Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content Count

    11205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

epeeist last won the day on November 13 2019

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4396 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I had posted in OT thread before seeing this one - if the reporters had directed the information to public health authorities, or (if there were live classes) the law school, it would have been different. [emphasis added] That attitude is a major factor in police misconduct and problems in numerous professions. As noted above, I totally agree that targeting employers was wrong. But if the reporting had instead been motivated out of genuine public health concern, and been to appropriate authorities, that would have been very different. Snitching or whistleblowing when motivated out of genuine public concern (not vengeance or trying to secure an advantage) is at least sometimes something that should be done, and shouldn't be categorically denigrated. And in particular, lawyers may ethically have situations in which they are obliged to report behaviour of other lawyers to the law society (or a client of the firm) - speaking generally, not giving advice which would vary by province and situation.
  2. Years ago (not recently!). I took up fencing 2L starting with an instructional class at Queen's (wanted to take up sport that sounded interesting and get some fun exercise), then joined Queen's recreational club which had some joint practices and went to some Ontario tournaments (ones open to public, obviously only varsity did university competition) with varsity, became varsity fencer 3L. So I wasn't continuing a sport I'd started already before law school. My recollection is that about 5 or 6 other law students in my year, by the time of graduation, had a varsity letter. I think one was rowing (?) but can't recall others or whether they had continued or taken up a sport during law school or what the relative time commitments were. For me it was several hours several times per week (2-4 times; the head coach was sympathetic if I couldn't make a practice, some wouldn't be, and for some sports it would be more not a problem for others if one missed a practice). With the benefit of hindsight I could have managed the varsity fencing time commitment during 1L, but don't think it would have been advisable to start law school with that time commitment. Search the board, I think some have posted about continuing a varsity sport in 1L.
  3. I strongly disagree, at least to the extent you take it (and recognizing you're distinguishing between partners or sole practitioners and employed lawyers). There have been lawyers who were nursing mothers denied a break to express because the judge didn't want to take a break, lawyers denied a chance to go to the bathroom and soiling their clothes, etc. I've known people who for health reasons HAD to take meal breaks. At the time I did bar ads there was a teaching component, with mandatory attendance, and one pregnant woman was told if she had to attend an obstetrical appointment that was missing mandatory attendance (she escalated and eventually they changed the rules). To snidely dismiss lunch breaks as unprofessional is more than ridiculous; and it shouldn't require medical reasons to take a break (indeed, given the billable hour, if taking breaks makes one more productive and saves the client money, in a non-emergency/legally urgent situation, is it ethically problematic to work crazy hours, taking more time to do the work because tired?). To take a different example, long hours of residents contributes to medical mistakes; to argue for more reasonable hours is not just about the professional, but about the quality of work. Now, if you mean that sometimes the demands of the profession are overriding, one may have to miss a break or cancel a vacation or whatever, especially during a trial, I wholeheartedly agree. But to repeat my point from before, distinguish between what the practice of law requires in the way of sacrifice, from what judges, officials, employers, or clients demand that is not necessary for the professional practice of law but is an unreasonable exercise of power. Also, there is a discriminatory aspect, that lawyers - including but not limited to mothers or those with health conditions - who do excellent work but may not put in the face time, may wrongly be perceived as lesser lawyers even if more efficient and delivering a better work product, due to the billable hour. Not just gender, I've read about US wrongful dismissal cases by Orthodox Jews who observed the Sabbath - and it wasn't necessary to the job, it had more to do with bosses wanting them available Saturdays because that's when they (the partner) wanted to work.
  4. While I agree OP indulged in gross hyperbole, I don't entirely agree with @Diplock (my perspective is former FT small-firm associate, now only PT lawyer and FT a non-law career). There are professional requirements leading to hard work, long hours, and uncertain schedules. For instance, a criminal or family lawyer (and others of course!) may have genuinely urgent client needs like arrests, emergency custody issues, etc. Those are endemic to the profession. But, there are also employer or client requirements that aren't "necessary" or part of the profession per se. Like some firms (thinking US examples I've read about, I'm sure Canadian ones also), imposed deadlines like requiring 24/7 availability and responses to all emails within 30 minutes or whatever, even if not urgent. Because the employer dictates and/or the client expects that. That's not being on call 24/7 because urgent legal issues come up, but because of non-legal factors. And in other non-legal non-professional jobs, being on call or requiring out-of-office responses to communications does (or should, I'm not giving a legal opinion!) lead to compensation for on-call time, even if not called upon. Or let's say a partner has a matter due in 2 months, but they're going on vacation in a week, and kind of want to look at it before then, so they tell an associate to do something over the weekend. That's not legal urgency, that's non-legal urgency, even if the partner doesn't look at it until back from vacation and the associate could have taken more time...
  5. I already had enough EDI, but needed professionalism so watched Hispanic Day videos. There was some useful info/q&a for people who practice in the area of immigration law. Or in one of them, for someone looking to become a judge or justice. But there was much more, complaining about Trump and the US, disagreeing with Canadian law, etc. I mean, I disagree with Canadian restrictions on claiming refugee status etc., but that's an argument about policy or morality or rights, there wasn't discussion about how e.g. there were Charter violations or anything like that. So it was mostly, immigration /refugee system is bad. Which I agree it is, but this goes back to my prior comment, it doesn't really seem to be about lawyers and the practice of law.
  6. I see a big difference between work for an employer (if what they want you to do is legal and not unethical, do it or quit) versus for a client (if not in a situation where can't withdraw because e.g. trial imminent) - under what circumstances can you refuse just because you don't like it, and then as I had previously asked, what about time already spent now wasted because lawyer doesn't want to do a legal, ethical thing they don't like? DOJ lawyers in US re Trump is an interesting topic but more for OT I think. Last paragraph, I assume you mean TWU but they had changed their signed statement anyway, so not sure what you mean?
  7. Moonlighting generally raises issues; not being an employment lawyer, I can't say whether controlling. But, for lawyers particularly, a higher ethical burden (my view, not providing any ethical advice here!); and even if not I'd rather be honest. And I've occasionally been off from my regular job for a pre-trial hearing or trial, kind of hard to do that and be truthful if you've kept it a secret. Even if doing solicitor work, I think it bad practice to keep a professionally-regulated side business secret. Huge difference between mowing your neighbour's lawn for $20 on the weekend versus being solicitor of record in a lawsuit. I've even had a few matters referred to me because not a secret (I don't mean lawyer referral, I mean someone at work asking if I'd be interested in speaking to a friend of theirs). I do not do a lot of lawyer work, enough to have a reasonable expectation of profit and to keep my hand in and maintain familiarity (I only do civil litigation, not a GP, and no longer do IP work, by limiting my scope keeping current is more feasible), and because I like litigation. In considering whether to become more active and advertise etc. I have to bear in mind that can quickly become much busier; and my regular job has unpredictable busy times also.
  8. OP sounds like they're working part-time as a lawyer employed by a law firm, which is quite different from me; have a normal non-lawyer job, and also (with their knowledge and written into my agreement) I'm free to practice law on my own as a sole practitioner, which I do part-time, from recommendations and having total control over intake, typically only a few active files.
  9. Your repeatedly posting in this thread, bringing up posts from over a year ago, clearly demonstrates how different you are...
  10. [Disclaimers: Given the thread title, discussion of the multiple items including GDPR in posts, not merely a single act, and the original discussion this was spliced from, I quite naturally assumed that the right to be forgotten, generally, could be discussed here, including consequences of same. If not, then I will start a new thread. Also, please note that external links may be to articles with content, including comments, which I am not necessarily endorsing; and, there may be offensive information somewhere else on said site, or the Internet as a whole. And, I had a beer earlier today, and have not proofread anything here.] .............. Very mildly amusingly, since original thread contained no indication of splice, I had assumed the posts were "forgotten"... Recent Austrian example, Facebook ordered to take down worldwide, all posts including similar posts (not just identical) about a local politician. Because last year's EU decision didn't say that no global takedown orders, but the opposite, said when they could be available. https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/12/facebook-loses-final-appeal-in-defamation-takedown-case-must-remove-same-and-similar-hate-posts-globally/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIFpPZV_1Mh9ur5YTjF7Hw08YOIv8KZx409783V_bJy2uL5fFafGJVZyTO8B9WA0D9sojjAroN4iEbabGsrfbxoP_b6Sr23htDb7ikgEzfpWwGeO4XU2OrijEanqNAXc9dCuYouBjsxVFa1zWKdqOc4KSisgtb1tt-TXkHCGkcYt https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/austria-facebook-eva-glawischnig-piesczek-censorship.html
  11. I agree that someone shouldn't be held accountable forever. That is NOT the same as saying that everyone is entitled to have everything deleted. If balancing is too difficult, then the default should be allow historical truth to be told, not default = be forgotten automatically (or upon request).
  12. [emphasis added] [Aside unrelated to Pyke - @realpseudonym I was deliberately being over-the-top in this specific instance] TL;DR: read only bold I think moral and/or safety evaluation should be part of the principle. I agree that people who do things, including deliberately bad things (like crimes) should be able to deal with the consequences, change, be able to go on and live their life, etc. I just think that as it exists, being "forgotten" is a very blunt tool - if e.g. existing protections against discrimination based on criminal record are insufficient, that should be addressed ahead of deleting the information. If for instance allegations based on arrest when no prosecution are a problem, then laws should restrict police release of information identifying who has been arrested (except when genuinely necessary to investigation). I mean, not criminal, but if that Spanish lawyer then went into business providing legal financial and ethical advice, I'd be concerned that the right to be forgotten was a disservice to clients and potential clients depending upon the nature of the history. Is having been in default on a mortgage bad enough that it should be known? Organizationally, should a restaurant's past bad reviews be forgotten? Food poisoning? Child abuse by a religious or educational group shouldn't be forgotten, nor by the individual perpetrators. What about allegations? Politicians? What e.g. Trump did and said in the past no matter how long ago about women, sex, real estate, etc. were in my view relevant no matter how long ago, even if appearing in European media... Also, because of global reach of some laws and orders (e.g. most recent I've read about Austrian), concern that the lowest (or highest, depending on your view) common denominator governs. We are concerned about totalitarian governments censoring info or restricting access, do democracies get a pass? Because they shouldn't (cough US cough).
  13. I thought that for one-offs like this, ask a mod to ask the question? But, they can comment. More generally (about this topic; I am shifting from a specific response to you, to the topic generally, and nothing hereinafter should be construed as a response to you; also, I am using "actor" in a gender-neutral sense, not referring only to male-identifying performers; and, I am not referring to any specific person), in terms of right to be forgotten (and like you, haven't exactly reviewed in detail), is the difference adequately dealt with between activities that happen to attract attention, versus those designed to attract attention, versus those accidentally but carelessly attracting attention? Like someone becoming famous as an actor, or on a reality show, or attempting to break a world record, etc. is deliberately trying to get famous. If later they no longer want to be known for their role in a movie or tripping while trying to break a record or something, is that fair? Versus someone, for good or ill, becoming known as the perpetrator or victim of a crime, while the former is blameworthy, should they both be enforceably forgettable? Rough analogy to the public/private actor distinction in US defamation law. E.g. for a post, the difference between: 1. Someone deliberately posting their name, address, intimate personal details, etc., then wanting it erased; 2. Someone carelessly posting enough info to be obviously or easily known then wanting it erased; or 3. Someone becoming knowable with more effort (e.g. if a post contains linking information that makes the person discoverable, or the combination of multiple posts).
  14. I try to mirror the formality or lack of the sender, if replying. E.g. if they wrote in email "Hi, firstname" I do likewise, usually. Letters, attached or otherwise, generally much more formal of course. Just like I've gotten emails to me by firstname, with very formal letter attached. If mirroring not applicable e.g. because I'm originating, close with Best Regards, or Regards even if less formal opening like "Hello All". I avoid yours truly and variations usually, in part because of etymology, it historically suggests the person using that closing is superior - for that reason I may sometimes deliberately use it with some... If they've provided info or something, even if obliged to, typically "Thanks, and Best Regards". If around a holiday, or when Covid lockdowns first beginning, I might add something about holiday or wishing continued good health. If dealing with someone in QC, even if the body of the email is in English, I'll typically open with Bonjour and close with a bientot. If group is a mix, "Hello and Bonjour All" opening, "Best Regards et a bientot" closing. Aside, I hate the practice some have of addressing admins by firstname (e.g. when sending an email with documents to admin directly as requested) but their bosses more formally. If an admin person closes with first name, I'll reply accordingly, but close with just my first name (and, in a couple of cases, have explicitly told them, just my first name is fine - in one case, dealing with American, they thanked me but said their direction was all lawyers addressed formally with "Esq." after their name, so I lived with it, didn't want to create difficulty for them based on my principles. In some cases, especially around holidays, I've explicitly included greetings to admin person copied on an email not addressed to them, if I've dealt directly with them before.
×
×
  • Create New...