Mary and Richard Replaced

wow. absolute shock.

Dear All -

We wish to express our appreciation to Mary and Richard for their
willingness to lend a hand with this transition period. However,
alternative arrangements for criminal review counsel have now been
made, so it will not be necessary for us to impose on their time
further.Of course, the relevant financial arrangements will continue
to be honoured. And again, we wish them the very best in their future
endeavours.

We have been lucky to retain two excellent criminal lawyers to provide
all criminal review starting today, November 27, 2006. Jonathan Shime
is a member of the distinguished firm of Cooper, Sandler & West,
considered one of the best criminal law firms in Canada. Jonathan
represents clients before the Ontario Court of Appeal, Superior Court
and Ontario Court of Justice, including trials, appeals and bail
hearings under the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. He has also been appointed as
amicus counsel by the Superior Court of Justice. Ferhan Javid is a
sole practitioner who has his offices at Cooper, Sandler & West. His
experience includes trials (jury and non-jury), constititional and
Charter challenges, homicides, bail hearings and appeals in the
Ontario and Superior Court of Justice.
Both are friendly, kind and highly approachable lawyers who are
enthusiastic about students, and looking forward to meeting you. The
fact that they also participated in student clinics when they were in
law school means that they are not only criminal law experts, but also
familiar with many of the challenges law students encounter in
clinical work.

Their sign-up sheets for this week will be up shortly. In the
meantime, you can reach them by telephone and e-mail as below:

Jonathan Shime
416-585-9191 ex. 240 (office)
416-xxx-xxxx (cell)
jshime@criminal-lawyers.ca

Ferhan Javid
416-585-7845 (office)
416-xxx-xxxx (cell)
fj@ferhanjavid.com

We know that we can count on everyone working together to make this a
smooth transition in the best interests of our clients.

Yours truly,

Judith McCormack
Executive Director
Adjunct Professor
Downtown Legal Services
Faculty of Law

The Dirty Laundry Goes Public

Harsh words to the Executive Director; it is all out in the open now. Let this post be the official start to the 'slow clap' for the openness and candidness with which the clinic lawyers, Amina, Richard, and Mary have handled this issue... Thanks to whoever sent this in...


November 24, 2006

To the DLS Community

This letter is written in response to the letter, which was sent to all of you by the Executive Director on November 23, 2006.

1. The Executive Director states: “Mary and Richard have terminated their retainers with the clinic in the course of a disagreement about the credit student requirements”. In fact, the criminal review lawyers did not terminate their retainers with the clinic because of a disagreement about credit course requirements. This fall, all four clinic lawyers, Amina Sherazee, Claire Hepburn, Richard Litkowski and Mary Misener had very grave concerns about the management of the clinic by the Executive Director. In particular, the lawyers were concerned that the Executive Director was systematically blocking repeated attempts by staff and students, including the students on the Executive, to undertake a meaningful examination of the allocation of public resources in the clinic and the areas of law which we practise. We all believed that such an examination was urgently needed to improve our capacity to take on criminal files. We all believed that the criminal file moratorium was undermining our community service and preventing many students from gaining a meaningful educational experience. We were also concerned that the moratorium was harming the credit course. Rather than meet with us collectively to openly explore alternative methods of allocating our resources and apportioning file work among us, the Executive Director took the position that a file moratorium and changes to credit course requirements were the answer. We were concerned about the management style of the Executive Director. Initially, both Amina Sherazee and Mary Misener approached the Executive Director individually and then together about the credit course and the moratorium. The Executive Director permitted us to speak and then she dismissed us without engaging in any discussion and without giving any indication of what her views were or what, if anything, would be done. We made repeated requests to have all four lawyers meet with the Executive Director about our concerns. She refused to meet with us collectively. She took the position that, while she would be happy to meet with each of us individually, she would not attend any meeting where more than one lawyer was present. We put our concerns about the credit course and the management of the clinic in writing and sent a memo to the Executive Director and to the Dean. We received no response. We set up a meeting with the Dean. One day before the meeting was to occur, the Dean’s office cancelled our meeting. We each received a letter from the Dean informing us that the course is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Director. The Dean expressed her disapproval of our “unprofessional tone”. She informed us that each of us would be contacted to attend an individual meeting with the Dean and the Executive Director “to ensure that DLS remains a professional working environment and provides our students with positive clinical experiences”. In response, Richard Litkowski and Mary Misener resigned and Amina Sherazee demanded an immediate public apology from the Dean.

2. It is true that we have serious concerns about the credit course. Even before the course started, we expressed our concern to the Executive Director that many of the credit students would not have enough civil files. When we reviewed the mid-term assessments, we identified many students who needed to take on more substantive work. Let’s be clear about the purpose of the mid-term assessment. It is not a grading tool. No one who is assessed below the required number of files at the mid-term point fails. The mid-term assessment is designed to alert the student and the lawyers if the student does not have enough substantive file work. In past years, we have always successfully found enriching work for students. No one has ever failed the course. Our practice has been to meet with any student who was below the course requirements and to work with them to find active files. This year, some students who were below the requirements came to us for more work. They were assigned cases which challenged them and from which they learned a great deal. Other students did not come to us. Instead, after we completed the mid-term review, the Executive Director instructed us to re-assess all of the credit students and to give them credit for work which has never received credit in the past. For example, students were now to receive credit for administrative tasks such as opening and closing files and for attending set dates and writing routine letters. We objected to such a fundamental change in the course for a number of reasons. First, we believed it was unfair to students who were already doing the substantive work required to pass the course. Second, we believed that it would rob those students who were not yet meeting the course requirements of the opportunity to experience meaningful legal work. Finally, we did not wish to participate in a fiction where we were to state that students were meeting the same requirements, which have been met by all the students who have taken the course since its inception, when they were not. Ultimately, it is not up to us whether the course is fundamentally changed. But surely our views should be considered in any review of the course. And if the course is changed, it should be done openly and officially.


3. The Executive Director states that we served over a thousand clients last year. This is true. Many of these clients come to us only for notaries. We also carry a healthy file load. For example in February 2006 (before Lisa Cirillo took a leave of absence) our active file load was: 237 criminal, 77 POA and 176 civil files. Our caseload is on track despite the fact that one of our civil review lawyers, Lisa Cirillo, took a 6-month leave of absence this summer. The reason our file numbers are still healthy is that the criminal review lawyers took on an enormous amount of work throughout the summer. Each criminal lawyer is retained to provide only 8 hours of review per week. Each lawyer provided many many hours in excess of his or her retainer. We were happy to step up to assist. But we quickly became aware that the burden of keeping the clinic on track was falling unfairly upon criminal review. Our suggestion to move review of University Affairs from Mary Misener to the Executive Director, a lawyer with a wealth of experience in administrative law, was summarily rejected by the Executive Director. When Claire Hepburn offered to take over UA review the Executive Director would not permit it. Claire was earning a weekly rate of $1082.25 while each criminal review lawyer earned $599.50. On her own initiative, Claire cut back her paid hours due to a lack of work while the criminal lawyers working well beyond their retainers. The Executive Director refused to move a summer student who joined the clinic in July, out of UA and into an area supervised by Claire Hepburn , despite Mary Misener’s request not to burden her with additional work.

3. The Executive Director points out that criminal law funding has increased 70% over the last five years as if to say that we are whining about nothing. Statistics can be manipulated to support almost any proposition. Here is one: each criminal lawyer’s income from the clinic has increased by 100% from the $15 000 each was paid annually for review during the 1990’s. It should be clear to all of you that none of the lawyers is here for the money. The issues at stake are these: using our resources most effectively to meet community needs and to enhance student education, ensuring that resources match demand, ensuring that all lawyers are treated fairly and with respect, and, most importantly, being able to discuss all of these matters in an open and collegial working environment.

4. The Executive Director addresses the criminal file moratorium. We have had criminal file moratoriums in the past. We have these moratoriums because the demand for our criminal law services is so huge. When there are no more students to take on a criminal file, we have to turn away potential clients until a student caseworker becomes available. The current moratorium was imposed by the Executive Director as a “solution” to the fact that clinic resources do not adequately support the criminal division. This directive required a cutback in the number of cases we took on. The lawyers expressed strong objection to it on principle because they were offended by the idea of stopping willing students from assisting needy clients. However, we were reassured by the Executive Director that civil files would flood in to fill the gap. Civil files did not flood in to fill the gap. We all would like an open examination of resource allocation and our areas of practice.

The Executive Director asserts that the Executive has been involved in repeated discussions about criminal law resources since last summer and that Mary Misener has participated fully and that all ideas have been considered carefully and exhaustively. The facts are these: to the contrary, the Executive Director has systematically blocked all efforts taken by lawyers and student Executive members to have a meaningful examination of our resources, of our case selection and of other potential sources of revenue to support the clinic. In her capacity as criminal review lawyer representative, Mary Misener raised the issue of criminal law resources at the clinic’s annual planning meeting in July 2005. Ms. Misener pointed out that the demand for criminal law services was pressing, that the cases were challenging and highly educational and that 16 hours of review was not adequate. She also raised the possibility of criminal lawyers not reviewing University Affairs. She suggested that one way to open up more criminal review hours would be to move UA review, which involves administrative law, to another lawyer or to the Executive Director. The Executive began a lengthy preliminary discussion of resource allocation and areas of practice and discussed ways to secure more funding for the clinic. The students were very enthusiastic and keenly interested in considering all ideas. In particular, the student executive members were interested in advocating for additional funding from the law school to support the criminal law section of the clinic. The Executive Director told them that going to the law school for additional funding would backfire and would undermine her significant efforts to enhance our position at the Faculty. It became clear that these issues were large and important ones which required more time for examination than the meeting would permit. A temporary criminal file moratorium was imposed. No task force was struck. Nothing further was done.

Immediately after that 2005 Annual Planning meeting, the Executive Director met privately with Ms Misener. She stated that Ms. Misener had ambushed her at the meeting. She accused Ms. Misener of manipulating the students into soliciting funds from the law school for her own economic benefit. She stated that, as their supervising lawyer, Ms. Misener had significant power over the students and that she was abusing that power by complaining about her compensation and hours of work to them. She directed Ms. Misener not to discuss with any student, including the students on the Executive, her hours of work, the amount of her compensation, or the areas of law which were assigned to her for review. The Executive Director took the position that hours of work, levels of compensation and areas of a lawyer’s practice were all personnel issues.

The 2005 criminal moratorium was very brief. The criminal lawyers decided that it was wrong in principle to turn away needy clients when there was a willing student to take the case and lifted it. They continued to work beyond their retained hours.

At the 2006 Annual Planning meeting, Ms. Misener, on behalf of both criminal lawyers , raised the issue again. By now, the work imbalance had only worsened because of Ms. Cirillo’s leave of absence. The criminal lawyers took the position that although they had been prohibited from discussing their retainers or their hours, issues of resource allocation and areas of practice were appropriate for discussion by the Executive at an annual planning meeting . They took the position that these issues had policy dimensions that were very appropriate for “annual planning”. Accordingly, on behalf of the criminal division, Ms. Misener again raised the need for the Executive to examine resource allocation. She pointed out that resources were allocated based on, at best, a 50%-50% civil-criminal model—even if every civil file were substantially more complicated and time consuming than criminal cases. She pointed out that in reality criminal files significantly outnumbered civil. The student members of the Executive again expressed their concern and their keen interest in ensuring that the criminal division was properly supported. The student Executive members expressed their desire to explore additional avenues of financial support for the clinic. It was decided that a “mini task force” would be struck to examine areas of practice and resource allocation. The Executive Director made it very clear that fundraising and lobbying the law school for more resources were strictly out of the question.

After the 2006 Annual Planning meeting, the Executive Director again insisted on a private meeting with Ms. Misener. She accused Ms. Misener of having been on a campaign to create a full-time prestigious and high-paying position for herself since 2004. She referred to the period from June 2004 until April 2005 when the Executive Director took a sabbatical and Ms. Misener served as acting Director and credit course instructor. The Executive Director noted that during that period the number of criminal files and the number of students doing them significantly increased. She accused Ms. Misener of orchestrating these increases as part of a campaign to eliminate all other areas of practice and to turn the clinic into a criminal clinic. Ms. Misener had no desire to turn the clinic into a criminal clinic. She greatly enjoyed working with her colleagues, Amina Sherazee, Lisa Cirillo and Claire Hepburn. In reality, the increase in criminal files and the number of students doing them that occurred when Ms. Misener was the acting Executive Director followed from the fact that Ms. Misener not only acted as Executive Director and credit course instructor but also continued to do criminal and UA file review.

Another Executive meeting was convened in August 2006. The issue of resource allocation arose when it became clear that we had a huge number of upcoming trial dates because we had so many criminal files. Again, the student Executive members expressed their desire to pursue more funding from Legal Aid, from the law school or from other funding sources. Again, they expressed their concerns about fairness to the criminal lawyers. Ms Misener was stopped from speaking to these issue by repeated admonitions from the Executive Director that any comments she might make would touch on “personnel” matters.


5 .In her letter, the Executive Director suggests that the Executive is hard at work looking at resource allocation and community service through a “mini-task force”. In fact, this mini-task force does not exist. Student executive members have volunteered to serve on it, but the Executive Director has never convened a meeting. Its complete membership has yet to be determined. Indeed Mary Misener attended the Executive Meeting in November 2006 and asked why the promised task force had not been created. The student Executive members supported moving forward with the task force but the Executive Director strongly resisted. She urged the Executive to wait until the law school finished conducting its academic planning review. The Executive Director sets out the “Criteria for Mini-Task Force” at the end of her letter. No one spent any time devising these “criteria”. They were lifted verbatim by the Executive Director from the clinic’s “Criteria for Considering New Areas of Law”, a document which was created some years ago when the clinic decided to expand into Immigration and Family law.

6. The Executive Director asserts: “nobody has been ‘constructively dismissed’. Whether anyone has been constructively dismissed is an interesting legal question.

7 The Executive Director reassures you that it is not unusual for clinics to go through periods of change and renewal. It may not be unusual for other clinics to go through periods of change but it is certainly unusual for DLS. Over the years, the clinic has had very few personnel changes. For example, Ms Misener has been working at the clinic since 1994 as a part-time review lawyer. While continuing to do UA and some criminal file review through 2004-2005, she also served as the acting director of the clinic for 10 months. Mr Litkowski has been at the clinic since the late 1990’s as well. Linn Kennedy has been with the clinic since 1995. In fact, the clinic has had very little staff turnover. Ms Sherazee did not replace anyone. The clinic expanded when she joined. Martha did not replace anyone. Her position was added to meet ever-increasing paperwork demands from Legal Aid and from the courts, which were overwhelming Linn Kennedy. The Executive Director did not replace anyone when she came to the clinic. Prior to that, the clinic did not have an Executive Director.

8 .It is true that management should not reveal personal information about individual staff members. In a positive workplace, management’s duty of confidentiality protects the staff. It is not used as a device to shut down meaningful discussion of important issues.

9. The Executive Director closes her missive by stating this: “In the meantime, I do want to emphasize how important it is that our discussions are conducted in a civil, calm, responsible manner. In particular, no student at this law school should be publicly denigrated by anyone, least of all their supervising lawyers.” We are offended.

10. Lastly, let it be perfectly clear: both this year’s and last year’s student Executive members have listened to and tried to respond to our concerns about resource allocation and areas of practice in the clinic. Both student groups have expressed their enthusiasm for finding more resources, for examining problems, for finding solutions, for engaging in deep discussions. The other lawyers, Lisa Cirillo and Claire Hepburn, have also repeatedly expressed their willingness to put everything under scrutiny in the interest of improving the clinic. At every turn, these discussions have been frustrated, blocked and delayed by the Executive Director.



Richard Litkowski
Mary Misener
Amina Sherazee

General Meeting to be Called; Amina Staying Put

Billable Targets would like to offer the following brief commentary on what is by now widely accepted knowledge:

1. The 30 signatures required by the DLS constitution to request a general meeting have been successfully obtained, thus obligating the executive to call a meeting within the next 10 days. This may be the first time this has ever happened. Not so conveniently, the meeting could end up taking place very close to the exam period.

Of interest is the fact that of the 31 signatures obtained, none of them were of any of the 6 DLS Executives. The list did include the vast majority of non exec shift leaders. Also of interest is that in response to the issues raised by the 3 credit students (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Intrepid Three’), the Exec had originally proposed holding a “Town Hall” meeting of the executive sometime in either November or December, in which anyone concerned could attend and provide feedback and input. While this may seem reasonable, the Intrepid Three were less than satisfied with this response, which prompted their call for signatures. And with good reason too. Unlike a General Meeting, any non-exec DLS student attending a Town Hall meeting would have no standing to propose or vote on any motions.

To compound this, it has been overheard that certain member[s] of the executive not among the elected in 2^nd year, have been walking around calling the Intrepid Three who initiated the request for a general meeting “traitors”, while accusing them of trying to overthrow the Executive Director. Now c’mon gal, that isn’t cool. You can’t be telling members of the DLS community that they are welcome to come talk to the executive anytime and then turn around and start bad mouthing them behind their backs.

We can attest to the fact that the Intrepid Three are calling a meeting only to include the broader DLS community in a discussion about the circumstances which led to the situation we have today and its strategic direction going forward. Traitors they aren’t. In fact they are quite the opposite; they’re passionate about their clinic, so passionate that they are willing to go to great lengths to hold a meeting to discuss its future and to hold their executive accountable. Perhaps the “traitor” is the one who launches personal attacks against them in an attempt the thwart their efforts. Godspeed to the Intrepid Three, your efforts are very much appreciated!

2. In a letter sent out to the DLS community, Judith confirmed that Amina has not resigned. Yet. Thank god.

Other highlights from Judith’s letter include:

• “It also might help you to know that the Executive has been involved in an almost continuous discussion about criminal law resources since last summer…”. Read –“Don’t worry Exec, J-Mack’s got your back!” This is great news though, seriously. It means that the Exec has worked to address these issues at some level.
• The sentence: Nobody has been “constructively dismissed” gets 10 points for use of a term of art…just cause we’re geeks that way.
• “Individual personnel matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Executive or any general meeting and are not subject to votes.” Translation: You can’t touch this, nice try though suckers.

Finally, we would like to comment on something that we have heard much about recently, and that is the notion of “fit” within the clinic. While we believe that Judith believes that the direction that she is taking the clinic is for the best, it has been suggested that the inability for the review lawyers and her to come to a resolution is an indication of possible personality conflicts and a fundamental disagreement over the character of the clinic. Should this be the case, we at Billable Targets think that we can learn from a similar situation at CLASP, in which review counsel Sil Salvaterra made the following comments in an open letter:

My employment is being terminated. And the post I occupy is now a public job offering. In the summer of 2005 I was asked to attend a meeting at CLASP with Glenn Stuart, the clinic director. Without any prior warning, I was told that my employment with CLASP and the University was being terminated because I did not “fit” in at the clinic. By that time I had been employed at the clinic, and a member of the Osgoode community, for close to nine years.

…

My response to these “reasons” for termination was to suggest that who, or what, “fits” into CLASP should be determined by its Board, active clinic members and the Dean, collectively. The character and mission of the clinic must be a cooperative and inclusive enterprise. Narrow perspectives should not determine who fits and who does not. One size does not, and should, not fit all. Plurality, diversity and inclusiveness are important clinic values to uphold. Conformity is not.

While the cause for dismissal was different in this situation, the DLS general meeting is an opportunity in which all members of the clinic community can come together to shape the character and mission of the clinic in addressing the recent issues.


Billable Targets

The Story behind the Q Bombs

Hearsay, while relaxing after posting only a day ago, was clearly asleep at the wheel when Borstal Boy beat her to what was (is) clearly the biggest story of the year. But not to be outdone, Hearsay has the scoop on some of the underlying circumstances which may have at least partially led to the situation which has erupted today. Please note that this information has been cobbled together through a number of anonymous contributions.

First of all Mary and Richard speak to the "allocation of resources at the clinic". Among the 3 lawyers who have sent in their resignations only Amina is being paid to be review counsel in a full time capacity right now. Mary and Richard were only being paid by legal aid on a part time basis (6-8hrs/week is the number we have heard). Clearly they were spending much more time at DLS than they were being paid for by legal aid; students who work at the clinic can attest to the fact that they were working closer to 25 - 30 hours/week. They were holding down other jobs to subsidize their work at DLS; Mary probably doing duty counsel work, Richards at Ruby Edwards (criminal defense firm).

Mary and Richard asked for a reallocation of clinic funds likely so they could managably devote more time to DLS which likely meant that they were asking the university to contribute to their pay. They took these concerns to Judith McCormick, the executive director, who (as they stated in their post) effectively ignored them. Obviously, they also found no help from the student executive in bringing these issues forwards for a public discussion. There is some speculation that the Executive were effectively prevented from helping, as these issues may have been deemed to be a purely administrative or personnel matter and not within their scope. Regardless, finding little help from either the Execs or the Exec Director, the lawyers trotted on to the Dean herself, who told them to take matters up with Judith. After getting nowhere with anyone, it appears to have led to the eventual Q bomb described by my colleague B.Boy.

It is open speculation that Amina left in solidarity with the other lawyers. It is further speculation that in light of these issues the recent lifting of the moratorium on crim files may also have something to do with these resignations.

Now, with the caveat here that the whole story is not yet known, nor is it likely that it will ever be entirely clear, the question Hearsay wants to know is this... Why shouldn’t Mary and Richard be paid out of UofT funds? They manage a large number of UofT volunteers and full time credit students. They are vital to enhancing the legal education of our students here at UofT. They work hours that are disproportionate to the time they are recognized for. Someone should find out how much Judith is paid is relation to the number of hours she works and see if this all looks justifiable.

Or maybe that’s my job.

Signing off,

Hearsay.

Dropping the Q-Bomb: DLS EXPLODING?!

We've just received reports from several different sources that Amina Sherazee, the illustrious immigration review lawyer at DLS has quit! More information is needed, and greatly desired!!!

Dropping the Q-Bomb: Update!

Mary and Richard have posted a statement outlining the reasons for their resignations in the DLS Criminal Review office on the notice board. An excerpt reads as follows:

The reasons for our difficult decision can be summed up as follows. We have serious concerns about the allocation of resources at the clinic and how this allocation has affected: (i) the services the clinic is able to provide to its clients and (ii) the quality of the clinical legal education that the students receive.

These concerns have been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Executive, for example at the annual planning meetings held in July 2005 and July 2006, with a view to discussing various options to resolve what we feel are serious structural flaws at the clinic. These concerns have also been directly brought to the attention of Judith McCormack. Neither the Executive, nor the Executive Director, have done anything to facilitate an open discussion of our concerns. After more than one year of trying to secure an open and frank dialogue of how scarce public resources are allocated within the clinic, including attempts to meet collectively with the Executive Director and the Dean, who is the head of the clinic, we have decided that we can longer abide the current situation.

Given these concerns, it is not clear whether any further action by students will be any more successful than the efforts of the review lawyers to have these matters addressed. It is interesting to note that the lawyers specifically cite the inability or unwillingness of the Executive and the Director to confront these problems, verifying the reports we have heard regarding strife between the administration and the lawyers. It is perhaps telling that the lawyers only make reference to their work with the students in expressing their regret over the situation. Given that the problems referred to by Mary and Richard seem to be institutional in character, it is perhaps only a matter of time before the other review lawyers find themselves at a similar crossroads. Attention should now be focused on what can be done to address the above issues so that DLS doesn't lose any more of its excellent review counsel. That being said, any action at this point may be too little too late for Mary and Richard...

Finally, an update on the secret meeting: A rumour has come to our attention that a DLS Shadow Cabinet will be held made up of DLS shift leaders, credit students, and upper years in an appropriately conspiratorial manner in xxxxxxxxxx at xxx. ;)



-Borstal Boy

Dropping the Q-Bomb: Two Review Lawyers Resign from DLS

Yesterday two criminal review lawyers at Downtown Legal Services, Mary Misener and Richard Litkowski, submitted their resignations. While it is far too early to provide any solid reasons behind this drastic course of action, we here at Billable Targets are always game for a spot of the ol’ crass speculation and rumour mongering. So far, our only real lead on this story is an email that was sent out last night by several concerned credit students asking that a general meeting of DLS members be convened to discuss this and other clinic issues in a larger forum. While generally devoid of information and substance, the email seems to suggest a connection between the lawyers’ resignation and other problems currently plaguing the clinic, such as the extended moratorium placed on criminal and (certain) civil files. Rumour also has it that there have been some issues between Judith McCormack the executive director and Mary and Richard, although we cannot say more as to the pith and substance of these problems.

For those upper years who returned to DLS this year, there have been noticeable changes to the quality of life at the clinic. Partially due to the criminal file moratorium, there has been significantly less opportunity for first years to help out on files, leaving them to the slow death of phone answering. The lack of files has also affected upper year students have been doubling up to work on files together, taking on files from other shifts, or in the case of credit students just carrying less of a workload and getting screwed out of their clinical legal education. Whatever the source of these problems, it is clear that some feel that the elected DLS executive could be doing more to improve the situation. While finger pointing can make for some hilarious innuendo, it is not clear what the Exec does in the first place, yet alone how they can fix these problems. That being said, there is (yet another) unsubstantiated rumour that a secret meeting of DLS shift leaders will convene sometime in the next few days to do further finger pointing and (hopefully) rabble-rousing.

Let’s just hope that our fair school’s legal clinic can avoid the bloated controversy that Osgoode’s legal clinic, CLASP, faced last year when its Executive Director fired one of their review lawyers. If the DLS Executive and Administration can learn anything from CLASP, it is that law students tend to be fairly loyal to their review lawyers. Allowing rumours to persist in the face of drastic and abrupt personnel changes risks infighting and creating a divide between the DLS student body and the Powers That Be.

-Borstal Boy wishes all the best to Mary & Richard

LLMs on a mission; Censorship at Osgoode Hall?

You may be wondering why in your classes, numerous LLMs have either approached your professor after class, or have been called down to speak with him/her during the break or after the lecture. Hearsay has it on good authority that these LLMs are approaching every professor asking him/her to provide a 24-48 hour take home option instead of writing the exam with the rest of the JDs. It worked with one, so now they’re trying it on all. Now there is nothing wrong with taking home an exam, in fact, I know many folks who would prefer it, but it does irk Hearsay when this is an option available only to LLMs and not their JD counterparts.

Also, you may have heard about the child luring allegations against Osgoode Hall’s (assuming former) libarian, featured recently in The Star. Now, it is not surprising that people would start thinking of (tasteful) jokes related to the incident to include in their next legal follies, but unfortunately, sources tell Hearsay that Osgoode administration are overseeing this year’s project and will keep a close eye on any potential Pengelly jokes. Hopefully that kind of big brother oversight doesn’t occur here at UofT, child luring jokes aside, otherwise, it won’t be long before Hearsay catches wind.

Hearsay and her friends at BT would like to extend their best wishes to a November 24th birthday girl!

We appreciate both the positive and negative reviews of the site so far, public or otherwise.

Till the next scoop,

Hearsay.

Bora Laskin Under Siege....

Close your eyes, and I will attempt to draw a picture in your mind. It is 8:30 in the morning, and the sun shines softly on the crisp cool air of down town Toronto. It is quiet, and calm. You or, rather, I am strolling through the Bora Laskin Law Library. I am on the main floor nestled between the shelves that contain the law reports. Now I pause. I stretch out my arm and touch the books that are on the shelf. This is when the magic happens. This would be my time and I would enjoy it.

For a brief second, you can almost hear the voices that fill these books. Those voices are all those who have come before us and have chosen or been chosen to speak in participation in the great tradition we are attempting to join. All of the law that we must learn is contained in these reports. These reports represent the great body of the fabric of the law.

However, this is all destroyed by the activities of the majority of students who choose to enter Bora Laskin Law Library. Sequestered Judge is angry as he is continuously submitted to the freakish activities of those known as undergraduates, medical students and even, the 1L students. This is my library. This is my time. My time is precious.

Some tips to consider before you choose to enter my domain. If you have to spend more than a couple hours getting ready to come to, “study”, don’t bother. I am sure there are those in the ranks among me that will appreciate all of the makeup you have slathered on your face. Those members may also appreciate that you have attempted to look grubby but are still wearing $500 worth of name-brand sweat pants, sweatshirts, and Ugg Boots. What really gives you away is the bright light that reflects off of the high gloss of your undergraduate psychology or sociology textbooks. That material looks really tough, but what looks even more difficult is attempting to snag your “Mrs.” Degree while talking non-stop on your pink cell phone.

Business students. Calculators and equations. I do not have to say much, as in general you can be relatively quiet. However, what I do dislike your dishonesty. When a comrade of yours arrives please don’t make him or her feel bad by telling them you have been studying for five or six hours straight. You haven’t. I know it and you know it. You have been sitting there having a whispered conversation with your “studying” partner, or, you have been furiously text messaging another “study” partner. My personal favorite is when I catch you attempting to spell out BOOBLESS or other various homo-erotic messages on your calculator.

However, Sequestered Judge is not going to stop there. Shame on the 1L students! His Honor did not realize how difficult it is to study all of that simple beginning material without uttering a single word. Be Quiet! I think you 1L students will find that the metaphor of the living tree that is our Constitution will resonate louder on your ears if it can be heard.

My comrade on this Blog has pointed out that as of yet there is no restricted key-card access to the law library. It should be enough that you understand that this place is hallowed ground. There are people around you studying that will go on to decide how you can lead your life. There are those around you studying that will go on to decide how this country is run. The point is, there are those around you trying to study and they cannot, because your actions!

Sequesterd Judge sits quietly now, with a glass of Chianti in hand. I have spoken. I think that those who read this and identify with what I have described may tread carefully upon their next entrance into the law library.

My library. My time. Your choice, be quiet or be gone!

Specialization is for Insects…and Lawyers?

Recently, Borstal Boy had the opportunity to attend a meeting with several U of T law school grads to discuss ideas for career services directed at alumni. While on the surface this may not seem like interesting fodder for this blawg, the subtext of the meeting warrants at least one arched eyebrow. Think about it. Our intrepid Career Development Office, whose resources are already devoted to assisting current students with finding jobs, is also looking into providing career services to alumni. The meeting with alumni was a brainstorming event set up to identify some of the problems faced by new lawyers in pursuing their careers after articles. Tellingly, the alumni who attended this meeting are predominantly women (there was only one male) and for the most part are members of equity seeking groups. This is reflective of a broader systemic issue that has existed in the legal profession for the last several decades. Even as law schools have done a better job in increasing the diversity of its graduating classes, the legal profession has struggled with reflecting this diversity throughout its community. The Law Society has acknowledged this problem, and granted funding for the creation of a part-time position with our CDO to look into ways of addressing various post-article barriers faced by members of equity seeking groups through the provision of post-graduate career services.

When asked to identify some of the challenges encountered in their post-articling careers, the vast majority of issues arose in the context of changing jobs or practice areas. The reasons for this change of jobs are varied, and include the lack of hire-backs, the ending of contracts, concerns about the work environment with respect to corporate law firms, the desire for a healthy work/life balance, and the need for adequate mentorship and guidance during and after articles. Almost universally, the largest barrier to changing career paths cited by alums was the unresponsiveness of employers across practice areas (and in some cases across firms/organizations) to the relevancy of past work experience. Employers are risk-adverse and do not want to hire those without directly applicable experience. While it is trite to say that articling with a criminal firm will make it more difficult to obtain a corporate law job than if you had articled with a corporate firm, there other barriers operating as well. For instance, the contacts one tends to build during their crucial first few years out of law school tend to be within and limited to those professionals in a particular area of practice, which can be a limitation when considering changing areas. For recent grads, there is also the so-called “2 year rule”, which says that your ability to obtain interviews for positions within 2 years of being called to the Bar are significantly less than after you’ve been practicing 2 years. What this all boils down to is that there is increased pressure for law students to “get it right” with their choice of articles and practice areas.

Obviously, we are left questioning why the need for post-articling career services seems to be from lawyers who are women and/or members of equity-seeking groups. There are a number of possible explanations. On the one hand, some women may decide to switch careers as part of planning for a family. Another explanation is that law students are not carefully considering their career choices while in law school, and changing their career paths upon realizing their mistake. Finally, it may simply be that Heinlein was right and that specialization is for insects – a change of careers may simply be following a change of interests or a desire to expand one’s practice areas and experiences. Of course, this last explanation does little to explain why more white males are not seeking out post-graduate career services.

- Borstal Boy

24 Hour Key Card Access at Flavelle

It has come to Hearsay's attention that Faculty Council is actively discussing whether or not to provide 24 hour key card access to all law students. Let me just say that this is long overdue, and this poster looks forward to the day when she no longer has to go to Robarts or sneak into Rotman to do her late night studying. Obviously there are many costs to consider:

1. Late Night Security Guard
2. Cleaning Lady

Actually there aren't that many at all. And with tuition at $18500 we should be entitled to some exclusivity. The argument has come up that providing key card access sends a bad signal about "work life balance". Let me tell know, come exam time, nobody has work life balance, and preventing access will only force law students to walk further to the already over subscribed study space at Robarts.

Hearsay

Sexual Harassment Waiver

Sexual Harassment Waiver Sets New Precedent this Summer

Reproduced from PDF Below:

Dear Attractive Female:

Re: Lawyer X; Sexual Harassment Waiver

My client proposes that you enter into an Agreement with him whereby he is free to sexually harass you without recourse. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow both of you to interact freely without fear of job-related persecution. This Agreement will ensure that your social interactions will engender optimal utility for both parties involved.

Please ensure that the following Agreement signed:

All signatures are in black ink

...................

If you have any questions, please feel free to discuss this matter with me over an alcoholic beverage of your choosing.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT WAIVER

I, the undersigned ___________, hereby acknowledge that I relinquish my right to sue XXX LLP, XXX LLP affiliates, Lawyer X, any future employers of Lawyer X, or any other entity in the event that Lawyer X sexually harasses me. I also relinquish my right to petition XXX LLP, XXX LLP affiliates or any future employers of Lawyer X in the event that he sexually harasses me. Furthermore, I, the undersigned, will not communicate that I have been sexually harassed by Lawyer X to any in the employment of, including under contract to, XXX LLP, XXX LLP affiliates or any future employers of Lawyer X, nor will I prejiducially in anyway undermine Lawyer X's performance reviews or career advancement. I also agree that I will not disclose to the Worker's Compensation Board, any other governmental or employment agency, or any human rights, "feminist", or any other not-for-profit advocacy group, or the media, including, but not limited to, radio, television, newspapers, magazines and advertisements, and billboards, that I have been sexually harassed by Lawyer X. If, as a result of Lawyer X sexually harassing me, my performance at work suffers or I am absent for short or extended periods of time, I will claim to be ill.

Sexual harassment is defined, but not limited to, objectionable comments of a sexual or derogatory nature directed at me, my family or sexual partners; touching of the mammery glands, buttocks, genitalia or any touching which may reasonably be interpreted as sexual in nature; requests that the undersigned perform sexual favours or acts, show his or her breasts to win prizes, wet his or her t-shirt or other clothing and other such related requests; any moves meant to escalate sexual contact which have not reasonably been objected to; and, any threats, implications or other gestures and communications which lead the undersigned to believe that his or her job or promotion may be conditional upon allowing the sexual harassment to persist. I have read and acknowledged the definition of sexual harassment ___ (initial).

I, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge the receipt of $1.00, and other good and valuable consideration, such as the continued love and affection of Lawyer X _____ (initial). I also hereby acknowledge that the intention of this document is to allow Lawyer X to behave unencumbered in my presence and to continue to provide entertainment in my dull life. This document has substantial utility for me, and I therefore intend this document to be legally binding ____ (initial). I also promise not to disclose the existence of this document, or any details therein, notwithstanding times of war and Acts of God, without the permission of Lawyer X. I also agree that if I contravene this Agreement, I will pay, as damages to Lawyer X, the present value of his future earnings resulting from his termination or limitations imposed on his career advancement, as calculated by an impartially selected actuary____ (initial).

If any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement are unenforceable, they are to be severed without prejudice to the other terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Signing Date

Witness

Signature

Public Offender

Court of Social Arbitration - Judge Offender Presiding

For eons conflicts arising in the realm of social interaction have been settled on an ad hoc basis, relying on the good judgment of friends. As an example, an all male tribunal has rendered verdicts on such immutable laws as "Man Code", whereby it was found that a man who introduces an attractive female to a social circle is given a “reasonable” period of time to pursue an intimate relationship with her before his friends can advance their own interests. Now, with the legal expertise we have gained in law school, we can put our education to use consolidating years of common law doctrine which have we have developed since junior high.

Without further adieu, I present the Court of Social Arbitration, where precedent will be set for a variety of conflicts ranging from beer drinking contests to hook-ups and dating. Presiding over the proceedings is none other than the Honourable Judge Offender.

The inaugural case heard by Offender J. involves the doctrine of “Cock-Block”, an issue which has caused much uncertainty in the “hook-up” scene, often occurring inconspicuously, as the case at bar illustrates.


“Hot Chick” v. “The Friend”


The judgment of the Court was delivered by Offender J.

FACTS

On Friday, May 13, 2006 the plaintiff invited the defendant to the Bar. Prior to that, the defendant had a previous engagement at a house party, where he consumed copious amounts of alcohol and delicious brownies. The defendant, in a disoriented stupor wandered all six floors of the Bar, exposing himself to several waitresses. At 2 am the plaintiff, a highschool friend of the defendant's, left the Bar for an after-hours party, inviting the defendant to join. Instead, the defendant wandered home urinating in several locations and asked several homeless men for change. In a haze, the defendant fell asleep, waking up occasionally between 2 am and 5 am, sending several text messages inviting the plaintiff to “hook-up”.

After leaving the Bar, the plaintiff met a desirable male, with whom she had sexual chemistry. The desirable male was only in town for a week. Allegedly, he was a “nice guy”. After hearing several text messages, he may have suspected that the plaintiff was someone else’s booty call, at which point he may have forgotten he had a penis and decided not to hook-up with the plaintiff. The plaintiff defined hooking-up as not being a sexual encounter that night, but the possibility for such encounters during the course of the desirable male’s stay in Edmonton (or so she has testified to the Court). Plaintiff expressed to the desirable male that the text messages were just a drunk friend.

The plaintiff later exchanged contact information with the defendant, although the desirable male expressed to the plaintiff that he was unsure that she would answer her phone when, as he claimed, he would call the next day. The aforementioned douchebag never called the attractive plaintiff, leaving this court to conclude that he did “the stranger” in the privacy of his own home later that night.

ANALYSIS

Introduction

It is well-established that the Cock-Block (latin penis impedimentum) is one of the most intolerable of all the social crimes. Correspondingly, the stigma and penalty attached are high. Often a repeat Cock-Block offender is no longer invited to social situations with the possibility for "hook-ups"; and, repeat offenders are often ostracized from their social group altogether and sentenced to receive sexual gratification from the backroom of Blockbuster.

The Cock-Block is not limited to cases of one male interfering with another or one female interfering with another. The Cock-Block may occur when the “Got-to-Go” girl, who is generally defined by her hideousness and gross disfigurement, emerges from the dark abyss and wrenches an attractive female from the grasp of the unsuspecting male. Or, a Cock-Block may occur when one party who is sexually attracted to a friend but due to a lack of an ability to procure other sexual partners, blocks the advances of other third parties, to the detriment of the friend. The scope of the Cock-Block is by no means limited.

In the case at bar, however, the alleged Cock-Block was committed via negligence and therefore requires neither the sanction of the intentional Cock-Block, nor the subjective mens rea, leaving the defense of automatism unavailable.

As a remedy for the Tort of Cock-Block, one must procure an equally desirable sexual partner for the aggrieved party (or possibly several unattractive sexual partners), discharging the obligation by being the "wing-man", “pimp”, or other appropriate method as the court may find just.

In the case at bar, however, the Tort of Cock-Block was not committed, for the following reasons given:

1) Remoteness:

Had the plaintiff been psychologically offended by being hit on by the defendant, given his extreme intoxication, the lesser Tort of Intoxicated "Letching" may have been committed. In that sense it is not disputed that the defendant had created an unreasonable risk. Furthermore, the plaintiff is of the class of friends to whom a duty of care is admittedly owed by the defendant.

However, the creation of the unreasonable risk was surely not unreasonable due to the possibility that the plaintiff's cell phone would be heard “beeping” by the potential "hook-up", resulting in the desirable male not wishing to pursue further phone conversation the next day, which only potentially could have led to more. It is extremely unforeseeable that the defendant's admittedly negligent conduct could have led to the class of injury which the plaintiff allegedly suffered; that is, lack of orgasim. Although the plaintiff could have reasonably contemplated that repeated phone calls would intrude upon the potential for hook-up, the text message is a historically discrete way of “sending smoke signals”.

2) Cause-in-Fact:

The possibility that a potential male suitor would be deterred by several text messages which the plaintiff vehemently denied attached any pith and substance of “booty-call” is certainly in question. Whether or not the potential "hook-up" was a "nice-guy", he surely had a male libido and had committed significant energy to the potential transaction by the end of the night. Having been assured that the text-messages did not involve “booty call”, coupled with the possibility to call the next day and receive reassurance in a sober state, the potential "hook-up" would likely have taken steps to make said phone call.

This Court can only hope that the fact that he was in town for only a week adds to the likelihood that he would have had something come up, or have gone somewhere, or that he was looking for a one-night stand and had no intention of making said phone call. Although prima facie confident originally, his lack of confidence in requesting the plaintiff’s phone number lends to the possibility that he was simply too scared to call. On a balance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the defendant's actions caused the failed hook-up. Nor can it be said that those actions materially contributed to the failed hook-up and subsequent orgasim. It is more likely that the desirable male was merely douchous nogutus.

3) Contributory Negligence

Even if the defendant had been guilty, the majority of the tort rests with the plaintiff who contributed to the failed hook-up in two major ways: 1) plaintiff did not properly request the defendant to masterbate and call it a night and 2) the plaintiff did not contact the potential hook-up the following day, an action which would have alleviated the concerns of the potential hook-up’s fragile ego.

For these reasons, I find the defendant not liable, morally or otherwise, for the alleged Tort of Cock-Block, although the Court finds that he has no game.


Question for Lower Courts:

Plaintiff introduces defendant to two hot girls claiming that the defendant has recently broken up with his girlfriend and that he is a nice guy but shy. Defendant talks with one girl for half an hour. Plaintiff comes by and the hot blonde friend starts grinding against him and is showing strong buying signals. After fifteen to twenty minutes the girls leave claiming they are coming back. The hot girls do not come back for fifteen minutes at which time the plaintiff and defendant move to a new area in the club, but pass the girls on the way by, as they were actually coming back to meet the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff goes to the washroom, at which time the defendant converses with the hot girls, but feels he is not getting the love he deserves. To promote his Street Cred, the defendant then claims to be a corporate lawyer proceeding to tell them how much better than them he is. Plaintiff no longer has an opportunity, not even a remote one, of hooking up with the hot blonde, as both girls were extremely offended and associated the plaintiff with the defendant. Although the possibility of a hook-up ultimately may have been remote, were the defendant’s actions, which eliminated any possibility of hook-up, a time-saving and face-saving maneuver, or a negligent cock-block? Send in your verdicts and potential remedies to the email below and you may become a future authority quoted in the Court’s jurisprudence, forever enshrining your name in glory.


Do you have a case you want to have heard by the Court of Social Arbitration? To request leave, send your factually detailed accounts to Judge Offender at:

mailto:public.offender@gmail.com

Public Offender