity of a Michael J. Burns.
Jim you seem to be quite an unfortunate character. I admire your passion but I fear you’re feeding in to the public’s misgivings by being the pot that’s calling the kettle black.
Nobody’s calling for a revolution. As far as I know nobody’s burned down the CBA’s offices, or bombed Osgoode Hall. There is no “overthrowing” of anything (not as far as I know, I’d be disappointed if I missed it as I like a good lynching).
At the end of the day all this is about is a book. A book about some bad apples who undoubtedly sullied the name of Canada’s Legal Profession. Does it paint the whole profession with the same brush? I don’t know, I haven’t read it. But obviously it’s caused enough of a stir to raise suspicions as to the prevalency of shady practice.
If it lends to the public becoming more informed consumers when choosing legal representation then I say well done. As you say, it’s capitalisim. Only the best of the best will endure.
It cannot be easy for a profession based upon truth to have to hear the truth once and awhile. I know of one very powerful lawyer who has the ear of every organization in his profession. He continues to act unbecoming, and in a very questionabe manner.
Can one Toronto lawyer be so connected that he is above the law?
Who can influence Osgoode Hall, the advocates society, OLRB, OHRC, the law society, and most disturbing the Chief Justices.
Arar, Walkerton are his poster examples of how good he is, yet his tragic failures are silenced by fear.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of Canadians who are fearfull for thier livelihoods who would not dare to stand against these supposed annomolies. I find the rule simple. The Golden Rule that is, he who has the gold makes the rule.
Justice is about money, law is about money.
if you want change you better have more then change.
Lastly, my life was runined by the very lawyer hired to protect me.
he took my evidence and now claims he no longer has my evidence.
modern technology indeed!
Shawn, you’re on to something with that Golden Rule bit. It’s not a profession based on truth as much as one would like to hope it is.
Law is a profession based on malleable fact. The more malleable the better.
So sorry to hear about your negative experience. We aren’t all that bad, really. At least that’s what I keep telling myself.
Hey Jim,
Silly me. I was over on the “lawyers are rats” strand not knowing you were over here slagging people who complain about lawyer fees.
The fees are getting pretty steep - even the Chief Justice of the SCC says so. Are you saying she is a socialist?
But it’s not fees per say that many clients find so irksome. It’s the shoddy lawyering coupled with the shady over-billing. Good lawyering is worth good money but crappy lawyering isn’t worth a dime. In fact, crappy lawyering can sink to negligent lawyering. And negligent lawyers need to be sued - not overpaid! Over-billing can sometimes move from being agg ressive “wealth accumulation” to being fraudulent. Fraudulent overbillers need to be held accountable - like they do in the good old capitalist U.S. Not like up here with our weak-kneed regulators like the LSUC.
There’s no rocket science in any of this. Nothing complicated. A treatise on the ills of socialism vesus the joy of capitalism changes squat.
Slayton is right. You are wrong. Get over yourself.
bf
Jim,
As it turns out, Slayton writes some stuff in the current issue of Canadian Lawyer that in a weird way props up your “lawyers in a capitalist society” thesis. But I’m not sure you will enjoy hearing where Slayton takes your notion of profit in a capitalist market .
Here’s an excerpt. Perhaps you can let us all know if this is what you meant to say? :
“It is too late to bemoan the traditional partnership, based on the trust of partners in each other, and shared responsibility toward clients…All that is left of the old-style partnership is the sanctimony that tended to go with it…As for limited liability partnership, are they much better than an exercise in deception?…Best, now, in all our interests, for law firms to go the whole hog - become publicly-traded corporations…all pretence at being anything other than a business wih limited liability consigned to the conceptual dustbin…”
This is the new news regarding lawyers who are judges gone wild:
Chief federal judge investigated for alleged involvement with prostitutes
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=87702
“The driver told 9NEWS he took prostitutes to meet Judge Nottingham at two locations in the Denver area about 10 times during the summer of 2007.
One of those locations is a condo in Denver listed as the residence of Edward Nottingham III, the judge’s adult son. The son’s name is listed on the condo directory at 1489 Steele Street, apartment #307, Denver.
The driver says the prostitutes would mention Judge Nottingham by name before and after their appointments with him and frequently referred to the judge by his nickname: “Naughty.”
The driver described one conversation with a prostitute about Nottingham. “She was like, well, ‘It’s Naughty.’ I said, ‘Who’s that?’ She said, ‘A federal judge.’ She said, ‘He’s on some big trials and stuff like that.’”
The driver also told 9NEWS he met the judge in person, then later looked him up on the Internet and saw his picture.
The driver says he saw Judge Nottingham outside the condo complex on Steele Street interacting with the prostitutes several times.
“They always seemed pretty affectionate, you would almost think they were a couple by the way that they acted together,” the driver told 9NEWS. “They would hug each other and almost kiss on the cheek and then they would go inside.”
The driver says the women returned from their meeting with the judge with $300 or $400 in cash per visit. ”
I think Judge Nottingham was blackmailed or bribed last summer. He had me put in jail for 22 days without charging with with a criminal offense. The warrant was blank where the law was supposed to be. The asst U.S. attorney said the government was not a part of this. I was taken in front of a court clerk who pretended to be a magistrate. The Pacer files for the D of Western Wisconsin do not show anything about the hearing on 5/11/07 with clerk Owens. Clerk Owens said it was not her place to judge what was a valid warrant. On 6/1/07, Judge Nottingham let me go. He said “whoops”.
While Kay continues her drivel about how she “think[s] Judge Nottingham was blackmailed or bribed last summer,” I’ve happened upon some interesting allegations:
-
Indeed, it might appear that Nottingham’s peccadilloes go all the way back to his first years on the bench (and probably much earlier):
Yesterday, I tracked down one Colorado attorney, who has some interesting recollections of our jurist sensation, Edward Nottingham. Joe Losavio –now retired in Lenno on beautiful Lake Como in Italy– is currently visiting the States and consented to be cited for this story.
Losavios recalls that, on a Friday, April 26, 1991, the last day of a trial in Settle v. Centel Electric, a stately tall blonde entered the courtroom gallery. Nottingham immediately took notice, stopped the proceedings, scribbled something on a Post-itTM note, handed the note to the bailiff with instructions to give it to Centel’s attorney, Bill Mattoon. The note inquired as to who was the blonde. When Mattoon informed him that it was Losavio’s wife, the disappointed judge resumed the proceedings, Losavio said.
In that same case, Losavio recalled that Nottingham refused to cause the clerk record the jury’s $l72,465 verdict, which should have been a purely ministerial act. Losavio repeatedly followed-up with the clerk in an effort to get the judgment entered. Losavio’s client, Don Settle, eventually filed a judicial misconduct complaint. Nottingham issued a written response in which, Losavio recalls, he accosted Losavio for his persistence.
I also spoke with Losavio’s client, Don Settle. Settle, who also witnessed the passing of the note, says that he lost approximately fifty-thousand dollars as a result of Nottingham’s refusal to enter the jury’s judgment. Settle says Nottingham justified his usurpation of the jury’s verdict because he didn’t like the precedent that might be established for at-will employee discharge cases and, as a result, the jury’s verdict was never honored.