Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:38 am

Sumo_CPO wrote:What's the big deal? Couple months ago it was a hooker, now it's a kidnapper. Does anyone actually expect more from lawyers? :mrgreen:


But (to my mind) there was a big difference between the two cases. This was a single instance, and did not involve any offence of dishonesty. That other lady has a multi-year pattern of criminal behaviour, including numerous offences of dishonesty.

The legal profession is held to a higher standard, but it's not one of perfection. The standard is "good character". Even someone of good character can make a mistake.

And Jim Street brought up McNeil. It seems to me this fellow did fully disclose the offence, and had to answer questions about it. Sounds very analogous to McNeil disclosure.
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

Jim Street
King Poobah
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby Jim Street » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:15 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:And Jim Street brought up McNeil. It seems to me this fellow did fully disclose the offence, and had to answer questions about it. Sounds very analogous to McNeil disclosure.


Not on the stand, defending his credibility in relation to a case though.
Opinions posted are my own sole opinion not reflective of any views/thoughts of agency. Answers may or may not be truthful, As if you couldn't tell.

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:29 pm

Jim Street wrote:
PPSC Lawyer wrote:And Jim Street brought up McNeil. It seems to me this fellow did fully disclose the offence, and had to answer questions about it. Sounds very analogous to McNeil disclosure.


Not on the stand, defending his credibility in relation to a case though.


Well as a lawyer you never have to take the stand. You ask questions, not answer them. Anything a lawyer says is not evidence (now to be fair, this is something some defence counsel and judges seem to forget).
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

Jim Street
King Poobah
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby Jim Street » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:05 pm

Didn't say you did.

But police officers do and are held to some supposed high standard, apparently lawyers don't even though they are supposed to have some ethics too I guess.
Opinions posted are my own sole opinion not reflective of any views/thoughts of agency. Answers may or may not be truthful, As if you couldn't tell.

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:31 pm

Jim Street wrote:Didn't say you did.

But police officers do and are held to some supposed high standard, apparently lawyers don't even though they are supposed to have some ethics too I guess.


I really don't get what you're trying to say here.

Why would lawyers have to give McNeil disclosure about themselves, when they're not the ones being cross-examined?
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

Jim Street
King Poobah
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby Jim Street » Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:57 pm

Bingo.

I am saying police officers have any and all disciplinary action, not just criminal convictions, disclosed. The lawyers and judges who present cases, hear cases and determine sentences don't have to?

A police officer's record, not even criminal convictions, can play a bearing in an accused's trial....but the lawyers and judges doesn't. Does that make sense?
Opinions posted are my own sole opinion not reflective of any views/thoughts of agency. Answers may or may not be truthful, As if you couldn't tell.

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:33 pm

Jim Street wrote:Bingo.

I am saying police officers have any and all disciplinary action, not just criminal convictions, disclosed. The lawyers and judges who present cases, hear cases and determine sentences don't have to?

A police officer's record, not even criminal convictions, can play a bearing in an accused's trial....but the lawyers and judges doesn't. Does that make sense?


...because a lawyer (or judge) aren't giving evidence in said trial.

Look - I'm not a big fan of McNeil. I think you can dig through this forum and see that I said so at the time. But you're trying to draw a comparison where it doesn't make any sense.

If it's of any assistance, disciplinary decisions of the Law Society are public record (unlike disciplinary actions against police absent McNeil disclosure), so it's not as if abuse by counsel can be swept under the rug.
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

ArcticCop
King Poobah
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:20 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby ArcticCop » Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:36 pm

such as things that would taint their "impartiality" like speeding tickets, impaired driving, domestic violence....lying....

all this stuff that defence likes to throw against the cop seems like it would be as applicable for the judge to disclose- for a different reason though. I do understand that the police are providing a different service in court than the judge- but his past conduct would seem to be as applicable- wouldnt you say?

Police service court decisions arent secret either. MacNeil is just a meatball thrown to defence.

Haweater
Seasoned Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby Haweater » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:10 pm

PPSC Lawyer wrote:
Whistler wrote:I wonder if somewhere out there is a website like blueline.ca but for lawyers, and somebody posted something along the lines of:

"Hello all, so I have this criminal conviction for forcible confinement and kidnapping, but its really not my fault and it was a long time ago, will that hurt my application?"


There is, in fact. I've seen a bunch of those sorts of questions.

And seriously - after reading the article is anybody outraged at this? It seems like a very, very unusual set of facts that is almost certain to never happen again. As well he fully co-operated with police, and with the Law Society.


Okay, but sometimes our actions have consequences, like not getting the job you want. Do you think any police service in Canada would pass an applicant on a background check if this info came out? Of course not. So if you couldn't be hired as a police officer (or really any sort of law enforcement) why would it be acceptable to be admitted to the bar.

TheCanadian
Veteran Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby TheCanadian » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:15 am

argyll wrote:
PPSC Lawyer wrote:
Sumo_CPO wrote:What's the big deal? Couple months ago it was a hooker, now it's a kidnapper. Does anyone actually expect more from lawyers? :mrgreen:


But (to my mind) there was a big difference between the two cases. This was a single instance, and did not involve any offence of dishonesty. That other lady has a multi-year pattern of criminal behaviour, including numerous offences of dishonesty.

The legal profession is held to a higher standard, but it's not one of perfection. The standard is "good character". Even someone of good character can make a mistake.

And Jim Street brought up McNeil. It seems to me this fellow did fully disclose the offence, and had to answer questions about it. Sounds very analogous to McNeil disclosure.


I agree there is a big difference - One involves an illegal activity between consenting adults, the other involves kidnapping. I am quite happy with the decision to take the former, and am very much not OK with the decision to take the latter.




LOL, Simple as it gets. Most Lawyers are all about the verdict rather than the truth.

User avatar
Longarm9
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby Longarm9 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:36 am

argyll wrote:
PPSC Lawyer wrote:
Sumo_CPO wrote:What's the big deal? Couple months ago it was a hooker, now it's a kidnapper. Does anyone actually expect more from lawyers? :mrgreen:


But (to my mind) there was a big difference between the two cases. This was a single instance, and did not involve any offence of dishonesty. That other lady has a multi-year pattern of criminal behaviour, including numerous offences of dishonesty.

The legal profession is held to a higher standard, but it's not one of perfection. The standard is "good character". Even someone of good character can make a mistake.

And Jim Street brought up McNeil. It seems to me this fellow did fully disclose the offence, and had to answer questions about it. Sounds very analogous to McNeil disclosure.


I agree there is a big difference - One involves an illegal activity between consenting adults, the other involves kidnapping. I am quite happy with the decision to take the former, and am very much not OK with the decision to take the latter.


Technically prostitution is not illegal in Canada. It's the solicitation in a public place that's illegal.
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill

PPSC Lawyer
Rookie Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 4:31 pm
Location: North of 60
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby PPSC Lawyer » Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:32 am

That lady didn't just have s. 213 convictions. In particular I seem to recall numerous frauds.
No longer with PPSC, but still 100% Crown Prosecutor.

User avatar
John014
Seasoned Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Lawyer with kidnapping conviction admitted to bar

Postby John014 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:29 pm

SupahDuck wrote:Surely there were other 99 other solutions to getting her out of the cult, other than forcibly confining her in a private residence (cottage), and her parent's home?

Sure his solution may have been the most direct, most "Hollywood"-like, most emotionally satisfying, but it wasn't legal..... Good intentions don't change the fact that a law was broken.

That principle could apply in any number of situations.... the previously discussed father-to-be, speeding at 175 km/h to the hospital because his wife was in labour distress..... Most certainly good intentions, but there were multiple ways to intervene differently....

Such situations are going to present themselves again in this lawyer's career..... is he going to let his "good intentions" get in the way of him adhering to the spirit and letter of the law?

Anyone who works in the legal profession has to be held to a higher standard than Joe Citizen, just like those who work in the enforcement professions. This incident calls into question his ability to adhere to that higher standard under pressure..... are we really sure it's just going to be a one-time thing?



Don't really have a position on his being admitted to the bar, however some of these cults are intense and forcible actions make sense.
When I was younger I volunteered with a drug/alcohol group for youths and met two girls who grew up in a cult. The religion turned them into herion addicts and they were raped repeatedly from the age of 5 by "priests" and family members on display. I for one would use any force necessary to get any person out of that situation.
Of course browsing the article this does not seem like the same type of cult, more like the "bible way" type out of Cloverdale BC, which is still considered a cult and seems to brainwash their members. The women have been mentally abused to believe they are absolute shit and the reason for the fall of man etc... if my neighbour's (I like my neighbour) kid was involved I would try and help. Forcible confinement was probably not the smartest way to go, however in the moment with a loved one or the loved one of a good friend people don't always think that what they are doing may not actually be the best option available (hence the conviction).

Also just a side note there are some amazing success stories of girls being "forcibly confined" (never heard of violence in these cases)in their families home and after a week or two they come out normal and the brainwashing of the cult has been reversed. Again not really giving an opinion of what this guy did was right or wrong or whether he should be practicing law, I just wanted to throw something in there.
If you choose Law Enforcement you LOSE the right to be unfit.

Police Officer


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest