Judge Advocate General has gone 3 years without filing reports to Def Minister

[Fishbone Jones]

Part of his job, in my way of thinking, is to delegate and supervise his subordinates, the ones that should be preparing this stuff for his signature.

It appears he is not an effective leader in that category.

Think of the shit storm that would be reaped upon any Commander who failed to provide his commands PERs or annual audit of the DA account. Should they also tell higher that they are too busy and that those reports really don't matter that much?

Just askin' cause it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Edit to add:

The Principles of Leadership

Achieve professional competence.

Appreciate your own strengths and limitations and pursue self-improvement.

Seek and accept responsibility. Lead by example.

Make sure that your followers know your meaning and intent, then lead them to the accomplishment of the mission.

Know your soldiers and promote their welfare.

Develop the leadership potential of your followers.

Make sound and timely decisions.

Train your soldiers as a team and employ them up to their capabilities.

Keep your followers informed of the mission, the changing situation and the overall picture.

(CFP 131(1), para 405)

This is the standard we hold MCpls to. Why not Generals?

 

[FJAG]

(Then again, I already doubted his judgement.  No barrister who works for the federal government should accept being named QC by any province - it creates a potential conflict of interest)

All legal officers in the Canadian military are required to hold an active practising certificate with one the provincial law societies.

The granting of a QC or an SC is the prerogative of a provincial government (via their lieutenant-governor - note too that the Federal government discontinued making their own appointments in 1993) and may be done under whatever conditions it considers appropriate. Generally it is an honour bestowed on a very limited number of lawyers who hold practising certificates within the province and are representative of a high standard of professionalism and/or community service. For a number of years now those provinces that award QCs have considered one of their own achieving the position of JAG as a meritorious event. Cathcart's predecessors BGen Ken Watkins and MGen Jerry Pitzul were awarded QCs. For that matter the prior Minister of Defence held a QC.

I really doubt that there is a conspiracy here to undermine the federal government by co-opting the JAGs with an honourary title. :Tin-Foil-Hat: Besides, any federal/provincial agreements or conflicts are handled by the Department of Justice lawyers, not the JAG.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

Hmm.  Former MND and his JAG both honoured by the small, incestuous legal community of a shrinking, failing province.  If it's a meaningless trifle, it should be rejected as such; and if it's got some value associated with it, the code of ethics prohibits its acceptance.

And a limited number?  I seem to recall reading that there's a single tower in Toronto with more QCs than all of London England.

 

[Transporter]

I wish I could ignore everything that I'm legally required to do without fear of reprisal from above. Well, I guess we're only talking military justice... can't be that important.

 

[Journeyman]

And yet, not a glimmer of understanding of why lawyers are held in such low regard; in fact, likely assuming that all 'right thinking' individuals must believe that we need more and more lawyers.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think part of the problem, following the tangent, is allowing these professional organizations (Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) to police themselves. They should come under common law the same as any other citizen. Too many times we've seen miniscule sanctions handed to a member of these groups, by their "peers" where anyone else outside of these societies (the common man) would be having air pumped to their cells.

I had a lawyer who was sanctioned by the law society on at least a half dozen instances. These include breach of trust, embezzlement, fraud and a number of minor violations besides. He still practiced while sanctioned. They eventually called him to account but he retired before his peers could disqualify him. Like I say, for his crimes, anyone else would have spent time in prison.

"Better call Saul !!!"

 

[FJAG]

Hmm.  Former MND and his JAG both honoured by the small, incestuous legal community of a shrinking, failing province.  If it's a meaningless trifle, it should be rejected as such; and if it's got some value associated with it, the code of ethics prohibits its acceptance.

And a limited number?  I seem to recall reading that there's a single tower in Toronto with more QCs than all of London England.

You probably recall wrong and besides we're talking apples and oranges.

Most provinces appoint roughly just under 1% of their eligible lawyers as QCs each year.

In the UK there are around 12,000 barristers and they appoint around a hundred annually - that's just under 1%. This of course adds up over the years and the population runs at about 8-9% of all barristers being QCs.

There are a lot more solicitors in the UK than barristers (as of 2013 127,000 or ten for every barrister) They however are not eligible for appointment.

The apples and oranges part is that in the UK you are either a barrister or a solicitor and only barristers are eligible to become QCs. Here in Canada in all the common law jurisdictions every lawyer is a "barrister and solicitor" so the >1% applies to a larger pool.

The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario to the rest of the world) has just over 40,000 lawyers with about 21,000 in private practice and the rest in government, corporations, etc. I haven't been able to find any specific references as to how many QCs there are in ON except that in the 1960s they were appointing about 90 per year. I figure that would be up to a couple of hundred by the time they stopped the practice in 1985 so maybe a total of 3,000 at that time and slowly dying off.

So, yes, it would seem that Ontario probably has more QCs than the UK but even Toronto does not have a building with over a thousand QCs in it.

I must correct my earlier post in that it appears that the federal government is once again appointing QCs. Six were appointed last Dec including Col Pat Gleeson who is the DJAG MJ&AL (yes DLaw/MJ-Ops works for him and I expect that will start a whole new round of comments)

Incidentally MGen Cathcart has just been reappointed for another three year term as JAG by the new Minister.

:stirpot:

Finally, one can debate the issue of whether there should be QCs or not. We had that debate at length in Manitoba when I was there and I've heard all the arguments pro and con and all I can say is - I've got mine Jack and they can't take it away from me. That may skew my viewpoint here a trifle.

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

I think part of the problem, following the tangent, is allowing these professional organizations (Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) to police themselves. They should come under common law the same as any other citizen. Too many times we've seen miniscule sanctions handed to a member of these groups, by their "peers" where anyone else outside of these societies (the common man) would be having air pumped to their cells.

I had a lawyer who was sanctioned by the law society on at least a half dozen instances. These include breach of trust, embezzlement, fraud and a number of minor violations besides. He still practiced while sanctioned. They eventually called him to account but he retired before his peers could disqualify him. Like I say, for his crimes, anyone else would have spent time in prison.

"Better call Saul !!!"

Lawyers do go to jail when their actions are criminal acts. I know several who have been there.

Law Societies are created by each provincial legislature to manage the professional standards of the lawyers (and in some cases paralegals) within their jurisdiction. The intent is to protect the public from unscrupulous or incompetent lawyers.

They do this by having a requirement for insurance in place so that a client is indemnified when their lawyer is negligent and a reimbursement fund to ensure that clients are indemnified when a lawyer steals from them.

Every law society has some form of complaints investigation committee and a discipline committee to prosecute and judge breaches of the Professional Code of Conduct. As I said above I've sat for 6 years on CIC and two years on Discipline in Manitoba. Hundreds of lawyers across Canada serve on these committees doing thousands of hours of free service in order to police the societies members. The maximum punishment however that is available is disbarment. Again, if the lawyer behaved in a criminal way the ordinary criminal justice system deals with that just like with every other citizen regardless of what the law society does.

Incidentally Manitoba publishes its discipline cases. You can find them here if you're interested http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/lawyer-regulation/discipline-case-digests.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

all I can say is - I've got mine Jack and they can't take it away from me.

Hence the problem with self-regulating professions - too much emphasis on collegiality at the expense of actually regulating the profession.  Indeed, one Ontario lawyer is currently facing sanction for daring to aggressively represent his client - seems the prosecution was thin skinned and didn't think another lawyer should dare to question his competence or motives in court.

Add to that the Star's recent series of articles disclosing how, even when criminal misconduct is identified, the Ontario Bar protects its own, and it's small wonder that lawyers are looked on with suspicion at the best of times.


Ontario also publishes its disciplinary files at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulatory_proceedings/.  However, it does not order lawyers to disclose they've been disbarred.  So, when my lawyer got the boot for "knowingly assisting in dishonesty or fraud", he sent out a letter dated a few days before the ruling announcing his retirement, forgetting to mention the whole disbarred thing. EDIT TO ADD: He's never faced criminal sanction for assisting in fraud.

 

[MedCorps]

I wish I could ignore everything that I'm legally required to do without fear of reprisal from above. Well, I guess we're only talking military justice... can't be that important.

I guess now I have top cover for not forwarding any updates to my Unit Registry of Disciplinary Proceedings to the JAG Branch by the 7th day of each month IAW QR&O 107.15.  Whew... one less pesky regulatory requirement thing to worry about as a CO! 

MC

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't suppose pack drill and junior officer field training under the care of a attentive MWO can be done?

 

[FJAG]

Hence the problem with self-regulating professions - too much emphasis on collegiality at the expense of actually regulating the profession.  Indeed, one Ontario lawyer is currently facing sanction for daring to aggressively represent his client - seems the prosecution was thin skinned and didn't think another lawyer should dare to question his competence or motives in court.

Add to that the Star's recent series of articles disclosing how, even when criminal misconduct is identified, the Ontario Bar protects its own, and it's small wonder that lawyers are looked on with suspicion at the best of times.


Ontario also publishes its disciplinary files at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulatory_proceedings/.  However, it does not order lawyers to disclose they've been disbarred.  So, when my lawyer got the boot for "knowingly assisting in dishonesty or fraud", he sent out a letter dated a few days before the ruling announcing his retirement, forgetting to mention the whole disbarred thing. EDIT TO ADD: He's never faced criminal sanction for assisting in fraud.

I know I won't change your mind - somewhere deep down you seem to have suffered an incurable trauma - but at the risk of others believing that what you are saying is true, I'll take a stab at it.

The disciplinary process is not collegial; it is adversarial. The law society has its own prosecutors and forensic accountants that are engaged when a complaint is made. Lawyers are required to file responses to a complaint and failure to do so is in itself a disciplinary offence. That doesn't occur in other professions (although physicians have a similar process).

Lawyers are the only profession where the failure to treat other lawyers, the public or the courts with courtesy is a disciplinary offence. So is a failure to return phone calls. No other profession has such standards. There is no rule against representing a client aggressively. In fact the rules require is

"5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must represent the client resolutely and
honourably within the limits of the law, while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness,
courtesy, and respect.

What you are calling a lawyer representing his client "too aggressively" is undoubtedly one who has crossed the line between resolute representation of a client and personal attacks on another lawyer. A hearing will sort out whether the crown was thin skined or the defence lawyer an a**hole.

Since when does anyone care what the Toronto Star says?

No one would expect that a lawyer who has been disbarred would adequately advise his clients of that fact - that lawyer has already shown he can't be trusted. Rule 5-100(1) in Manitoba requires that the CEO of the Law Society MUST cause a public notice to be published in a newspaper in the area where the lawyer practised and to the remainder of the profession and to all other Canadian law societies if the lawyer has been found guilty of misconduct, conduct unbecoming or incompetence and been disbarred, suspended or allowed to resign.

In addition when a member is disbarred, suspended or allowed to retire, the society ensures that a custodian of that lawyer's files is appointed (if necessary by court order) to ensure that the lawyer's active clients continue to receive legal representation. A custodian must advise each client of the circumstances and that the client has the right to use the custodian as his/her legal counsel or choose any other lawyer to do so.

Finally as to the criminal charges thing, I'll just say this one more time: the law society is not a criminal prosecution arm, it's a disciplinary body. It is up to the police or the crown to lay criminal charges in appropriate circumstances and they do although unfortunately all too often the police and the crown consider such defalcations (as they do with many fraud disputes between ordinary citizens) to be a civil and not criminal matter. - that's not the fault of the law society but the criminal justice system in general.

Have a wonderful day.

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Who cares what the collegial sanctions are? If they broke the law, or stepped outside the bounds of professionalism, they should be charged with a civil offence and made to answer in a court of law, in front of the public, not behind closed doors in front of their peers.

 

[FJAG]

Who cares what the collegial sanctions are? If they broke the law, or stepped outside the bounds of professionalism, they should be charged with a civil offence and made to answer in a court of law, in front of the public, not behind closed doors in front of their peers.

Are you really reading my comments?

What I said is that it is up to the police and the provincial crown to determine if criminal charges are warranted on a case by case basis.

There are numerous disciplinary infractions (failure to return communications being but one) that have absolutely no criminal issue attached to them.

Others like theft from a client's trust account are criminal and are prosecuted. I personally know of one who worked just up the street from me who was disbarred and also tried criminally and sent to jail for a year.

Criminal charges and disciplinary charges are apples and oranges although in appropriate circumstances they overlap and both are brought.

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I, personally, know one that did exactly that, more than once, and never saw a courtroom. His peers, thought they had punished him enough, at least twice.

And yes, I'm reading what you wrote. Elsewise, I wouldn't be responding.

I admire your tenacity in defending your profession, however, you can't deny there's a certain amount of favoritism that goes with self appointed bodies. Things that aren't in the circle of influence to mere mortals and non ringknockers.

 

[Old Sweat]

In the meantime, and I am a bit underwhelmed that the issue did not arise among a group who mostly rail at useless bureaucracy, what real purpose does the annual report accomplish in an era of on-line postings and massive data availability? When was the requirement first enacted by Parliament and what was the intention? What are the alternatives to filing a paper report with the MND who then, I guess, tables it in the House of Commons? If, as FJAG has stated and I tend to accept his word for it, much of it is pro forma and the rest is filling in the blanks, surely there are better ways of employing the time of some highly qualified and presumably highly paid individuals.

 

[dapaterson]

In the meantime, and I am a bit underwhelmed that the issue did not arise among a group who mostly rail at useless bureaucracy, what real purpose does the annual report accomplish in an era of on-line postings and massive data availability? When was the requirement first enacted by Parliament and what was the intention? What are the alternatives to filing a paper report with the MND who then, I guess, tables it in the House of Commons? If, as FJAG has stated and I tend to accept his word for it, much of it is pro forma and the rest is filling in the blanks, surely there are better ways of employing the time of some highly qualified and presumably highly paid individuals.

I don't care if there are better ways; I care that, per the legislature, the JAG is required to do this.  It is not the role of the military to second-guess the legislature and ignore their direction.  It is a valid role for advisers within the military to make recommendations for changes and improvements.  But until the legislation is amended, it remains a requirement to obey it.

That the senior legal officer in the CAF (and his cheering section of other lawyers) doesn't seem to understand that he's not Sylvester Stallone is what is most troubling here - he is not the law; he is subject to the law and failing to uphold it.


Are the better ways?  Probably.  Should the JAG advise on making changes?  Definitely.  Could the JAG include in his annual report such recommendations to the Minister?  Yes.  But as long as the law says the JAG must do so, the JAG must do so.  Deliberately ignoring the law is not a characteristic one should look for in a senior legal advisor.

 

[FJAG]

Old Sweat

The requirement was put into the NDA in response to recommendation 5d of Dicksons' 1997 Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Police Investigation Services which called for an annual report on the state of the system of military justice by the JAG to both the Minister and the CDS.  Recommendation 6 called for the Minister to release the report to the public. The current wording in s. 9.3 of the NDA was as a result of the amendments to the Act carried out in 1998 immediately after the report was accepted. You may recall that Dickson's Group was formed as the result of issues which came to the surface during the Somalia Affair. As a side note - very many of the issues identified were known within DND but during this period the government refused over and over again to set aside time on the parliamentary agenda to introduce NDA amendments. Somalia turned that around in a big way. Many of the shortcomings that Dickson identified were ones identified by the legal and MP community themselves.

My own opinion is that these provisions and many others that came about were to provide overall transparency. While I have offered reasons (but not excuses) for the delay in these reports I fully appreciate the poor optics that come out of this.

Recceguy

What I will agree with is that there is undoubtedly a majority of the population which feels as you do that self governance of a profession is akin to letting the fox guard the chickencoop.

Having been extensively involved in the investigative and prosecution side of law society discipline I can tell you without hesitation that there was no favouritism being shown. More typically we were disgusted by the stupidity or avariciousness of our fellow members. Lawyers are like most people; generally well meaning and honest and believers in their obligations to their clients. When one of our own crosses the line we tend to turn on him.

There's one thing to add to this. Besides bad lawyers there are also bad clients. Some clients come into the legal process with false expectations of what can be accomplished in their case and they will turn on the lawyer when he fails to meet their expectations or refuses to follow an unethical course of conduct demanded by the client. There are always two sides to a complaint but usually the facts before the investigating committee will set out what the circumstances are. Sometimes complaints are dismissed, sometimes a solution is arbitrated without charges being necessary and sometimes charges are required because of the seriousness of the infraction.

Incidentally, in Manitoba, and most jurisdictions, these committees come from the elected benchers of the law society as well as members of the general public who are appointed as lay benchers. During my time the committee had some ten benchers on it with two of them lay benchers. These were excellent individuals who provided an invaluable outsiders' view during the investigative process.

I've always lived with the understanding that the majority of the public hates lawyers but like their own lawyer. Obviously those who've been screwed by a lawyer feel differently but luckily there are tens of thousands of satisfactory legal transactions for every one where a lawyer was negligent or unethical. It's that small fraction that taints the profession.

My tenacity, if you will, comes from the fact that I've worked extensively inside the system and know its procedures and the good people involved in it. I'll never say the system can't be improved; we made changes to the code and the act and the rules under the act continuously every time that we found a weakness that kept us from statutorily doing the right thing. I expect there will be more.

Unfortunately I find that the staunchest critics of the system have only a passing familiarity of its elements but are nonetheless more than prepared to make extreme statements about it. I find this to be particularly true amongst the press who in my view are "jacks of all trades and masters of none" who leap on a situation and begin criticising and will seek out and find the usual band of contrarian lawyers who will be more than happy to spout off their moral outrage. There is no news value in saying "the law society does a great job 99% of the time" when instead you can look to one hard case which had a less than optimum outcome and say "The sky is falling! Kill all Lawyers!"

All that said I've been happily retired for five years now and no longer have a vested interest--just opinions.

I'm quite enjoying this thread. Most of the other threads have been a bit dull.

Both of you have a good one.

:cheers:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

One last comment; I know Blaise Cathcart personally. He's earned his promotion.

I know him too, and concur completely.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Maybe it's just me, but if it takes three years before anyone notices an annual report is adrift, maybe it's not required.