130

Lawyers behaving badly

A new campaign cracks down on lawyers who are rude and aggressive—with clients or even in their private lives


 
Lawyers behaving badly

Photograph by Aaron Vincent Elkaim

Young, ambitious and intelligent, Ryan Manilla was, by almost all accounts, on the road to becoming a first-rate lawyer. He excelled at Osgoode Hall Law School, graduating in the top 10 per cent of his class. He won a summer job in the New York City offices of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, one of Canada’s leading firms. In 2009, he completed his articles with Pinkofskys in Toronto, where he intended to practise criminal law.

But in September, Manilla’s career came to a crashing halt. The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), which regulates Ontario’s lawyers and paralegals, denied his application to join the profession, based on its ages-old “good character” requirement. (Manilla’s appeal was heard last week, and a decision is pending.) It wasn’t a strictly professional issue that convinced the law society panel to bar Manilla—it was the young man’s dealings with his condominium board.

Canadian law societies have required lawyers to be “of good character” virtually as long as the profession has been regulated, but it’s rare for someone to be barred because his character was found lacking. Even the meaning of “good character” can be a little bit hazy: it isn’t defined in the Law Society Act, but it’s been described as having a strong moral fibre, a belief the law must be upheld, and an appreciation of the difference between right and wrong. The law society can wield that requirement to decide who gets to be a lawyer—and sometimes, who doesn’t, as the Manilla case shows.

In 2008, as board president, Manilla became embroiled in a dispute over an increase in condo fees, which he opposed. After sending unsavoury emails to his fellow condo board members suggesting they ran “the risk of being shot by residents,” he was replaced as president, but stayed on the board and continued to fight the proposed fee hike, boasting that he got a thrill out of making other members “squirm.” That December, Manilla forged a letter from a woman claiming to be a private investigator, making up allegations of kickbacks and other wrongdoing among board members—something the law society panel deemed “character assassination.”

In March 2009, Manilla, then 27, was charged with four counts of criminal harassment; further charges followed of intimidating a witness, threatening death, and failing to comply with an undertaking given to a police officer. In June, all charges were dropped after Manilla met certain conditions. He sold his condo, apologized to targeted board members, and made a donation of $250 to the SickKids Foundation in their names. But not enough time had passed, the law society panel ruled, to ensure Manilla was of “good character” and deserved to join the profession. In fact, he’d confessed to falsifying the letter just five days before his hearing.

Manilla certainly offended the members of his condo board and behaved in unscrupulous ways, but whether this should bar him from the legal profession is harder to say. “Can we have a good lawyer, and a bad person?” says Lorne Sossin, dean of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University. “Is the law society required to govern virtue in its members? It’s a tough question.”

Even so, the law society governs its members’ virtue every day. It isn’t just potential lawyers who are vetted; more than ever, Canada’s law societies are policing conduct among those who’ve already joined the profession, increasingly disciplining their members for not only unethical actions, but also rude or overly aggressive behaviour.

Ontario’s law society has led the charge on lawyer civility, spurred in part by a 2008 report for the province’s attorney general, which found that rudeness among lawyers was bogging down large, complex criminal procedures. The LSUC’s own statistics showed it was a problem: last year, complaints about professionalism accounted for 33 per cent of all those received. In 2009 and 2010, Derry Millar, then the law society’s treasurer, travelled around the province to talk with lawyers and paralegals about civility, identifying several causes of the problem, from “behaviours adopted from American television” to stress related to the economic recession.

In Ontario, three lawyers faced hearings over misconduct for issues related to civility in December alone, reported the Law Times, a newspaper for the province’s lawyers. On Dec. 17, for example, Julia Ranieri of Toronto had her licence to practise law revoked after being found guilty of verbally abusing a law clerk while working on a real estate deal, among other problems. Ranieri’s record already had a few blemishes on it: in 2009, she was found guilty of professional misconduct after punching a client in the face and breaking her nose, resulting in a 10-month suspension. And Toronto lawyer Ernest Guiste faced a hearing in December stemming from a 2007 mediation session where he told an opposing lawyer to take an opening offer and “shove it up your ass.”

Bad behaviour happens in any profession. But among lawyers—for whom aggressiveness or belligerence can be a strategy, even a way of life—it’s a crucial concern. “Sometimes, people litigate against each other over and over again,” says Alice Woolley, associate professor at the University of Calgary’s faculty of law. “Emotions can get the better of them.” It makes civility all the more important to uphold, since overly rude lawyers can undermine the system, says Malcolm Heins, the Ontario law society’s CEO. Civility “underlies lawyers’ responsibility to the administration of justice and the rule of law,” he says.

Punching a client in the face is an obvious enough problem, but in rare circumstances, legal regulators can reprimand lawyers for conduct that occurs in their private lives, too, which is more murky—for example, a dispute with a neighbour, “swearing or punching; there have been cases like that,” Heins says. “We have the ability to discipline them for inappropriate conduct if it brings the legal profession into disrepute.”

In Ontario, lawyers are now required to take 12 hours of continuing development courses per year, including three hours on professionalism, and a process has been established to make it easier for judges to refer potential misconduct to the LSUC. “We’re getting very good feedback from the courts with respect to the revised process,” Heins says. Other law societies have taken note. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, which represents each provincial regulator, is encouraging law schools to teach civility alongside professionalism and ethics.

The movement has its critics. Woolley, for one, calls law societies’ civility regulations “subjective and, frankly, not very useful.” Sometimes, when advocating for a client, politeness is not a virtue. “Is it not part of my role to forcefully defend my client?” Guiste says. “Sometimes that forceful defence may not be nice to the recipient.” Social norms already prevent most of us from hailing insults upon one another, and the law penalizes physical abuse. Woolley says civility can be a smokescreen of sorts, taking attention away from professional issues that really matter. “There are plenty of things lawyers do that are inappropriate, like using delay as a litigation strategy,” she says. Civility initiatives are “the fashion,” she says, but maybe our regulators’ time could be better spent.

Last week, Manilla attended the appeal with his wife, Ilana Masas, and stayed silent while his lawyer, Phil Downes, did the talking. Downes (who declined to comment while the appeal is being decided) noted that the critical issue is whether Manilla is “of good character today.” Even a trained psychologist—or a crystal ball—might have a hard time definitively answering a question like that. But whether Manilla gets the chance to prove his critics right or wrong is ultimately up to the law society.


 

Lawyers behaving badly

  1. Not to be rude or aggressive, but where exactly in this article is the 'campaign' and 'crack down' referred to in the headline?

    The professional regulators of the legal profession have always encouraged civility and encouraged members to avoid sharp practice – as I think anyone would reasonably expect them to do. Pointing to a few extreme examples and a relatively measured response as if it represents a new epidemic of 'aggressive' lawyers, warranting a sudden 'crack down' on bad behaviour distorts the reality.

    That reality being that lawyers are, by and large, responsible professionals who care – probably more than most – about the type of image they project both as individuals and as a profession.

  2. Not to be rude or aggressive, but where exactly in this article is the 'campaign' and 'crack down' referred to in the headline?

    The professional regulators of the legal profession have always encouraged civility and encouraged members to avoid sharp practice – as I think anyone would reasonably expect them to do. Pointing to a few extreme examples and a relatively measured response as if it represents a new epidemic of 'aggressive' lawyers, warranting a sudden 'crack down' on bad behaviour distorts the reality.

    That reality being that lawyers are, by and large, responsible professionals who care – probably more than most – about the type of image they project both as individuals and as a profession.

    • It did seem to be a few examples of adequately punished misconduct followed by a string of idle speculation.

      • I agree. It's unfortunate, because there is actually an interesting debate to be had over the "conduct unbecoming a solicitor" standard. It is potentially an extremely vague concept, and thus there is a legitimate argument to be made that that standard is unfair and that no government or regulatory body has any business bringing disciplinary proceedings based on such an inherently vague and potentially subjective standard. But I agree that the main examples in the article do not do a good job of illustrating that problem. Most of the examples in the article relate to actual criminal conduct (fraud, forgery, assault, etc.), and all professional regulatory bodies (e.g., teachers, doctors, stockbrokers, etc.) understandably have rules relating to that. By contrast, I don't know if this is true or urban legend, but in BC there was word that a lawyer had had proceedings brought against him for telling his neighbour to "F.O." during a heated dispute with his neighbour. If that is true, IMO that is ridiculous, and no regulatory body should have any business getting involved in a purely private, trivial matter such as that.

  3. Haha. Screw this loser.

  4. Get rid of the Law Society. Let the market decide which lawyers get employed or not.

  5. Get rid of the Law Society. Let the market decide which lawyers get employed or not.

  6. Another example of shaudy journalism. This individual was charged with criminal offenses.
    This goes beyond 'manners' or simply being 'rude or agressive'. Surely one can understand
    that officers of the court can't themselves be embroiled in criminal accusations! Dear lord.

    Sometime I wish we had ways to make sure journalists
    show more professionalism and less sensationalism.

  7. Another example of shaudy journalism. This individual was charged with criminal offenses.
    This goes beyond 'manners' or simply being 'rude or agressive'. Surely one can understand
    that officers of the court can't themselves be embroiled in criminal accusations! Dear lord.

    Sometime I wish we had ways to make sure journalists
    show more professionalism and less sensationalism.

  8. It did seem to be a few examples of adequately punished misconduct followed by a string of idle speculation.

  9. Given the sensationalistic state of journalism today, I am glad they even bothered to mention the charges and the admitted fraud!

  10. I think lawyers need more governing rules especially family lawyers. My divorce lawyer strongly pushed me into a court battle with my ex over a trivial matter that should have never gone to court as I argued it was covered in the separation agreement and my replacement lawyer agreed.
    We had a breakdown, I never trusted him from the start when our 15 minute meeting got billed at 0.8 hours. I tracked his meeting times and invoices going forward, 7.0 hours were billed at 10.5 hours at $300 / hour. Parking receipts didn't match court dates, etc.
    Don't get me going on the 0.1 hour (6 minutes) minimum billed, they say lawyers bill 360 minutes in an hour and I believe it. A quick 30 second email to confirm a meeting in court next week and a one line response gets billed at 0.1 hours to read and 0.1 to respond.
    Let's not forget about the cheque for $1000 he cashed but forgot to apply to my account. As far as quality and compendense goes, I was surprised when the court clerk congratulated me on getting a new lawyer, I felt I made a good decision at that point. Like the old joke goes; How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

  11. I think lawyers need more governing rules especially family lawyers. My divorce lawyer strongly pushed me into a court battle with my ex over a trivial matter that should have never gone to court as I argued it was covered in the separation agreement and my replacement lawyer agreed.
    We had a breakdown, I never trusted him from the start when our 15 minute meeting got billed at 0.8 hours. I tracked his meeting times and invoices going forward, 7.0 hours were billed at 10.5 hours at $300 / hour. Parking receipts didn't match court dates, etc.
    Don't get me going on the 0.1 hour (6 minutes) minimum billed, they say lawyers bill 360 minutes in an hour and I believe it. A quick 30 second email to confirm a meeting in court next week and a one line response gets billed at 0.1 hours to read and 0.1 to respond.
    Let's not forget about the cheque for $1000 he cashed but forgot to apply to my account. As far as quality and compendense goes, I was surprised when the court clerk congratulated me on getting a new lawyer, I felt I made a good decision at that point. Like the old joke goes; How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

  12. Yeah, that way you can hold yourself out as being a lawyer after getting your degree by paying 5 bucks to some spammer over the internet. That'd be way better than the current system.

  13. So you had one lawyer that was bad, and another that was good. And your conclusion is that all lawyers are scum.

    Got it.

  14. Why bother with a degree at all, in fact?

  15. Why bother with a degree at all, in fact?

    • Oh, it'd just be for show — you know, something on your office wall to impress the rubes.

  16. Oh, it'd just be for show — you know, something on your office wall to impress the rubes.

  17. I agree. It's unfortunate, because there is actually an interesting debate to be had over the "conduct unbecoming a solicitor" standard. It is potentially an extremely vague concept, and thus there is a legitimate argument to be made that that standard is unfair and that no government or regulatory body has any business bringing disciplinary proceedings based on such an inherently vague and potentially subjective standard. But I agree that the main examples in the article do not do a good job of illustrating that problem. Most of the examples in the article relate to actual criminal conduct (fraud, forgery, assault, etc.), and all professional regulatory bodies (e.g., teachers, doctors, stockbrokers, etc.) understandably have rules relating to that. By contrast, I don't know if this is true or urban legend, but in BC there was word that a lawyer had had proceedings brought against him for telling his neighbour to "F.O." during a heated dispute with his neighbour. If that is true, IMO that is ridiculous, and no regulatory body should have any business getting involved in a purely private, trivial matter such as that.

  18. I don't like the ambulance chaser ads from lawyers persuing business on TV for injuries, divorce or tax problems Sounds like the US system to me and the thin edg of the wedge must be blunted.

  19. It's the same for any profession, if you have expert knowledge you can wield power over anyone that's why you need to have good judgement/character. This guy admits to liking it when people "squirm". I think the profession would be better off without guys like him. Finally someone takes a stand to a-holes! Yay!

  20. It's the same for any profession, if you have expert knowledge you can wield power over anyone that's why you need to have good judgement/character. This guy admits to liking it when people "squirm". I think the profession would be better off without guys like him. Finally someone takes a stand to a-holes! Yay!

  21. When my wife was working to a company the company had financial problems and the company CEO had lawyer friend. This lawyers secetary also was company CEO's payroll. My wife company had some financial difficulties and my wife was requested to help this company with our own life savings. The lawyer was influenced my wife to withdraw money from our bank account. It was fairly large amount of money (70 000). The company CEO promised that the money will be given back to us in two months time. It never happend and then the lawyer and CEO put our names down in a forclosure property. We wre the 5th mortgagee of this prperty. It went forclosure recently and we never received single penny back. In addition my wife was forced to work without pay for more than five months. This was a fraud and modern slavery. Is there any advise for us, how we could get back our money.

  22. When my wife was working to a company the company had financial problems and the company CEO had lawyer friend. This lawyers secetary also was company CEO's payroll. My wife company had some financial difficulties and my wife was requested to help this company with our own life savings. The lawyer was influenced my wife to withdraw money from our bank account. It was fairly large amount of money (70 000). The company CEO promised that the money will be given back to us in two months time. It never happend and then the lawyer and CEO put our names down in a forclosure property. We wre the 5th mortgagee of this prperty. It went forclosure recently and we never received single penny back. In addition my wife was forced to work without pay for more than five months. This was a fraud and modern slavery. Is there any advise for us, how we could get back our money.

    • You should consult with a lawyer.

      • You are and your wife are idiots. Sorry but I can't believe anyone of sound mind would participate in that???

        • Disregard Brown. On second thought disregard anything Brown says.

  23. Ok, before the thread fills up with lawyer jokes… The Legal Profession present itself as being fundamentally important – along the lines of doctors, etc. Everyone, no matter how nasty, deserves a legal defense. And if lawyers are held to be that important then they have to be held to a higher moral standard too. It seems obviously clear to me that Manilla, who forged a letter, should not be allowed to practice law.

  24. Ok, before the thread fills up with lawyer jokes… The Legal Profession present itself as being fundamentally important – along the lines of doctors, etc. Everyone, no matter how nasty, deserves a legal defense. And if lawyers are held to be that important then they have to be held to a higher moral standard too. It seems obviously clear to me that Manilla, who forged a letter, should not be allowed to practice law.

    • I absolutely agree. But the thing is, you don't need some nebulous, subjective "conduct unbecoming" standard in order to enforce that prohibition. Lots and lots of other professions and occupations do criminal record checks and all that sort of thing. Forgery and fraud are criminal offences. Just to take one example, you could have a rule that says that you can't practice law if you have committed the following offences, or sorts of offences, something like that. That's a bright-line test. What I object to are the sorts of nebulous, no-line tests which currently exist for lawyers, like "conduct unbecoming a solicitor". What the hell is that? It's whatever the discipline tribunal thinks it is. The reason the law societies like having those rules is it gives them all kinds of discretion — all bureaucracies love having as much discretion as humanly possible.

      • Soldiers can be nailed under "conduct unbecoming."
        Professional athletes are regularly sanctioned for "conduct likely to bring the game into disrepute" and "unsporting behaviour."
        Morals clauses are frequently written into contracts as are "statements of faith."
        All of these are nebulous statements when it comes to definition and enforcement. And all of them depend on somebody's interpretation of where the bar rests. If Military law journals and FIFA law are all recognised as legally enforceable for their professions what makes the law so special?

  25. I absolutely agree. But the thing is, you don't need some nebulous, subjective "conduct unbecoming" standard in order to enforce that prohibition. Lots and lots of other professions and occupations do criminal record checks and all that sort of thing. Forgery and fraud are criminal offences. Just to take one example, you could have a rule that says that you can't practice law if you have committed the following offences, or sorts of offences, something like that. That's a bright-line test. What I object to are the sorts of nebulous, no-line tests which currently exist for lawyers, like "conduct unbecoming a solicitor". What the hell is that? It's whatever the discipline tribunal thinks it is. The reason the law societies like having those rules is it gives them all kinds of discretion — all bureaucracies love having as much discretion as humanly possible.

  26. Given the law society's adjudicator corruption scheme in which all tribunal decisions in which lawyers prevailed were hidden, making legal research impossible for all lawyers facing complaints, it is reasonable to ask whether any law society bencher-"impartial" adjudicator-corporate director (yes, they do wear all three legally conflicting hats making jurisdiction a nullity) is of sufficiently good character to practise law let alone be a bencher. And several of these corrupt benchers, LSUC staff, executives and even conflicts counsel have been appointed to the bench. Further, this rogue regulator is housed at the court seat where it continues to scandalize the courts with its presence. To top it off, the LSUC has a seat on the federal judicial selection committee. The British said it best; Evil gains full sway when judges decide in secret.

  27. Given the law society's adjudicator corruption scheme in which all tribunal decisions in which lawyers prevailed were hidden, making legal research impossible for all lawyers facing complaints, it is reasonable to ask whether any law society bencher-"impartial" adjudicator-corporate director (yes, they do wear all three legally conflicting hats making jurisdiction a nullity) is of sufficiently good character to practise law let alone be a bencher. And several of these corrupt benchers, LSUC staff, executives and even conflicts counsel have been appointed to the bench. Further, this rogue regulator is housed at the court seat where it continues to scandalize the courts with its presence. To top it off, the LSUC has a seat on the federal judicial selection committee. The British said it best; Evil gains full sway when judges decide in secret.

    • Well said.

  28. Would any Canadian want to appear beforre an LSUC bencher, staffer or counsel turned judge? Of course not! Where is the discipline system for these corrupt adjudicators? Where are the police who should be investigating these corrupt public officers (so defined by case law)? Maybe the media should read the minutes of these organizations to see what's going on – not the recently repositioned ones but the real minutes that initiially appeared on the lsuc web site: <a href="http://www.lsuc.on.ca” target=”_blank”>www.lsuc.on.ca.

  29. Would any Canadian want to appear beforre an LSUC bencher, staffer or counsel turned judge? Of course not! Where is the discipline system for these corrupt adjudicators? Where are the police who should be investigating these corrupt public officers (so defined by case law)? Maybe the media should read the minutes of these organizations to see what's going on – not the recently repositioned ones but the real minutes that initiially appeared on the lsuc web site: http://www.lsuc.on.ca.

    • This needs to be read with franklin's message below as the bencher-adjudicator-coporate-directors each voted in 2008 to continue to hide lsuc tribunal decisions where the lsuc lost, but to begin publishing only on a "going forward basis," all decisions favouring lawyers.

  30. I am not convinced that we should toss out young lawyers who shattered decorum as much as I am convinced that we do need to ensure corrupt benchers are removed from any regulator..

  31. I am not convinced that we should toss out young lawyers who shattered decorum as much as I am convinced that we do need to ensure corrupt benchers are removed from any regulator..

  32. That practice is banned in Quebec. Nonetheless, we still
    have our fair shares of issues relating to our regulatory body.

  33. That practice is banned in Quebec. Nonetheless, we still
    have our fair shares of issues relating to our regulatory body.

  34. You should consult with a lawyer.

  35. It is difficult to understand why this case would be "news". It seems to be more like some self-serving PR by the Law Society to pretend that they are actually doing their jobs. Some poor guy made some mistakes in his personal life and yes, he should bear the consequences. But, when the Law Society overlooks criminal and other illegal conduct by members, just because they are "connected", the Law Society of Upper Canada should perhaps not be bragging about their record of service to the public.

  36. It is difficult to understand why this case would be "news". It seems to be more like some self-serving PR by the Law Society to pretend that they are actually doing their jobs. Some poor guy made some mistakes in his personal life and yes, he should bear the consequences. But, when the Law Society overlooks criminal and other illegal conduct by members, just because they are "connected", the Law Society of Upper Canada should perhaps not be bragging about their record of service to the public.

    • I'd go even further: it was a crime and cover-up that Ontario's ex-Attorney General wasn't charged with manslaughter for the death of that cyclist. The special prosecutors took almost a year to make their decision (when that process usually takes much less time) and made their announcement in the middle of summer when everyone's on vacation. What a travesty. Even in Canada, there is a different justice for those who are connected and those who aren't. And this guy wants to make a come-back in politics? Over my dead (cyclist) body!

      • Interesting that you should raise that since of course Michael James Bryant is a member in good standing of the Law Society of Upper Canada …

  37. I'd go even further: it was a crime and cover-up that Ontario's ex-Attorney General wasn't charged with manslaughter for the death of that cyclist. The special prosecutors took almost a year to make their decision (when that process usually takes much less time) and made their announcement in the middle of summer when everyone's on vacation. What a travesty. Even in Canada, there is a different justice for those who are connected and those who aren't. And this guy wants to make a come-back in politics? Over my dead (cyclist) body!

  38. Interesting that you should raise that since of course Michael James Bryant is a member in good standing of the Law Society of Upper Canada …

  39. Crooks, thieves and common white collar criminals running LSUC today are refusing to license Harry Kopyto as paralegal on grounds that he is not of a good character. In order to prove that they are serious on this issue crooks running LSUC are throwing few lawyers and wanna be lawyers under the bus. This is all that there is to it.

  40. Crooks, thieves and common white collar criminals running LSUC today are refusing to license Harry Kopyto as paralegal on grounds that he is not of a good character. In order to prove that they are serious on this issue crooks running LSUC are throwing few lawyers and wanna be lawyers under the bus. This is all that there is to it.

  41. Many people want agressive lawyers and these young lawyers were not trained, warned or otherwise told ot any dire consequences. I think the era of the unknown sword of Damaclees is over. We need competent reulators who can convey real standards based upon law not unschooled opinion.

  42. Many people want agressive lawyers and these young lawyers were not trained, warned or otherwise told ot any dire consequences. I think the era of the unknown sword of Damaclees is over. We need competent reulators who can convey real standards based upon law not unschooled opinion.

  43. In 1985 Toronto lawyer Steven Bookman was convicted of fraud for cheque kiting to the tune of $89 million. He served time behind bars. Today he practices family law and has a network of family law companies. "Good character" requirement? That's laughable.
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m6QyAAAAIBAJ

  44. In 1985 Toronto lawyer Steven Bookman was convicted of fraud for cheque kiting to the tune of $89 million. He served time behind bars. Today he practices family law and has a network of family law companies. "Good character" requirement? That's laughable.
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m6QyAAAAIBAJ

    • What more needs to said Dan !

  45. You are and your wife are idiots. Sorry but I can't believe anyone of sound mind would participate in that???

  46. Soldiers can be nailed under "conduct unbecoming."
    Professional athletes are regularly sanctioned for "conduct likely to bring the game into disrepute" and "unsporting behaviour."
    Morals clauses are frequently written into contracts as are "statements of faith."
    All of these are nebulous statements when it comes to definition and enforcement. And all of them depend on somebody's interpretation of where the bar rests. If Military law journals and FIFA law are all recognised as legally enforceable for their professions what makes the law so special?

  47. LSUC Course on “Civility” …

    – Yell at a law clerk? We’ll get you …

    – Fight with your condo board? You are not allowed .in..

    – Kill someone with your car? Okay. We all make mistakes, sometimes.

  48. LSUC Course on “Civility” …

    – Yell at a law clerk? We’ll get you …

    – Fight with your condo board? You are not allowed .in..

    – Kill someone with your car? Okay. We all make mistakes, sometimes.

  49. Lawyers behaving badly try this for size: Farce of an appeal at the Osgoode Hall is in full swing, lawyer/pimp Marty Teplitsky arranged for Ontario Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett, to argue that: "State has no obligation to protect prostitutes"
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stat
    State has no obligation to protect prostitutes, Ottawa to argue at appeal
    KIRK MAKIN — JUSTICE REPORTER
    From Thursday's Globe and Mail…

    My comment on this fiasco;
    Forget about prostitutes for a while as this legal battle is not about them, it is about rights of Toronto pimps disguised as prominent lawyers to continue with their existing business arrangements. One lawyer in particular Mr. Marty Teplitsky used his "working girls" and hidden video cameras to gain big infuence over many members of legal profession in Toronto and he is not willing to give up on that influence now, only because Conservatives in Ottawa do not like what he does in Toronto.TBC

  50. Lawyers behaving badly try this for size: Farce of an appeal at the Osgoode Hall is in full swing, lawyer/pimp Marty Teplitsky arranged for Ontario Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett, to argue that: "State has no obligation to protect prostitutes"
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stat
    State has no obligation to protect prostitutes, Ottawa to argue at appeal
    KIRK MAKIN — JUSTICE REPORTER
    From Thursday's Globe and Mail…

    My comment on this fiasco;
    Forget about prostitutes for a while as this legal battle is not about them, it is about rights of Toronto pimps disguised as prominent lawyers to continue with their existing business arrangements. One lawyer in particular Mr. Marty Teplitsky used his "working girls" and hidden video cameras to gain big infuence over many members of legal profession in Toronto and he is not willing to give up on that influence now, only because Conservatives in Ottawa do not like what he does in Toronto.TBC

  51. Not so long ago this pimp disguised as a lawyer had so much pull that once a year around Christmas he used to use Osgoode Hall, owned by Law Society of Upper Canada, as his private banquet hall, in order to to throw a party for Toronto homeless people. During these parties for the homeless Chief Justice of Ontario Court of Justice Warren Winkler used to work as a head waiter while pimping lawyer Teplitsky used to stand at the door and hand out ten dollar bills to all participants. TBC

  52. Not so long ago this pimp disguised as a lawyer had so much pull that once a year around Christmas he used to use Osgoode Hall, owned by Law Society of Upper Canada, as his private banquet hall, in order to to throw a party for Toronto homeless people. During these parties for the homeless Chief Justice of Ontario Court of Justice Warren Winkler used to work as a head waiter while pimping lawyer Teplitsky used to stand at the door and hand out ten dollar bills to all participants. TBC

  53. Not so long ago pimping lawyer Teplitsky had so much pull in Ottawa, that he arranged for the Order of Canada to be given to; his sister-in-law Constance Backhouse and to his trusted side kick, abortion expert with only three years of medical school to his name, Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

    Now it seems that pimp Marty Teplitsky is using Ontario Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett in order to throw a curve ball into public and legal debate on legalisation of pimping in Canada.
    TBC

  54. Not so long ago pimping lawyer Teplitsky had so much pull in Ottawa, that he arranged for the Order of Canada to be given to; his sister-in-law Constance Backhouse and to his trusted side kick, abortion expert with only three years of medical school to his name, Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

    Now it seems that pimp Marty Teplitsky is using Ontario Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett in order to throw a curve ball into public and legal debate on legalisation of pimping in Canada.
    TBC

  55. Existing prostitution laws, that are very similar all around the World, were drafted so the police would have the tools necessary to protect prostitutes from dangerous johns and parasitic pimps. Claim that was made up by corrupt Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett, sitting in Teplitsky's back pocket, that "State has no obligation to protect prostitutes" puts all these laws on their heads and perverts legislative intent of all these laws.

    In July of 1998 Shelley Hallett was dispatched by homosexual activist Crown Attorney Murray Segal to Cornwall with secret instructions to destroy prosecutions against homosexual pedophiles criminally charged in Project Truth see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tr… (page 25) and see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett_220109.hide.php, and http://www.theinquiry.ca/Segal.hide.php .
    TBC

  56. Existing prostitution laws, that are very similar all around the World, were drafted so the police would have the tools necessary to protect prostitutes from dangerous johns and parasitic pimps. Claim that was made up by corrupt Crown Attorney Shelley Hallett, sitting in Teplitsky's back pocket, that "State has no obligation to protect prostitutes" puts all these laws on their heads and perverts legislative intent of all these laws.

    In July of 1998 Shelley Hallett was dispatched by homosexual activist Crown Attorney Murray Segal to Cornwall with secret instructions to destroy prosecutions against homosexual pedophiles criminally charged in Project Truth see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tr… (page 25) and see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett_220109.hide.php, and http://www.theinquiry.ca/Segal.hide.php .
    TBC

  57. Now it seems that Ms. Shelley Hallett got dispatched once again by Murray Segal, Deputy Attorney General of Ontario acting as a proxie for the pimp Marty Teplitsky, this time with secret mission to destroy government's appeal of Justice Himel's decision striking down Canadian prostitution laws, see Segal's former dispatch at: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Segal%20transcript%2029%
    For more information on Shelley Hallett's previous hatchet job in Cornwall, Ontario see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20testimony%2019http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20transcript%202http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20transcript%202http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tthttp://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tr

  58. Now it seems that Ms. Shelley Hallett got dispatched once again by Murray Segal, Deputy Attorney General of Ontario acting as a proxie for the pimp Marty Teplitsky, this time with secret mission to destroy government's appeal of Justice Himel's decision striking down Canadian prostitution laws, see Segal's former dispatch at: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Segal%20transcript%2029%
    For more information on Shelley Hallett's previous hatchet job in Cornwall, Ontario see: http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20testimony%2019http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20transcript%202http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20transcript%202http://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tthttp://www.theinquiry.ca/Hallett%20Narozniak%20tr

    • Karol K. what are you hopi g to accomplish here? It makes no sense. How does it relate to the story?

  59. This needs to be read with franklin's message below as the bencher-adjudicator-coporate-directors each voted in 2008 to continue to hide lsuc tribunal decisions where the lsuc lost, but to begin publishing only on a "going forward basis," all decisions favouring lawyers.

  60. Until 2008, many thought the lsuc's prosecution record was much better than it actually was. And no one facing a complaint could do proper research as all lsuc tribunal decisions, save a few, were hidden by policy the bencher/adjudicators agreed upon!!!!

    This kind of corruption is especially , which is problematic as our legal system is based upon previous decisions. When decisions that went against the law society are hidden it is like running a criminal court but hiding all decisions except those where the Crown won. Petty lopsided and grossly unfair, plus it is criminal obstruction in my view. HIding decisions is the most serious kind of justice corruption according to UN reports on judicial corurption.

  61. Until 2008, many thought the lsuc's prosecution record was much better than it actually was. And no one facing a complaint could do proper research as all lsuc tribunal decisions, save a few, were hidden by policy the bencher/adjudicators agreed upon!!!!

    This kind of corruption is especially , which is problematic as our legal system is based upon previous decisions. When decisions that went against the law society are hidden it is like running a criminal court but hiding all decisions except those where the Crown won. Petty lopsided and grossly unfair, plus it is criminal obstruction in my view. HIding decisions is the most serious kind of justice corruption according to UN reports on judicial corurption.

  62. Although the LSUC's 2008 motion, to not hide decisions in the future, has not shut down this corrupt regulator yet, I think that motion will go down in history as the ONE. It is the one that wil end with the society being reconfigured outside Osgoode Hall without any tribunals. Also the law society actors who joined the Superior Court of Ontario need to come off . No Canadian wants to appear in court before such a judge, nor should they.

  63. Although the LSUC's 2008 motion, to not hide decisions in the future, has not shut down this corrupt regulator yet, I think that motion will go down in history as the ONE. It is the one that wil end with the society being reconfigured outside Osgoode Hall without any tribunals. Also the law society actors who joined the Superior Court of Ontario need to come off . No Canadian wants to appear in court before such a judge, nor should they.

  64. Hey Maclean's, why aren't you on top of the adjudicator corruption scandal, especially as it is all on the record?

  65. Hey Maclean's, why aren't you on top of the adjudicator corruption scandal, especially as it is all on the record?

  66. Well, apart from the personal behaviour of this lawyer (Manilla), lawyers, like any other professional or businessman, need to be held to a code of conduct pertinent to their role in society. Yes, we need the law societies, like the Law Society of Upper Canada, to monitor the actions of lawyers, to be responsive to client complaints, and to ensure that lawyers adhere to appropriate lawyer-client relationships, which include: setting fees, advising clients of the cost of litigation, from the beginning and at each stage of the process, regular communication with clients to keep them advised of progress, and, most importantly, making every effort to move legal actions through the courts as quickly as possible. Justice Forbes submitted a report to the Ontario Legislature in 2001, in which he provide some excellent guidelines for lawyers, which should be the basis for Lawyer/Client Relationships 101 in every law school in Canada!!

  67. Well, apart from the personal behaviour of this lawyer (Manilla), lawyers, like any other professional or businessman, need to be held to a code of conduct pertinent to their role in society. Yes, we need the law societies, like the Law Society of Upper Canada, to monitor the actions of lawyers, to be responsive to client complaints, and to ensure that lawyers adhere to appropriate lawyer-client relationships, which include: setting fees, advising clients of the cost of litigation, from the beginning and at each stage of the process, regular communication with clients to keep them advised of progress, and, most importantly, making every effort to move legal actions through the courts as quickly as possible. Justice Forbes submitted a report to the Ontario Legislature in 2001, in which he provide some excellent guidelines for lawyers, which should be the basis for Lawyer/Client Relationships 101 in every law school in Canada!!

    • In Britain and the US, all law society matters are heard before fair and independent courts because the law societies did not put on fair hearings. There a regulator, is only a regulator, not a governor, regulator judge and jury, as it is Regulation is needed, but it needs to be fair regulatoih, even in very old-fashioned Canada.

  68. Karol K. what are you hopi g to accomplish here? It makes no sense. How does it relate to the story?

  69. LSUC's complaint resolution process is extremly corrupt. When LSUC is presented with evidence that lawyer repeatedly commited prejury, fabricated evidence that he used in court, falsified court order with intent to defraud litigant, attempted repeatedly to defraud litigant over 5k, tried to use government agency in attempt to defraud litigant over 5k by passing to them falsified court order, they (LSUC), after looking over evidence I sent them, claim that they cannot deal with criminal matters (criminal conduct of a lawyer) and they are directing complainant to go to local police.TBC

  70. LSUC's complaint resolution process is extremly corrupt. When LSUC is presented with evidence that lawyer repeatedly commited prejury, fabricated evidence that he used in court, falsified court order with intent to defraud litigant, attempted repeatedly to defraud litigant over 5k, tried to use government agency in attempt to defraud litigant over 5k by passing to them falsified court order, they (LSUC), after looking over evidence I sent them, claim that they cannot deal with criminal matters (criminal conduct of a lawyer) and they are directing complainant to go to local police.TBC

  71. Continuation from above post.
    At the same time LSUC crooks contact local police instructing cops to refuse to accept criminal complaint against misbehaving lawyer by person who initially complained to LSUC about that lawyer's actions. I know as I tried it and I was thrown out of downtown Toronto police station on two ocassions. Than I tried to make complaint to Chief of Toronto Police William Blair and every time I sent my complaint in by fax, or by mail it would disappear in Chief Blair's office and I would get no response.
    I complained against Toronto cops refusing to provide me with police services to OCCCP and it did not matter as all they were prepared to deal with was disapperance of my mail in Chief Blair's office.
    Nobody in Toronto is willing to look at criminal activities of crooked lawyer Mr. Michael Barry Miller.

  72. Continuation from above post.
    At the same time LSUC crooks contact local police instructing cops to refuse to accept criminal complaint against misbehaving lawyer by person who initially complained to LSUC about that lawyer's actions. I know as I tried it and I was thrown out of downtown Toronto police station on two ocassions. Than I tried to make complaint to Chief of Toronto Police William Blair and every time I sent my complaint in by fax, or by mail it would disappear in Chief Blair's office and I would get no response.
    I complained against Toronto cops refusing to provide me with police services to OCCCP and it did not matter as all they were prepared to deal with was disapperance of my mail in Chief Blair's office.
    Nobody in Toronto is willing to look at criminal activities of crooked lawyer Mr. Michael Barry Miller.

  73. Hi Karol K. Does pr "work" for the LSUC pay well?

  74. Hi Karol K. Does pr "work" for the LSUC pay well?

  75. Shgould benchers who act in the unethical and professionally conflicted roles of "impartial" adjudicator and sched. 2 corporate directors, who are paid by the law society but who actually voted to continue hiding past deicisons where lawyers prevailed over the law society so at to prevent research, appear to be more successful at prosecutions, etc., be allowed to set ethical standards for lawyers? for anyone? Should they even be lawyers? NO. NO. NO!

  76. If judges have the Canadian Judicial Counsel to answer to at least in theory and police have the SIU to answer to, why don't the law society benchers have any oversight whatsoever? Given that the AG is a figurehead who bnenefits from avoiding conglicts, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction, the competition bureau will not intervene and the media and poliical opposition paties are sleeping, what can be done about massive bencher misconduct at the LSUC?

  77. If judges have the Canadian Judicial Counsel to answer to at least in theory and police have the SIU to answer to, why don't the law society benchers have any oversight whatsoever? Given that the AG is a figurehead who bnenefits from avoiding conglicts, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction, the competition bureau will not intervene and the media and poliical opposition paties are sleeping, what can be done about massive bencher misconduct at the LSUC?

  78. When in doubt, read first sentence. Kevin's point is that lawyers need more rules to govern their professional behavior. I personally cannot see how something like docketing hours can be enforced by the LSUC. I think the market place should take care of stuff like that – i.e. if you're a scum bag, you will lose your client base.

  79. When in doubt, read first sentence. Kevin's point is that lawyers need more rules to govern their professional behavior. I personally cannot see how something like docketing hours can be enforced by the LSUC. I think the market place should take care of stuff like that – i.e. if you're a scum bag, you will lose your client base.

  80. What more needs to said Dan !

  81. Someone taking a stand ? Not ! … You are, of course, ignoring the many CAS lawyers and their firms that trotted out Dr. Smith … or rather many Family Law lawyers that are on the government payroll in one way or another ( without making that known to clients ) and Lord knows there is no perjury, abuse of process, fraud, Charter Rights violations, Legal trickery and a whole host of other behaviours – including a physical assault of a defendant by the Crown in the Courthouse which I witnessed personally ( the 'Crown' lost ) , care to revise your comment ?

  82. Disregard Brown. On second thought disregard anything Brown says.

  83. Well said.

  84. obviously LSUC has unleashed some trolls.

  85. Baloney … two bit shrill.

  86. Baloney … two bit shrill.

  87. The Law Society of Upper Cannada is a totally useless institution.

    If it was not, incompetent, inappropriately aggressive lawyers would not be practicing law.

  88. The Law Society of Upper Cannada is a totally useless institution.

    If it was not, incompetent, inappropriately aggressive lawyers would not be practicing law.

  89. The Law Society has a good character requirement?

    Then why don't lawyers enforce the law?

    http://ahabit.com/rule.htm

    It is really a stretch, to suggest that the law society regulates good character,

  90. The Law Society has a good character requirement?

    Then why don't lawyers enforce the law?

    http://ahabit.com/rule.htm

    It is really a stretch, to suggest that the law society regulates good character,

  91. I have not met a single person in Canada, who deserves to be called a lawyer.

    In principle, I am an Officer of the Court. I yield to no man, no expert, no God, no lawyer, no judge. The law is my master and my slave. I oppose all prejudice, bias, distortion, deception and every judge and lawyer who is influenced by the ignorance that is responIsible for producing every miscarriage of justice.

    The force of logic is my only guide and the truth is the only thing that every bigot will oppose, tooth and nails, to protect the facade that the interests of justice are being served.

    As long as lady justice stands alone, overwhelmed by prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and the inane assumptions that distort the truth, I am a force of logic and the only person who is in fact a worthy and legitimate, officer of the court. It is a hoax to think that lawyers are officers of the court who tell judges the truth, without evasion and locate relevant documents that are necessary and essential to the task of serving the interests of justice.

    Lawyers are what they do, and as long as they are not punished for facilitating miscarriages of justice, they do what they can get away with.

    I am a legitimate officer of the court because there is no compromise where truth and justice is concerned.

    http://ahabit.com/rule.htm

    Have you ever met a lawyer to deserves to be called an officer of the court? Please provide his or her name.

    And there's the challenge, provide me with the name and the telephone number of ONE person who deserves to be called a lawyer.

  92. I have not met a single person in Canada, who deserves to be called a lawyer.

    In principle, I am an Officer of the Court. I yield to no man, no expert, no God, no lawyer, no judge. The law is my master and my slave. I oppose all prejudice, bias, distortion, deception and every judge and lawyer who is influenced by the ignorance that is responIsible for producing every miscarriage of justice.

    The force of logic is my only guide and the truth is the only thing that every bigot will oppose, tooth and nails, to protect the facade that the interests of justice are being served.

    As long as lady justice stands alone, overwhelmed by prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and the inane assumptions that distort the truth, I am a force of logic and the only person who is in fact a worthy and legitimate, officer of the court. It is a hoax to think that lawyers are officers of the court who tell judges the truth, without evasion and locate relevant documents that are necessary and essential to the task of serving the interests of justice.

    Lawyers are what they do, and as long as they are not punished for facilitating miscarriages of justice, they do what they can get away with.

    I am a legitimate officer of the court because there is no compromise where truth and justice is concerned.

    http://ahabit.com/rule.htm

    Have you ever met a lawyer to deserves to be called an officer of the court? Please provide his or her name.

    And there's the challenge, provide me with the name and the telephone number of ONE person who deserves to be called a lawyer.

  93. I would be really disappointed if they admit him to the bar for public practice. I am sure with his lack of ethics and rude behaviour would make him a prime legal counsel candidate at some corporations. There is always MacDonalds, "Will That be *&^%$ fries with your &^*#$ quarter pounder?

  94. I would be really disappointed if they admit him to the bar for public practice. I am sure with his lack of ethics and rude behaviour would make him a prime legal counsel candidate at some corporations. There is always MacDonalds, "Will That be *&^%$ fries with your &^*#$ quarter pounder?

  95. There is never a really good lawyer when you need one. It's Murphy's Law. When a lawyer makes a mistake there is too much to clean up after him/her. Bay Street is full of the wrong types practicing law.

  96. There is never a really good lawyer when you need one. It's Murphy's Law. When a lawyer makes a mistake there is too much to clean up after him/her. Bay Street is full of the wrong types practicing law.

  97. The Law Society asks whether a bad person can be a good lawyer.
    Well, I think the Law Society should ask whether a great person can be a bad lawyer: the answer is an OVERWHELMING yes. The Law Society should seek to improve (and toughen) its standards for the bar and law schools in Canada period.

  98. The Law Society asks whether a bad person can be a good lawyer.
    Well, I think the Law Society should ask whether a great person can be a bad lawyer: the answer is an OVERWHELMING yes. The Law Society should seek to improve (and toughen) its standards for the bar and law schools in Canada period.

  99. Just look at this guy. He is a douchebag now- making him a lawyer will be like giving him an engraved License to Practice Douchebaggery.
    And yes, I can tell that he is a douchebag from a photo. Can't you? Really?

  100. In Britain and the US, all law society matters are heard before fair and independent courts because the law societies did not put on fair hearings. There a regulator, is only a regulator, not a governor, regulator judge and jury, as it is Regulation is needed, but it needs to be fair regulatoih, even in very old-fashioned Canada.

  101. this Ryan Manilla on the letter to one board member had said that he beat his wife and that he is going to go banckrupt and that is acceppting kickbacks from the builder and the lies go on and on it is true he is a bad neihgbour how i know he was my nieghbour and i have this letter.

  102. this Ryan Manilla on the letter to one board member had said that he beat his wife and that he is going to go banckrupt and that is acceppting kickbacks from the builder and the lies go on and on it is true he is a bad neihgbour how i know he was my nieghbour and i have this letter.

  103. I relate to this article. My neighbour is a prominent property Lawyer. He has threatened me personally a number of times and has lied to my face with a witness present. He has secretly moved the property stake marking the property line in order to fool the municipal inspector and obtain permits illegally. He has called the municipal inspector on me (which ended up being unfounded). This man is a disgrace to the human race and furthermore he uses his "status" as a Lawyer to push people around and to benefit personally. Is he an a-hole because he is a Lawyer or a Lawyer because he is an A-hole??

  104. I relate to this article. My neighbour is a prominent property Lawyer. He has threatened me personally a number of times and has lied to my face with a witness present. He has secretly moved the property stake marking the property line in order to fool the municipal inspector and obtain permits illegally. He has called the municipal inspector on me (which ended up being unfounded). This man is a disgrace to the human race and furthermore he uses his "status" as a Lawyer to push people around and to benefit personally. Is he an a-hole because he is a Lawyer or a Lawyer because he is an A-hole??

  105. According to my opinion a well-mannered caution that lawyers who shout, lie and shoot off vulgar emails don’t merely alienate judges and juries. They also slow the wheels of justice and cost clients money.

  106. For anyone that knows Ryan Manilla knows he has been a jackass his entire life – why would acting like a grown-up be easy for him?

  107. We are dealing with an opposing lawyer who is telling us how the case will end in his clients favor. He is rude and threatening and very unprofessional. He believes he is the judge and jury.

Sign in to comment.