THE LAW SOCIETY’S POOR CHARACTER – A STUDY IN SELF-DECEPTION

Greenaway Brings Administration of Justice Into Disrepute

The three days of Law Society good character hearings concerning Kopyto that took place on January 3rd, 5th and 10, 2012 were revealing in an unexpected way.  Yes, investigator Adrian Greenaway was still on the stand being cross-examined by Harry—eight days now, if you are counting.  Other statistics also tell their story. Twenty-eight full hearing days. Three Law Society Panels.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on legal and administrative fees.  For what?  To prove that Harry lacks the good character needed to work as a legal advocate after 38 years of doing so?

Back to Greenaway, the architect of the Society’s case against Kopyto. He now looks totally dejected. He mumbles. He reads his notes instead of answering spontaneously. He stares blankly straight ahead. There is absolutely no eye contact with Harry. Or anyone else. He comforts himself with three huge cardboard boxes of LSUC documents about Harry which he clutches close at hand almost like a shield to deflect Kopyto’s piercing verbal missives.

Kopyto continues to pound him with questions. If it was a boxing match, he would have cried “Uncle” long ago.  He frequently answers, “I don’t know,” hoping that would end the line of questioning.  It seldom does.

Harry is relentless.  January 3rd was especially hard for Adrian blowing away any festive mood that might have still lingered so close after the New Year celebrations.  Kopyto pounced on him early in the day.  He asked him outright a totally unexpected question—have you, Adrian, ever been found guilty of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute?  Ouch!  What an accusation against a person who is out to prove that Harry is the Bad Guy in this movie.  The Blight Panel leans forward listening intently, unsure why the question is being asked but clearly curious to hear the answer. “I don’t know,” Adrian responds.  The mystery thickens, “What is this about?” the Panel thinks.  But Greenaway knows what it’s about. He suddenly realizes that a career-busting bad dream is coming true.

Greenaway’s Conduct Lacks “Humanness” and is “Outrageous”

“Do you remember being one of five male cops who raided the Pussy Palace in downtown Toronto in 2000?”

“Yes”.

“Do you remember that two female undercover officers were already there enforcing the liquor laws when the five of you raided the Palace?”

“Yes”.

Do you agree that there were more than 350 women at this event organized by Toronto’s lesbian community?”

“Yes.”

“Will you agree that the majority were topless as you and your fellow male cops went room to room busting in on them?”

“Yes.”

“Was the atmosphere highly sexualized?”

“Yes.”

“Did you and your fellow male officers spend more than an hour in the building?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember charging the proprietors of the event with Liquor Licence Act offences some time later after a public outcry over the raid?”

“Yes.”

“Were you in court when the trial took place?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember Judge Peter Hryn of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Liquor Licence charges on February 1, 2002?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember that he described your conduct as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy?”

“Yes.”

“A Charter violation?”

“Yes.”

“Do you remember that he ruled that your conduct brought the administration of justice into disrepute?”

“I don’t remember.”

“Were you in Court when the verdict was read?”

“Yes.”

“And you expect us to believe that you don’t remember?”

“I don’t remember.”

At the hearing two days later on January 5th, Kopyto gave Adrian the transcript of the Reasons for Decision of Judge Hryn to help him refresh his memory.

“Did Judge Hryn describe your conduct as outrageous?” Kopyto asked.  “Yes,” Greenaway admitted.

“Did he say it shocked the conscience of the community?”

“Yes.”

“Did he say you lacked humanness?”

“Yes.”

“And once again, did he say that you brought the administration of justice into disrepute?”

“Yes, I remember now,”  Greenaway, who the LSUC chose to investigate and evaluate whether Kopyto had good character, admitted in a tone that reflected defeat, albeit without remorse.

Greenaway is your Baby, Ms. Blight

At various times during the hearing, Panel Chair Margot Blight tried to take her distance from Adrian.  “We don’t care what his opinions about you are… You are the one being judged, not him…His opinions are not relevant…He is only the investigator,” etc. etc. etc.

Not so fast, Ms. Blight. Adrian Greenaway is a product of the Law Society of Upper Canada. He is your baby, Ms. Blight.  He is part of Big Law’s machine out to crush Harry. His mentality has been shaped and nurtured by the Society. As such, he is only one of many Adrian Greenaways that infest the Society’s inner workings.  And Harry, by alleging institutional bias against him, has also put the LSUC and its investigation on trial as well.

First and foremost, the LSUC needs the robotic Adrian Greenaways to control lawyers and paralegals. If you are not stamped out of a cookie-cutter mold, you have poor character. If you criticize the legal profession or legal system using popular, effective, attention-getting, colourful language—such as Kopyto’s famous stinging comment about the police and courts sticking together like Krazy-Glue—you have poor character.  If you undermine self-governance of the legal profession (yes, the LSUC’s discipline decisions actually require you to oppose public accountability of lawyers which is a near-universal practice and a key goal of most of Harry’s supporters), you have poor character. If you stand up fearlessly for your clients (the LSUC’s rules require you to try to force your clients to compromise their rights and claims by “encouraging” settlement), you have poor character. If you confuse justice with law, you’re toast.  And God forbid that you should help a client who cannot afford a lawyer draft a document in the High Court, even for free, and even competently, as Harry has done numerous times—you have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting licenced.

Law Society Intoxicated by its Power

The portrayal of the legal profession standing up courageously against the dictatorial power of the State to assert the rights of the oppressed and powerless is a myth. It masks the stark nakedness of a chummy brotherhood dominated by yesmen and wheeler-dealers who frequently treat their clients with the same disdain that a prostitute exhibits to her johns.  Do as you’re told!  Keep your mouth shut!  Don’t stand out.  Fit in.  And you’ll be alright.

Greenaway’s attitudes exposed during eight days of sworn testimony reveals the psychological nature of the LSUC bureaucracy—blind obedience, uncritical loyalty, and an air of moral superiority that rationalizes domination of us lesser mortals by those who are born to rule.

Of course, the prospect of hefty salary increases and prestigious promotions up the golden ladder solidify the snide and sanctimonious mentality of the Greenaways.  Adrian’s opinions are not those of an isolated individual.  He has no critical faculties.  He does not assert individual judgment. Adrian’s individualism, like those of his fellow sycophants in the LSUC, has long ago been wrung out of his character. He absorbs every day the prejudices of the hierarchy whose bidding he does. Low on the rungs, he strives for approval, acceptance and recognition.  So please, Ms. Blight, don’t  dismiss him “merely” as an inconsequential “investigator” collecting evidence.  Yes, he does collect evidence. But who selects what evidence he collects?  Who identifies the targets of his investigation?   Who defines how he should interpret the evidence?  Whose assumptions is he guided by if not his own?  Who decides what recommendations he should make?  And who decides to select him as Harry’s Chief Investigator, even one whose own clashes with the law demonstrate him to be of bad character?

Greenaway and Blight Joined at the Hip

Power corrupts. Power buys what it cannot conquer.  Power rewards its footsoldiers and represses the disobedient. Power is an intoxicant that affects profoundly the perceptions of those who protect and serve it.  The Adrians in the LSUC, although low in the ranks of institutional power, share the Society’s authoritarian ideology 100%.  They idolize and imitate their superiors like children do their parents and those who exercise power over their lives.  Their rules result in human suffering.

Yes, Ms. Blight, it would be nice to believe that Adrian’s views are personal and insignificant, or, to use your studied term, “unhelpful”.  But Adrian is the Law Society and the Law Society has hundreds of Adrians in its employ. The investigators, the intake officers, the prosecutors, the mentors, the discipline counsel, the so-called Independent Tribunal, the Proceedings Authorization Committee members, the Treasurer, the administrators, the Legal Department, the public relations Department, the Society’s image makers and those who trust you, Ms. Blight, to excommunicate Harry are all ideologically joined at the hip.  Not a conspiracy, to be sure, but a shared ideological mentality centered on self-deceptions of moral grandeur under assault by immoral and dishonest barbarians (us). The Law Society exists in splendid perceived isolation and occludes society at large in its vision of the law. Its self-image is of a guild with a monopoly over morality rising from the distant past (Upper Canada, remember?), a perfectly autonomous and self-contained sphere without any organic links to those whose lives intersect with the judicial system, but who, because of the LSUC’s monopoly over the legal profession, cannot access that system to get justice.

Ms. Blight, do you not see the irony of hiring people like Greenaway, whose main talent is to obey and enforce rules that result in human suffering, to positions of authority and influence over people who seek to be agents of justice?  And is the price-fixing legal industry that the LSUC controls not the one whose interests and needs you serve?  Do you not also ultimately share the mentality of Greenaway for whom you have shown such superficial disdain?

Blight Protects Greenaway who says Ghandhi and Rosa Parks have Bad Character

Why else do you protect the Society from revealing whether it knew of Greenaway’s history of abuse of power, outrageous conduct, lack of humanness and disgraceful attitude as a cop when he filled out his job application to be one of the LSUC’s investigators?  Why did you deny allowing Greenaway to tell us if he revealed Judge Hryn’s judgment of him when Greenaway himself made his own personal application to be a paralegal?  And why is it that you are rushing Kopyto’s questioning of Greenaway which, with each answer, shows how morally bankrupt the Society’s own character is?

Greenaway testified that Mahatma Ghandi and Rosa Parks could not qualify as LSUC members because they engaged in civil disobedience.  He identified them by name.  They broke the law. They had poor character.  Embarrassing, isn’t it? Greenaway testified on January 5th that good character requires candour, honesty, openness, transparency and empathy.  Is it too much to ask that the LSUC adhere to such standards itself?

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: