|
Postponed to Fall 2008: Trial by Media and the Rule of Law
2008 Media and the Law SeminarOctober 18, 2008 Well-known Newfoundland journalist and host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Check-up, Rex Murphy, will be the guest speaker at the 2008 Media and Law Seminar. The seminar has been rescheduled to Saturday, October 18 at the Lister Centre, University of Alberta in Edmonton. It will feature two panel discussions, a dinner and a keynote speech. Panel #1 – Does the legal system straitjacket full reporting?Legislators, lawyers and the judiciary each have their roles in the operation of the justice system. Have these groups placed artificial constraints on journalists that prevent full reporting of legal issues, thus undermining public confidence in the justice system? This panel featuring a representative from media, judiciary and the legal profession, will debate and discuss these issues. Panel #2 – Rule of Law vs Rule of War: What are the lessons to be learned?How do the media portray the rule of law in combating acts of cause-related terrorism? Do we do enough to make the public fully aware of the role of the rule of law in safeguarding citizens? Panellists from all sides will discuss and debate the lessons to be learned. Save this date in your calendar and stay tuned for more information.  |
Summary of Disciplinary Matters
Including Hearing Reports Released January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008
|
| In this Summary of Disciplinary Matters for the first quarter of 2008, the Law Society of Alberta seeks to educate and inform lawyers on its role as a self-regulator in the public interest. During this time, LSA completed 11 hearings, and issued four hearing reports, two of which are summarized below. |
Reprimand of A.
A hearing committee held a hearing September 6, 2007 regarding the conduct of A., a sole practitioner in an exclusively matrimonial practice providing services in high conflict cases. The lawyer had voluntarily transferred to the inactive list.
The two citations were consolidated into one, that A.: "failed to respond in a timely manner to communications from the Complainant, the Legal Aid Society, and to communications from another lawyer that contemplated a reply, and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction."
The committee heard that A. was undergoing a great deal of stress due to the nature of the practice. The committee noted that this may well be an explanation for the conduct but it is not an excuse for breaching the Code of Conduct and the common rules of civility.
In its report, the committee noted that "the profession can only effectively serve its clients, the public, by treating one another in a professional manner and with respect. Failing to respond to another practitioner is a failure to serve the public. The individuals who make up the public depend on efficacious communication between counsel in order that they can order their affairs, whether they be personal or societal."
The committee noted that the actions of A. were not "a matter of a momentary lapse of judgment or a fleeting transgression." The report noted that these events occurred over a protracted period of time, and "certainly they involved inordinate procrastination, and as indicated, this procrastination was not without consequences."
|  |
In its report, the committee noted that A. chose practice in a very difficult area of the law. The committee stated: "The profession and society need competent and dedicated practitioners to devote themselves to that area of the law and it is not this Hearing Committee's intention to deter any people entering the profession or any young lawyers from undertaking that very difficult and challenging type of practice."
A. did not have a previous discipline record. The committee decided to sanction A. for this conduct by issuing a reprimand and levying the full costs of the hearing.
Dismissal of C.
A hearing committee met January 21, 2008 to review a citation against C. in which it was alleged that C. "failed to either return the funds to the Complainant or to make an inquiry of the Complainant into the intent of the funds being provided," and that such conduct is conduct deserving of sanction. C.'s client was a real estate investment firm and the complainant was an investor with C.'s client.
C.'s role, with respect to this particular transaction, appears to have been solely that of receiving from the investor the lending documents and a trust cheque of $25,000 made payable to C.'s firm, which C. in turn deposited to the trust account and paid over to the client at the client's request.
The committee concluded that the citation against C. was not proven, and that C. was not guilty. The Hearing Committee found that the documents signed by the complainant clearly made the client its agent to deal with the loan and the funds. 
continued on page 11 side column | |
