Half The Point

This is an interesting article but not necessarily for the intended reasons:

Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin joined Ms. Robertson in her siege against a “business model” of operating law firms that is soul-destroying, outmoded and steadily driving women away from a private law practice. The business model typically involves an expectation that lawyers will put in 70 or 80-hour weeks and forgo their family lives in return for wealth and partnership status. Putting aside her prepared text in favour of an off-the-cuff analysis of the evolution of women’s battle to gain an equal place in the law, Chief Justice McLachlin said that for women, winning that legal right to become lawyers was only half the battle. More than half of law school graduates are now women, she said, yet they are grossly underrepresented in private law firms.

The funny thing is, of course, men are equally affected but sometimes it happens in ways we call success. Male or female, the pressured private lawyer can find themselves with no home life, drinking or simply losing it at work – and like any lawyer I have been witness to these breakdowns – but carries themselves as a business leader to the greater community and sometimes even at home. Massive accommodations at work are made all around the person but often the root cause is not to be addressed. What is the root cause? Often the burden of carrying the responsibility for solving horrible crises of other is just too much, often the expectation of a millionaire’s life-style is the cause of over-whelming debt. Often it is just too much for any reasonably balanced person.

The legal profession at least in Canada has followed down a path that allows it to characterize all this as unfair to women. I have no idea why it is not blindingly obvious as being unfair to men, too.

Lawyers Gone Bad

There is a new book in Canada called Lawyers Gone Bad which is causing a controversy within the law talking trade:

Lawyers Gone Bad features the story of about 20 disgraced lawyers who faced disciplinary action for offences ranging from overbilling to sexual offences against children, to hiring thugs to beat up clients. In the past week, the Canadian Bar Association’s head office received upwards of 200 fuming emails and phone calls and the regional offices have also been inundated with irate solicitors baying for both Maclean’s and Slayton’s blood. He’s been the subject of choice at law firm water coolers across the country, and the featured hot topic on the city’s legal blogs. Since Monday, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association have each issued scathing statements condemning Slayton’s book and the magazine article – particularly the cover, which boasted five would-be lawyers labelled “I sleep with my clients,” “I take bribes” and “Justice? Ha!”

Lawyers get particularly prickly about these kinds of things but this author is a former dean of law school and former a senior practitioner on Bay Street in Toronto. Here is my take:

  • Law is very funny (not ha-ha) stuff. Unless you are rich and seeking preventative guidance, for most people being involved with law and lawyers means you have to spend masses of money to get you out of the greatest crises of your life. Of course you will be unhappy.
  • Practicing law is often no fun. Most lawyers earn a middle class living and deal with unhappy people going through the greatest crises of their lives. Many times you will not fix the problem so much as guide to a best resolution. People want you to fix the problem – get the charges dropped, make the deadbeat like he was when you met him, make it like it was before the accident. Can’t do it. Lawyers often think they can do more than they can actually do.
  • I have been exposed to an inordinate number of lawyers under discipline caused by things from recourse to alcohol to congenital thievery to simple ignorance. The system does not weed these people out as aggressively as people might wish. They hurt peoples lives.

The combination of crisis, over expectation and human weakness is a bad one. It does exist in other professions but, if my opinion is worth anything almost 20 years after entering law school, it is accentuated in law. Yet law and lawyers are vital in a free and democratic society. Maybe this book will do some good, have a result other than a circling of the CBA’s wagons. After all, people once scoffed at Jose Canseco.

The Cheats Around All Us

For a blogger of some heritage relative to the medium – yes, I am now part of Canada’s blogging heritage being well into my fifth year of it – I hope I have no sense of my own importance. Sure, I did once…but that was 2004 when bloggers were going to rule the planet, leading through words alone, thrilling with my intellectual purity and strident adherence to the one or two ideas I had, striding over cities and past agricultural valleys like the uber-man I clearly had created myself to be…through blogging. No, it became far less rapidly apparent than it should have that the clickity-click of the pajamamen was only what it appeared to be. So I settled into that, relaxed and accepted it for what it was. After, say, 2005 or so.

Which makes me think of that poor schlep of an NBA ref whose name popped up during a FBI wiretap of some mobsters talking about gambling. And even if it did not happen that way, I like to think that it did because it paints the problem so clearly. As with the vanity of bloggers, the root of the cheating ref is that sin of self-importance. Why does some git who gets to blow a whistle for traveling or makes that call between whether the ball was falling or still on the ascent when it was blocked think he deserves more, think he should be as wealthy as the players around him? I have seen this first hand. I have known an inordinate number of lawyers who ended up in the big house or worse through the inability to understand that the client’s money is in that pile and yours is in that smaller stack over there. Heck my “financial adviser” at a small town Ontario bank branch in the mid-90s ended up face down in the river one Saturday morning after it was discovered Friday night that there was an extra 3 million in the wrong bank account.

People like to think they are more than they are. Which is weird. If I have come to any conclusions now that the majority of my years on earth are past me it is that most people deeply misconstrue what this whole experience means. Not in an evil bad way but a far simpler way. Which is not far off what the Book of Job was telling us all along: we cannot even see the strings around us let along know who or what is pulling them. The fool thinks otherwise and walks around with reversed mirrored glasses, convinced and sometimes even finding a career in writing newspaper columns or as talk-show host.

But that ref thought he could pull strings and never stand out. Rewrite rules for gain. So now an entire sport – and not one that I particularly loved – is thrown in the grey zone with professional wrestling and figure skating. It gets you thinking about what else is around you that can be monkeyed by one or two people as easily as you can shift figures between a lawyer’s trust fund and general ledger or by making up mortgages for people who do not exist. You have to have a situation where there is plenty of rule calling. The NBA ref blows the whistle more than once a minute. Who else so closely controls the situation? A ref in soccer called 53 fouls is the Argie-Chile game the other day. Someone else calculates your pay packet deductions, your mortgage payment, your electricity bill. Does the specter of the cheat infuse it all? That is why games ought to be so good – that marble is either out of the circle or it is not, the blowing pin is standing or it is not. We turn to games we play or watch for certainty as much as honing or enjoying skill. There should be more with less chance for cheats – whether of the whistle blowing or blabby false prophet varieties. So bowl. Bowl your hearts out and know there is good in the world. That is all I can tell you in these troubled time. Bowl.

…And Mom Told Me To Come Home For The Weekend

Law suits can be fun and none moreso that over claims that someone who has become wealthy based on an idea or a widget or some such thing stole that thing. The Facebook claims, however, take it to a new level of corporate intrigue:

In September 2004, the ConnectU trio filed a claim that Zuckerberg stole their idea and dragged out their site’s launch so he could complete Facebook first. He was not paid, they said, but was a full member of their team and would have reaped any future rewards. Facebook countersued, charging ConnectU with defamation. Zuckerberg has said ConnectU asked him to do about six hours of work, and any delays were because he got bogged down by his studies.

I wonder if the counterclaim also mentions that Zuckerman, the Facebook wiz kid, was also bogged down with teen angst over being the geek who never gets the chicks and that that kept him from being of any use at the time. Should be easy enough to prove one way or another, however, as even if there is no theft in an idea, there is if the copyrighted code of another was lifted without colour of right. But can “a team” hold that copoyright?

Chitchattery Fridayesque

Another week is gone. It was a good one except for the Red Sox starting their August collapse a little early. In other sporting news, apparently there was a move to press gang the Chilean U20 soccer team for the Hudson Bay fleet last evening. And I play vintage base ball this weekend in another country. Who knew? Sunday sees me and the other member of the Kingston St. Lawrence Base Ball team taking on Sackets Harbor, NY in a game that will use rules somewhere between 1860 and 1875. Gary may even be seen tomorrow but we are still uncertain as to what the day will bring. I may, too, be in a canoe. What a wonderful week. Here is the linkfest:

  • Constitutional Update: Where is the balance of powers when one branch asserts autonomy?
  • Update: The Flea guides us to the new enemy – New Victorians.

  • I caught a good story from Reuters about a journalist embedded with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
  • I haven’t read any Harry Potter and boycott the movies due to the lack of claymation so I see not reason to give a hoot about spoilers and the release of a page or two early. Doesn’t there seems to be an over-enlistment of the authorities in the propping up of a franchise?
  • Are we entirely over 9/11? It appears that travel has hit a high but are we forgetful or confident. Americans are staying home we assume due to the dollar…but is that it? Why does no one come to Canada?

    Americans are coming to Canada much less than they used to…”Canada needs to add more fun and adventure to its image,” the report, released by Deloitte and the tourism association, said. “We need the right product — the right active tours and adventure experiences. And most importantly, we need to promote them.”

    Soon lighters will return.

  • It has been announced that a father and son team of metal detecting nerds hit the motherload with a Viking treasure trove being announced in England this week. Did you know that metal detection is really cool? That you can get a Bill Wyman model metal detector? I wish I metal detected.
  • Acquitted conduct. I was listening to CBC Ottawa last evening on the drive home and there was a “sentencing consultant” from the US being interviewed who said that Conrad Black faces the prospect of facts relating to the charges he was acquitted upon being still included in the sentencing on the charges he was found guilty. That makes no sense and I am sure, ten years past any criminal work, that it is entirely unknown in Canada. Wow. I actually feel a little bad for Connie this morning.

That is all for now. I wish I were in England where I could spend some time watching for ocean-going rubber floaty toys. I bet I’d meet up with Bill Wyman if I only spent more time doing things like that.

Corporate Hand Puppets

The thing I find strange about this is not that it happens but that it doesn’t happen all the time…or that we do not recognize it happening:

…John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market…used a fictional identity on the Yahoo message boards for nearly eight years to assail competition and promote his supermarket chain’s stock, according to documents released last week by the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Mackey used the online handle “Rahodeb” (an anagram of his wife’s name, Deborah). In one Internet posting sure to enter the annals of chief-executive vanity, Mr. Mackey wrote as Rahodeb, “I like Mackey’s haircut. I think he looks cute!” With all a chief executive has to do, the 14-hour days spent barking orders, digesting reports, motivating employees and courting Wall Street, why would they spend their time sparring with anonymous critics online? And what makes them think they won’t be revealed?

It is hard to say that is is not more common than is thought. Is it so different compared to me running a contest over at the beer blog sponsored by a brewery that sends trinkets or a blog that speaks on a political or public topic that gains the blogger access to people and events that he would never have otherwise? How is it that this is not manipulation? And do we care (and not in the Amiel sense of “care”) whether folks as insubstantial and sub-vermin (to borrow and Amielism) as bloggers are in a pocket of one size or another?

Post-Trial Blackness

This, of course, is the real question, the real angle on the Conrad Black trial – the Mrs.:

As the judge in Conrad M. Black’s fraud trial began reading through the verdict in the criminal fraud prosecution against him last Friday — finding Mr. Black guilty on four counts — Mr. Black’s wife, Barbara Amiel, was observed scribbling a note and passing it to her husband. It isn’t known what the note said, but someday it could be. Some Canadian publishing executives believe that Ms. Amiel might be willing to write a book dealing with the experience of being by her husband’s side during the unraveling of his storied career as a newspaper magnate.

The NYTs article does raise a couple of questions. First, why does the Globe call him “Lord Black” when that is not his name but a title given by another country? It’s not like you give up your name in the way that a nun does and it’s not like he was born to the title. Second, long before the criminal activity was in the news, when Black was a topic of gossip and CBC interviews of mutual contempt, Barbara Amiel was one of the bigger issues, apologist for the meanest of human causes though a few that were not, pal to the privileged that she, too, craved to join without any apparent entitlement – and something of a garbage mouth. And though she is now described as a journalist I can’t recall any reporting or news-breaking she took part in. And a columnist mainly for McLeans, playing the role the counter-point right-wing nut-bar.

The meanness in many of us watch to see what she will do should Conrad go to the Big House, should all the assets be seized in the end, the corporate veils pierced. Should we care? Or is that something of a corruption of the word “care”?

Chatfest Friday Style With Bullets

Can there be 100 comments without ry? That was the question I asked myself last night. We have settled into a kind rapport even with our differences. Is this middle age? Yesterday at the beer blog, I cited a post that I wrote in October 2003. That’s a long time ago. When do blogs hit middle age?

  • Blackness Update: Connie found guilty on four counts…those being criminal counts…no pardon expected.
  • …nuttin’…sympatico is choppy this mornng…uh, oh…
  • Lunch is approaching Update: I caught this guy on one of the morning news shows and now believe that Jim Early’s work on North Carolina BBQ could be a key to understanding the culture of the Western World.
  • Global warming may be good news for Ontario as long as we all plant ash trees now!
  • I think this is the blog that sets the standards for all blogs of a certain class of blogs. Did people do this before there was a medium to record that they were doing it?
  • PEI is all a dither. What else is new? Well, I will tell you one thing that is new – apparently a rock band said “fuck” during a concert and the entire community is going last-scene-of-Frankenstein. Chris has the whole story. There is a law in PEI that sets out how to do a rock concert and this is the only way you are supposed to do it under the Rock Performances Act (Marine), RSPEI 1957, ss 87-213.

Bullets postponed until bandwith available.

Update: Why does my broadband cut out in thunder and lightning? Does it rely on AM radio at somepoint between here and there?

  • This is nuts:

    The Harper government has been told to stop referring to “fighting terrorism” and the Sept. 11 attacks, and to banish the phrase “cut and run” from its vocabulary if it is to persuade a skeptical public that the military mission in Afghanistan is worth pursuing.

    If we are going to ask our youth to fight, speak about what they are fighting for. If you disagree, speak about the nature of your disagreement strongly. I may not vote for you but I will respect your free expression of your view. But for God’s sake, leave the PR consultants out of this. And as for not connecting 9/11 to Afghanistan…are you crazy?!?! Has no one any memory of the BBC leading the charge into Kabul? That is the theatre where all the resources of the Iraq war should have been focused. Offer me war bonds.

Group Project: Commuting Not Pardoning

Interesting discussion in the NYT this morning about sentencing triggered by the commuting of Libby’s sentence. It appears that people are treating it not like a one-off for a political hack but an act of governance which actually has some substantive value in a broader context:

The Libby clemency will be the basis for many legal arguments, said Susan James, an Alabama lawyer representing Don E. Siegelman, the state’s former governor, who is appealing a sentence he received last week of 88 months for obstruction of justice and other offenses. “It’s far more important than if he’d just pardoned Libby,” Ms. James said, as forgiving a given offense as an act of executive grace would have had only political repercussions. “What you’re going to see is people like me quoting President Bush in every pleading that comes across every federal judge’s desk.”

While there are those who saw the entire prosecution as a political event (aka tin hat conspiracy theorists…and Jay…whose server is down at the moment…) (Ed:…coincidence? I think not…), it is a proper think to prosecute high government officials who lie and obstruct justice in that it is a corruption of justice itself even if the liar is so foolish as to be lying about something ultimately of less consequence than he thought at the time. Crime control and other forms of strict interpretation of these sorts of things are traditionally hallmarks of conservatism. These values are more often expressed in the sentence than the conviction so it is something of surprise to have a conservative President justify the giving of a free-pass to a friend on the basis of sentencing theory.

This speaks to the theory of justice, something that is oddly personal. I say oddly in that there are few movements based around the principles of how we punish each other as a community as there are political parties around economic and social principles. Yet it is through punishment more than any other element of the law that we establish what is right.

So, using the illustration of Libby but perhaps leaving out the glorification of celebrity double standards (unless that is key to your theory of social good), what does this commuting of the sentence say to you? Are judges actually excessive or insufficiently harsh in what they do? And what does that opinion connect to for you as you go about your life?

Chat For The Last Friday Closer To 2006 Than 2008

Yes, your life is flying by. The end of June is the end of the first half of the year, the year you still think of in the back of your mind as new. Time to get another hobby or make a greater change.

  • Update: freaky:

    Authorities said Thursday they are trying to determine who altered the entry on the collaborative reference site 14 hours before authorities discovered the bodies of the couple and their son. Benoit’s Wikipedia entry was altered early Monday to say the wrestler had missed a match two days earlier because of his wife’s death. A Wikipedia official, Cary Bass, said the entry was made by someone using an Internet protocol address registered in Stamford, Conn., where World Wrestling Entertainment is based.

  • I received a copy of a 1975 game called Pub Games of England and what a treat. Who know that skittles was created as an illustration of mass conversion of pagan Germans to the faith? Who knew that darts was likely created as a response to legal bans on all games but archery for military (and not moral) purposes – it’s just a small archery game with the target being a cask of beer? And who knew lawn billiards (or pell mell) was the game of the future?
  • Speaking of early games, please lend your support to Project Protoball.
  • Interesting to note the passing of the NPR show Radio Open Source. NCPR observed the passing of another attempt at substantive convergence in this way:

    So it is with very real regret that I report the end, for now at least, of his innovative and lively evening program Open Source. The producers were unable to put together secure funding to continue national distribution, and made the difficult decision to suspend production this week. Chris has been a great exploiter of both the countertrend —and unabashed intellectual in the age of dumbing down–and of the coming trend–building a radio program upon the swiftly shifting sands of a community of bloggers.

    The other posts this week were a bit telling – the lack of a MSM partner and the “old school” actual revenue stream as well as an odd choice for a celebration of the sort of substantive social community (SSC…as opposed to vacuous linking or LSC) that has never been triggered but has been much promised and, like the emperor’s clothes, observed. Maybe they’ll do a Lessig and declare they are going to reinvent cooking or home repair DYI.

  • In not unrelated news, the CBC has been shocked to discover that when you ask people to express what they believe in they will express what they believe in.
  • I don’t even like the NBA but am happy to see that Demetris Nichols is a Knick.
  • This is a good court ruling by the US Supreme Court in the Panetti case: do not execute crazy people. But it does make you wonder about the death penalty in terms of the idea of purpose – other than general deterrence – which is sort of captured in the description “a defendant who is to be executed be able to recognize the relationship between his crime and his sentence.” But if I am dead…I can’t recognize that relationship. But nuttier is the objection by Clarence Thomas who called the ruling “a half-baked holding that leaves the details of the insanity standard for the district court to work out.” Well, seeing as there concern that the door is open to false claims of incompetency, shouldn’t the lower trial courts assess each case? Or is there a suggestion in the dissent that mental illness isn’t real? Interesting to note that Anthony M. Kennedy has decided to become Mr. Swing Vote instead of Mr. Fourth Conservative Near The Back.

That’s it for now. I have to go Xmas shopping.