Lawyers Gone Bad

by Philip Slayton

  32. Robert Verkaik, “Unmasked: Author who exposed lawyers’ antics,” The Independent, 27 August 2005, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article308360.ece (accessed 6 September 2006).

  33. The back jacket of Fish Sunday Thinking (Bury St. Edmunds: Arima Publishing, 2005) describes what the book is about: “In a large London law firm, trainee solicitor Denton Voyle contemplates why he is pursuing a career in law. Every Sunday afternoon … he questions his miserable, listless, alcohol-fuelled existence and wonders if the pursuit of being the big fish could ever really satisfy him.” Criticism of the law and the legal profession in books, including serious literature, is a long-standing and powerful tradition. An outstanding example is Bleak House (1852–53) by Charles Dickens. “The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself,” wrote Dickens (Chapter 39). The lawyer is described as “smoke-dried and faded, dwelling among mankind but not consorting with them, aged without experience of genial youth, and so long used to make his cramped nest in holes and corners of human nature that he has forgotten its broader and better range” (Chapter 42). A contemporary example (one of a large number) can be found in Hilary Mantel’s memoir, Giving Up the Ghost (London: Harper, 2004): “When I was eighteen I left home to go to the London School of Economics. My course was law, and my burning desire for equity made me peculiarly unsuited to the subject” (154). Professor Julien Hofman of the University of Cape Town has drawn my attention to a lengthy passage about the legal profession in The Reverse of the Medal by Patrick O’Brian (London: HarperCollins, 1997), in which Stephen Maturin makes this comment among many others: “I do not say that all lawyers are bad, but I do maintain that the general tendency is bad” (226).

  34. www.anonymouslawyer.blogspot.com.

  35. Jeremy Blachman, Anonymous Lawyer (New York: Henry Holt, 2006). In a representative passage, the book’s central character describes the real meaning of phrases used in bills sent by his Los Angeles firm to clients: “‘Research’ is code for surfing the Internet, ‘drafting’ is code for eating in your office, ‘misc. legal forms’ is code for ordering gifts online, and ‘preparing for a meeting’ is code for taking a crap. Everyone knows. It’s no big deal” (56).

  36. Beppi Crosariol, “Bay Street veterans play law life for laughs,” The Globe and Mail, 9 November 2005, B10. Crosariol describes “well-dressed, ambitious young women and men working in close proximity late into the night to ratchet up the tension.”

  37. Andrew Ryan, “And justice for all,” The Globe and Mail, television section, 19–25 November 2005, 6.

  38. “‘Boston Legal’ represents a new low in pop culture’s portrayal of the legal profession … the main characters … are really disgusting people,” Mark Donald, “Lawyer Prestige Hits New Low with Fall TV Season,” Texas Lawyer, 12 August 2004, www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1101738508222 (accessed 8 August 2006).

  39. Alessandra Stanley, “First, Kill All the Lawyers? Nah, Give ’Em Therapy,” The New York Times, 14 September 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/arts/television/ 14stan.html? (accesssed 6 September 2006).

  40. 183. Lawrence Joseph, Lawyerland: What Lawyers Really Talk About When They Talk About Law (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1997). Lawyerland records many highly critical comments of the legal profession, made by lawyers themselves. In another example, a federal judge says, “Lawyers know too much. If you know too much, how don’t you lie? Everything you say has another meaning. The posturing, the playacting, arguing over the smallest things, the narcissism, the beyond-belief egomania” (72).

  Two: The New Age

  1. I have drawn on several published accounts of the Pilzmaker scandal. The Globe and Mail, and in particular reporter Victor Malarek, gave the story extensive coverage over two years. (Ironically, The Globe and Mail’s coverage of the Lang Michener affair contributed to that newspaper’s receiving in 1988 the Michener Award for disinterested and meritorious public service journalism.) Malarek also wrote about the affair in his book Gut Instinct: The Making of an Investigative Journalist (Toronto: Macmillan Canada, 1996). Michael Crawford focused on the Lang Michener and law society “cover up” angle in “The Lang Michener Affair,” Canadian Lawyer, April 1990, as did Margaret Cannon in “The whistle-blower,” Saturday Night, October 1990.

  2. See note 1.

  3. See note 1.

  4. 174.

  5. 217.

  6. Victor Malarek, “4 lawyers’ aid to Hong Kong immigrants investigated by RCMP and law society,” The Globe and Mail, 21 June 1988, A1.

  7. Victor Malarek, “14 lawyers at top firm investigated,” The Globe and Mail, 6 July 1988, A1.

  8. Victor Malarek, “Charges averted after smuggling uncovered at law firm,” The Globe and Mail, 8 July 1988, A1.

  9. Victor Malarek, “Judge orders immigration lawyer to pay $75,000 bail, stay in Ontario,” The Globe and Mail, 7 July 1989, A4.

  10. Journalist Lynda Hurst has given an exhaustive account of what went on inside Lang Michener. See “The saga that set Ontario’s legal world abuzz,” Toronto Star, 22 July 1990, B1.

  11. 206. Claude Thomson, lawyer for four of the five lawyers, was reported in the Toronto Star as telling the disciplinary committee that “media reports were sensationalized and distorted, and the five received more bad publicity than ‘disbarred Harry Kopyto.’” Rick Haliechuk, “Five lawyers given a tongue-lashing for misconduct,” Toronto Star, 19 January 1990, A2. See Chapter 15 for the story of Harry Kopyto.

  12. Victor Malarek, “Panel reprimands 5 Lang lawyers as penalty,” The Globe and Mail, 19 January 1990, A1.

  13. My account of the Donaldson affair is drawn from the public report of the law society discipline committee and other public documents. See Law Society of Upper Canada v. Donaldson, [1992] L.S.D.D. No. 60.

  14. Tracey Tyler, “Lawyer guilty of misconduct over billings,” Toronto Star, 21 May 1992, A6.

  15. Dan Westell, “Crude justice served,” The Globe and Mail Report on Business, 28 May 1991, B1.

  16. “Lawyers in Ontario mindful of misconduct: Change in attitude cited as high-profile member disbarred,” The Vancouver Sun, 19 September 1991, A6.

  17. The discipline committee’s decision described Bob Donaldson’s life, based on the evidence given to it, in this way:

  • the Solicitor was at work very early in the morning (in the range of 5:00–7:00 a.m.) and left very late at night

  • he worked seven days a week

  • he was able to spend more weekend time at home or his country property when the fax machine made his offices in those locations more accessible

  • he was almost invariably available to clients and others, if not instantly, within hours, regardless of the day of the week or the time of the day

  • he illustrated his travel commitments by explaining that in one given week, he travelled to and from Vancouver three times because he had a deal in each place; he took Valium and alcohol to facilitate sleep on the airplane so as not to lose valuable time resting upon arrival at each destination

  • he rarely took holidays, and if he did, he was always preoccupied with work or work-related activities

  • … the Solicitor spent one hour per week with his wife.

  18. See note 13.

  19. Melnitzer is now a respected legal commentator and writer who, turning adversity to his advantage, has written books about the frauds he committed and his subsequent prison experiences. See Maximum Minimum Medium: A Journey Through Canadian Prisons (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1995), and a novel in which Melnitzer thinly disguises some of his experiences, particularly in prison—Dirty White Collar (Toronto: ECW, 2002). See also Brian Martin, Never Enough: The Remarkable Frauds of Julius Melnitzer (Toronto: Stoddart, 1993).

  20. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Rovet, [1992] L.S.D.D. No. 24.

  Three: Just Building Up an Art Collection

  1. An earlier version of this story appeared as “Deconstructing Daniel,” the cover story of the February 2004 is
sue of Canadian Lawyer. I interviewed Daniel Cooper in Toronto twice, on February 26, 2002, and April 3, 2002. At the second meeting, he told me he was applying for readmission to the bar, and asked me not to pursue his story until the law society had dealt with his application, after which he promised to cooperate. I held off, Cooper was readmitted, and thereafter, despite his promise, he refused to communicate with me.

  2. The Donaldson and Cooper stories played out about the same time. On May 28, 1991, the same page of The Globe and Mail, B2, had separate stories about each lawyer.

  3. Peter Whybrow, American Mania: When More Is Not Enough (New York: Norton, 2005), 57.

  4. For the story of Dome Petroleum, see Jim Lyon, Dome: The Rise and Fall of the House That Jack Built (Scarborough: Avon, 1983), and Peter Foster, Other People’s Money: The Banks, the Government and Dome (Toronto: Collins, 1983).

  5. See Christopher Moore, The History of McCarthy Tétrault (Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, 2005).

  6. See Stephen Strauss, “Computer lawyers: Explorers chart course into a new legal maze,” The Globe and Mail, 25 September 1980, T1.

  7. My account of the immediate events leading up to Dan Cooper’s resignation from McCarthy Tétrault is based on an interview with Arthur Scace. Interview by Philip Slayton, Toronto, 28 May 2003.

  8. Cooper’s major client at the time was Global Resorts International, which was attempting with Cooper’s advice to establish a cable television network in Serbia. Cooper sat on Global’s board of directors. Apparently, Global later sued McCarthy Tétrault, alleging that Cooper had been negligent in his representation of Global and had breached his fiduciary duty. The law firm is believed to have settled this claim.

  9. See Chapter 2.

  10. See, for example, “Lawyer quits over $200,000 payments,” The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo), 13 November 1990, B8.

  11. “Lawyer quits firm over misuse of funds,” The Globe and Mail, 13 November 1990, A5.

  12. The May 28, 2003, interview with Arthur Scace.

  13. A McCarthy Tétrault senior partner later told me that, before Scace sent this letter, a partnership meeting was held to discuss whether sending such a letter was appropriate.

  14. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Cooper, [1991] L.S.D.D. No. 93.

  15. Deborah Chesnie Cooper, interview by Philip Slayton, Toronto, 25 August 2003.

  16. See Re Weisman, Report to Convocation, 27 January 1997. The Weisman criteria are frequently applied in readmission cases. See, for example, the 2004 Law Society of Upper Canada cases of Robert Charles Watt, [2004] L.S.D.D. No. 10, Bruce Allan Clark, [2004] L.S.D.D. No. 6, and Henry Peter Steponaitis, [2004] L.S.D.D. No. 16.

  17. The conditions required Cooper: To obtain the law society’s approval of an eighteen-month plan of supervision; to pass the bar admission course examinations in business law and professional responsibility; and to restrict his practice to corporate, commercial, and technology law (the secretary of the law society was allowed to approve expansion of Cooper’s practice to other areas). Order of The Law Society of Upper Canada, 21 November 2002, file no. READ03/02.

  Four: A Kid Who’s Been Beat Up Bad

  1. Patti Edgar, “Doctor-lawyer-trekker dies in sleep at 29,” The Gazette (Montreal), 20 July 2001, D11.

  2. The Queen v. Ingrid Yin Yu Chen, Provincial Court of Manitoba, transcript of proceedings before The Honourable Judge Lismer, 30 June 1999, 1.

  3. Transcript of 30 June 1999 proceedings, 29.

  4. Ingrid Chen, interview by Philip Slayton, Winnipeg, 10 November 2005.

  5. In Chen v. Law Society of Manitoba, [1999] M.J. No. 546. This was Chen’s appeal from the decision of the law society to suspend her from practice. The appeal was dismissed.

  6. Much of Justice Shulman’s account comes from the June 30, 1999, bail hearing. For example, at page 21 of the transcript of that hearing, Maniella is describing the wiretap of one of the conversations between Chen and Patrick Armstrong:

  Ms. Chen says … “I want a quote on a price.” Mr. Armstrong says, “Well, if I break a leg, a leg is $1,000. You don’t want something like that.” Ms. Chen says, “No, I want them to fuck off and leave me alone. The thing is I have a list of about four guys right now. There is two I’m debating on and two I’ve completely made up my mind.” The conversation goes on. Ms. Chen says, “I’m going to get a list together and shit and write down all what I want. I want you to give me prices on this. I’m looking for results. I’ve had it.”

  7. Chen v. Law Society of Manitoba, [2000] M.J. No. 230. Chen and her lawyers have made much of alleged procedural unfairness in the law society hearings. In this judgment, the Court of Appeal noted the following:

  Potentially of … concern to this Court is the allegation that the committee had before it significant and important documents, copies of which were not provided to the applicant or her counsel. There can be no doubt that the committee, but not Ms Chen or her counsel, was in possession of a 21-page investigation report—with attachments. The report consisted of a summary of events, including the bail hearing, an extract from the transcript of intercepted private communications (part of the Crown bail brief).

  Examination of the investigation report reveals that with one exception—a memorandum respecting the disposition of the $3,400 U.S. retainer—the report simply and accurately summarizes the facts contained in the bail hearing transcript and the Crown bail brief that were already in the possession of the applicant and her counsel. With respect to the retainer, there was other evidence, well known to the applicant, to much the same effect as the memorandum.

  There is equally no merit to the alternative position, emphasized by Ms Chen’s counsel at the reconvened hearing before this Court, that it was in some way improper for the committee to have before it the bail hearing transcript and Crown bail brief including the entire transcript of the wiretap information. All of this information was known to the applicant, and known to be in the possession of the Society. It was of obvious and critical relevance to the committee’s deliberations on July 8th.

  In the result, the fact that the applicant was not in possession of the summary provided to the committee did not operate to the prejudice of the applicant. That is to say it did not deprive her of a fair hearing.

  8. Ingrid Y. Chen and Rodney Graham, Protect Yourself from Your Lawyer: Unveiling the Benefactors of Misery (Winnipeg: Ingrid Chen and Rodney Graham, 2002). In the book’s introduction, Chen writes, “Publishing this book may disbar me for life. This book will offend, outrage, anger and even frighten many lawyers.” That is unlikely; the book is poorly written and devoid of substance. Chen’s view of life is perhaps shown in another part of the introduction: “In a grown up world those you think you can rely on all to [sic] often betray you, mislead you, and use you.”

  9. The Winnipeg Free Press, in a number of its stories about Ingrid Chen, incorrectly reported that she had been convicted of falsifying immigration documents, and later that she had been disbarred (sometimes describing her as an “ex-lawyer”). Chen has threatened a defamation suit. The newspaper, in its archives, has prefaced these stories with a correction, which sometimes adds, “We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.”

  10. Mike McIntyre, “City job news to woman seeking visa,” Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 2003, B3.

  11. Mike McIntyre, “Ex-lawyer gets conditional sentence,” Winnipeg Free Press, 15 May 2004, B3.

  12. R. v. Chen, R. v. Guevarra, 2004 MBCA 194 (CanLII).

  13. Amended statement of claim, 23 August 2005, paragraph 11.

  14. R. v. Chen, 2006 MBQB 241 (CanLII).

  15. Attempts by Chen to quash her committal to stand trial, arguing on procedural grounds, have failed. See R. v. Chen, [2006] M.J. No. 198.

  16. Carol Sanders, “Agent, web firm in dispute,” Winnipeg Free Press, 28 July 2005, B1.

  17. Carol Sanders, “Police review web firm complaints,” Winnipeg Free Press, 13 August 2005, B6.

  18. Ingrid Chen, “Attention Ingrid
Chen,” email message to author, 24 October 2005.

  19. Ingrid Chen, “Arrangements,” email message to author, 26 October 2005.

  20. Ingrid Chen, “Arrangements,” email message to author, 4 November 2005.

  21. Ingrid Chen, “Thanks,” email message to author, 15 November 2005.

  22. Ingrid Chen, “Hi there,” email message to author, 25 November 2005.

  Five: Wild and Crazy Guys

  1. Bermuda Short had two parts. In part one, FBI and RCMP undercover agents posed as members of the Columbian Cali cocaine cartel who wanted to launder drug proceeds. Part two featured a fictitious foreign mutual fund; posing as a fund employee, an FBI agent approached business executives and stockbrokers offering to buy stock at above market rates in exchange for kickbacks. A prime target of Bermuda Short part one was Martin Chambers, once a Vancouver real estate lawyer. In December 2002, Chambers was convicted by a Florida court of laundering purported cocaine trafficking money and was sentenced to almost sixteen years in prison. He received the upper range of possible sentencing, despite the contention by defence lawyers that he is “dedicated in [sic] making sure the natural resources, the trees, the fishing rights and native Indian rights have been preserved.” It is reported that, when sentenced, Chambers talked about how much he loved his common-law wife, known as “Queenie,” and began sobbing in court.

  2. Bill Majcher, interviews by Philip Slayton: Toronto, 2 February 2005; Vancouver, 17 February 2005; Toronto, 17 March 2005; and Toronto, 16 August 2005.

  3. www.thefiftybest.com (accessed 14 December 2005).

  4. This seizure of documents led to two cases on solicitor-client privilege—R. v. Law Office of Simon Rosenfeld, [2003] O.J. No. 834, and R. v. Law Office of Simon Rosenfeld, [2003] O.J. No. 5821. The first case was an important one about the proper procedure to be followed in determining whether seized documents are the subject of privilege.