• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lawyers Allegedly Behaving Badly

He quieted down quite a bit after he almost died, but he still had a number of garbage cases moving through the courts.
It seems the pandemic response piqued his ire. His involvement with LSO tribunals predated that.

His (well, his Constitutional Rights Centre) track record for taking on various levels of government isn't particularly stellar.
 
Meanwhile, in BC:


BC lawyer admits to sexual misconduct, resigns from practice two weeks after announcing retirement​



A family law lawyer in Surrey, British Columbia, resigned his Law Society of BC membership after admitting to more than two decades of sexual misconduct, including taking surreptitious photographs of an employee’s cleavage and penning a confessional letter about his sexual and romantic feelings towards another employee.

Under a consent agreement with the law society, Stuart Zukerman of Zukerman Law will not practise law for five years; apply for membership to any other law society without first advising the LSBC; work in any capacity for any lawyer or law firm in Canada without first obtaining the consent of LSBC’s executive director.

In September 2023, Zukerman also promised the LSBC he would not be alone with any person who identifies as female while practising law. The LSBC said this rule was in place while the law society was investigating a complaint from a lawyer previously employed at Zukerman’s firm and would stay in place until Zukerman’s resignation on Nov. 30.

 
It seems the pandemic response piqued his ire. His involvement with LSO tribunals predated that.

His (well, his Constitutional Rights Centre) track record for taking on various levels of government isn't particularly stellar.
He ended up in ICU on a ventilator for a while and pretty much faded from prominence after that.
 
This may well be the ultimate Army.CA issue:

Retired CAF lawyer, charged by the MPs for allegedly impersonating a CAF officer, charges dropped, but facing bar sanction for not reporting the criminal code charges laid by the MPs - about which noted retired CAF lawyer Rory Fowler has a few things to say...


 
Does an officer not retain his commission after release/ retirement?

Of course ;)

Stand Up Reaction GIF by Xbox
 
There are regulations in when one can claim to be rank (retired) which the gentleman in question did not reach; and a commission does not entitle one to claim status post-release
That's interesting. I don't want to send you off on a research hunt, but I never knew that before. It seems bloody mean-spirited.

🤨
 
A minimum of ten years.

And it's a minister's regulation too. You know that there is entirely too much bureaucracy in the military when people spend time coming up with something like this, which undoubtedly engaged a number of other people in debating the issue of "what is the appropriate period of service before a person can call him/herself 'x rank (ret'd)' rather than merely 'honourably released'?" Is there anything useful to be obtained in denying an 8-year captain or master corporal that privilege?

I know that I'm probably more cynical about the lengths that the military will go to in the field of regulating absolutely useless bullshit, but this one takes the cake, IMHO. It's just so petty and arbitrary. I'm sure that somewhere there are folks who consider this to be an absolutely vital limitation to impose on folks who have served their country (but apparently not long enough to suit them). But, honestly, WTF?

(And, no! After 44 years in the CAF with 25 in the legal branch, I never knew about this piece of :poop:.)

😠
 
Much of the QR&O has undergone minimal change since unification. This was probably an easy way to abolish the retired lists and thus assuage someone's ego, years ago.

Note that since about 2000 amendments have the date attached to them - so this regulation is old and, like many, probably not maintained.
 
And it's a minister's regulation too. You know that there is entirely too much bureaucracy in the military when people spend time coming up with something like this, which undoubtedly engaged a number of other people in debating the issue of "what is the appropriate period of service before a person can call him/herself 'x rank (ret'd)' rather than merely 'honourably released'?" Is there anything useful to be obtained in denying an 8-year captain or master corporal that privilege?

I know that I'm probably more cynical about the lengths that the military will go to in the field of regulating absolutely useless bullshit, but this one takes the cake, IMHO. It's just so petty and arbitrary. I'm sure that somewhere there are folks who consider this to be an absolutely vital limitation to impose on folks who have served their country (but apparently not long enough to suit them). But, honestly, WTF?

(And, no! After 44 years in the CAF with 25 in the legal branch, I never knew about this piece of :poop:.)

😠

If I recall correctly, that QR&O (KR&O, when?) restricted the use of "retired rank" to Captains (and above) or their navy and air force equivalent. The inclusion of all ranks may have been a change in the 1980s or 1990s. However, if one goes back to the 1917 KRs, the rules were a little different.

1728576120801.png

Restricting the use to officers is still the way in the British Forces.

1728576850628.png

But down under they haven't yet embraced including all ranks:

Address retired officers of the ADF by rank
Commissioned officers who retire can continue to use their military rank. When writing their name, use their rank and include ‘(Retd)’ after any post-nominals.

Example
  • General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK CVO MC (Retd)

As to appropriateness, Sir Humphrey has an opinion.

 
Suspended Ottawa lawyer James Bowie has been ordered to pay a former client — and plaintiff in a civil case against him — more than $235,000 after proposing she pay for his legal services with oral sex and disclosing personal details about her online after her allegations garnered media coverage.

In an Oct. 11 decision, Superior Court Justice Heather Williams wrote that Bowie's actions were "shocking" and "offend the court's sense of decency."

 
Back
Top