judicial ethics

When no one is watching

I’ve always had a great deal of respect for the medical profession.

Unlike lawyers, accountants, Realtors, or even the clergy, the decisions they make affect life and limb. For doctors, ethical conduct isn’t just a means of maintaining the public trust; it’s an essential to their mandate of saving lives.

My doctor has this sign posted on her door:

 

 

To me, it demonstrates the importance of a values-based ethics system, over a rule-based ethics system.

In the end, we might be accountable to our clients and the profession. But if your values lead you to act ethically only when you are being watched, are you really an ethical professional?

Update no. 2: Legal Ethics Hero Greg Adler, and the Bay Area Towing Scam

My previous posts on this story can be found here and here.

On January 7, 2011, the perpetrators of the scheme were sentenced, and legal ethics hero Greg Adler received some well-deserved commendation.

The elephant in the room, however, remains the conduct of Commissioner Saldivar. Until his involvement in this unfortunate matter is fully investigated, the matter cannot be considered closed.

Update: Legal Ethics Hero Greg Adler, and the Bay Area Towing Scam Update

Last month, I wrote about Greg Adler’s exemplary conduct in exposing Vincent Cardinalli and Paul Greer’s towing scam in the San Francisco Bay area.

Now, NBC thinks enough of Greg Adler’s heroism to run its own story about the case.

More

Run for the Border: Practicing Across Jurisdictions

In Canada, lawyers enjoy a great deal of freedom to practice outside their home provinces. Generally, if a lawyer has no pending criminal or disciplinary proceedings, and has no disciplinary record, he can practice in any Canadian province other than Quebec for up to 100 days per year without advising the host province’s law society.

This has given lawyers, particularly those in smaller jurisdictions such as Prince Edward Island, a lot of freedom to expand their practices to neighboring provinces.

The agreement that allows for this kind of temporary (and permanent) practice mobility between the common law provinces seems to be working extremely well. It offers members of our profession great opportunities to learn and experience different approaches to common procedural problems – as well as, occasionally, to common problems in the substantive law. That sort of breadth and depth of knowledge translates to a more flexible profession that is able to offer clients more options when it comes to trying to solve difficult legal issues.

But it also raises some interesting ethical issues, both for the lawyers who find themselves in another jurisdiction, as well as for the judges before whom those lawyers appear.

More

The Ridicule of Litigants in Family Court

This story appeared recently in the Globe and Mail, and Alice Woolley commented on it at Legal Ethics Forum a few days ago.

Her post summarizes the situation:

A family court judge in Ontario recently “turned to ridicule” to deal with feuding spouses.  Noting that reason had failed to impress the litigants, he tried mockery instead.  Noting that the ex-wife’s attempt to run down her ex with a van was a “telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart” and starting his judgment “Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud” the judge derided the conduct of the parties.  He ultimately awarded the wife custody of their daughter, but only $1/month in spousal support.  The story is here.  The judgment is here.  While I admire the style and rhetorical flourish, I can’t myself endorse this as a strategy, even if effective.  It seems to me inconsistent with judicial office.  I’m not condemning him – I can imagine the frustration.  But it doesn’t seem appropriate nonetheless.

There is no question in my mind that as amusing as the decision is to read, the manner in which it is written is entirely improper.

More