Monday, November 27, 2006

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

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The questions...
are Mary and Richard still clinic members? Will Mary have standing as a member of the executive at the meeting on Friday?

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that the clinic is super-poor yet willing to pay two sets of lawyers at the same time. This type of pay-in-lieu decision may be appropriate where employees are going to shirk their duties after giving their notice, but that is hardly the case with Mary and Richard. We already know they work for free half the time.

It is also interesting that two permanent review lawyers were hired so quickly. In the summer, when a temp was hired to replace Lisa, a committee was struck for hiring and the process took a sweet time.

Lastly, it is interesting to note, as the previous poster alluded to, that as a result of this decision, Mary will no longer be a member of the executive at the Exec meeting just days away.....

Anonymous said...

I am just wondering if maybe the new review lawyers' contact information should be removed from that post - specifically, their cell numbers.

Anonymous said...

An email was sent to the executive, the ED, and everyone else on the DLS mailing list asking if Richard, Mary, and Claire would be invited to the general meeting. No response as of yet.

Anonymous said...

The executive had a pre-exec meeting tonight at DLS. Why? One can only assume to get their stories straight.

Anonymous said...

an update would be nice...

Anonymous said...

UPDATE!!

Anonymous said...

Interesting thing to note in all this: the person who comes out the worst here is Dean Moran. In their letter, Mary and Richard referred to Moran's decision to suddenly cancel their meetings and then accused them of unprofessional behaviour.

Considering the obvious popularity of these two individuals, Moran's move there makes her look, well, like a self-satisfied administrator who doesn't bother to find out what's really going on. It also serves of her deferring to individuals lower down in the hierarchy giving the impression she can't "be bothered" to deal with these kind of "silly problems" - remember the Admin's very slow reaction to the Judy Findlay this past year?

The problem is that, unlike Ron Daniels for instance (mr. ego, it sounded like), the source of Moran's power/political currency in and outside the law school is not some amazing charisma, or iron will, or secret alien energy cube, etc., but the good will generated by a common perception of her graciousness, her 'genuine' desire to help, and her general niceness. Mary and Richard have poked a hole in that, and the balloon is clearly starting to leak.

Will she patch the leak? Or is the balloon starting to deflate?

Anonymous said...

What happened at the meeting?

Anonymous said...

update?

Anonymous said...

FOR SHAME. BREAK FREE OF YOUR SILENCE.

Borstal Boy said...

Unfortunately, due to various circumstances BillableTargets was UNABLE to send someone to either the DLS Exec Meeting or the General Meeting. We are still compiling information before we post any further updates to this story. We welcome any insight whatsoever on what has happened at either of these meetings...or any other rumours, etc that you may have heard!

We work best when we get your contributions...and we are dying to get some more input before posting on this subject! Please drop any of us an email if you have some info, an opinion, or just want to provide your perspective.

Cheers,
B-Boy

Anonymous said...

The Memo was distributed despite claims by ED that this is a private matter. For complete text see http://www.lawbuzz.ca/index.php?showtopic=3314&st=180#.

Here is the response from late last night:


The Executive Director provided copies of a memo dated August 4, 2006 to those who attended the General Meeting of DLS on December 5, 2006.
I made it clear on December 1, 2006 that I consider the memo to be false and defamatory and that I wanted an opportunity to respond to it if it were to be disseminated. That opportunity was not afforded to me.

The memo was emailed to me by the Executive Director after the 2006 Annual Planning Meeting. It is deeply insulting. When I received it, I did not dignify it with a response. Now that it has been widely disseminated, I have no choice.

Here is my response to some of the false and defamatory statements contained in it:

1. I did not “choose” my retainer when I came to the clinic. In fact, I was hired by a committee composed of students and Dean Robert Sharpe in 1994.

2. The Executive Director did not appoint me as Acting Executive Director and credit course instructor to give me a “launching pad to make contacts with the law school, Legal Aid, and other organizations”. I have never expressed any interest in securing a position in the administration of either Legal Aid Ontario or the Faculty of Law. I was appointed so that the Executive Director, an accomplished fiction writer, could take a sabbatical to write a novel. I was the obvious candidate because of my academic credentials and my extensive experience in the clinic. To suggest that when I was appointed as acting director in 2004, the Executive Director was “helping” me in my “search for other opportunities” is false.

3. While I was acting director, I did not set out to increase criminal files as part of a campaign to strengthen my position in the clinic. While serving as clinic director, I also continued to do criminal and University Affairs case review. My colleagues and I worked collaboratively to realize the amazing potential of DLS. We actively recruited student volunteers, we encouraged students to take on files, we campaigned for closer links between DLS and law school courses such as family, criminal and administrative law, we launched the family law division, we campaigned to the Capstone committee for a greater recognition of clinical legal education in the curriculum and we initiated the homeless project with Legal Aid Ontario. All of these projects were undertaken with the full knowledge of the Executive Director. If our efforts resulted in an increase in the number of cases at the clinic and the number of students doing them, then we were successful. To suggest that I used the office of executive director to improve my own position within the clinic is slanderous.

4. I never told the Executive Director that I was “strapped for money with the house”. In fact, I am not strapped for money and, indeed, I have never been strapped for money. Should I ever have the misfortune of becoming strapped for money, I will not try to extract it from a poverty law clinic. To suggest that I have financial problems is slanderous. To suggest that if I did have financial problems, I would campaign for better remuneration from a poverty law clinic to solve them, is also slanderous.

5. I have never sought to have the clinic create a “high profile” position for me. I have always worked to forward the educational and community service goals of the clinic. To suggest otherwise is slanderous.

6. I did not ask the Executive or the Executive Director for a more “desirable” office. Nor did I ask that another office be left “empty most of the week”. To suggest that I asked for a better office is false.

7. At the 2006 annual planning meeting, I did not raise the issue of lawyers’ review style and I did not “suggest that other lawyers were not using the right approach to supervision”. During a discussion of the relative demands of criminal and civil files, a student member of the Executive raised the issue and criticized one style of review. To suggest that I denigrated my colleagues at the Executive meeting is slanderous.

8. I never suggested that the clinic should increase the proportion of criminal files that students carry. I pointed out that students were carrying a disproportionate number of criminal files and questioned whether clinic resources were best apportioned to support the students and the objectives of the clinic. To suggest that I was plotting to take over the clinic for my own benefit is slanderous.

9. I never blocked the hiring of a full-time junior lawyer to replace retained criminal review. In fact, my repeated attempts to have the Executive consider the advantages and disadvantages of various criminal review options, including the hiring of a full-time lawyer, were blocked by the Executive Director. To suggest that, for my own benefit, I deliberately stood in the way of improving the clinic is slanderous.

10. At the annual planning meetings of 2005 and 2006, I did not try to “enlist” the students in a campaign to get more money or more “prestige” for me. I did not have “power” over the student Executive members. To suggest that I tried to use the students as “lobbying fodder” is slanderous.

11. I took on more cases than my retainer hours allowed because to do otherwise would defeat the educational and community service goals of the clinic. It has always been my position that file moratoriums undermine the goals of student education and community service by preventing willing students from providing legal assistance to desperate clients. To suggest that I deliberately took on more cases than my retainer hours allowed in order to portray myself as badly treated, to lay the groundwork for a personal financial windfall or to set the stage for a criminal law take-over is slanderous.


Mary Misener

Anonymous said...

This blog sucks ass