Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!

(1/3) > >>

Renegade:
Ok, fair warning, you may very well pee your pants laughing. This is beyond hysterically funny...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/lawyers-act-to-be-reviewed-after-hitrun-20111208-1olce.html

SOUTH Australia's Attorney-General, John Rau, says he cannot do anything about a lawyer cleared of unprofessional conduct by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board despite his killing a cyclist in a hit-and-run.
--- End quote ---

Just to be clear... This lawyer is driving. He hits a cyclist. The cyclist dies. He runs aways. He's not guilty of "unprofessional conduct".

Hmmm... What do you need to do to be guilty of "unprofessional conduct"? Kill someone? Ooops. Nope. It's ok to kill people~!

Bwahahahahahahahaa~! ;D

Like just how much worse does it need to be? Would serial killing or mass murder count? :P

I just can't stop laughing at how utterly ridiculous it all is~!

Killing people? Nope. That's ok~! WTF? Hahahahahah~! ;D

eleman:
I find myself more and more as the devil's advocate or hopeless opposition but...

Assume that you hold a scuba diving license. You hit a cyclist and run away. The cyclist dies. Should your scuba diving license be revoked?

It's not OK to kill people, the lawyer in question will almost certainly be jailed for negligent homocide or something like that. And he will be in jail for a long time, but what does this event have to do with his law degree and success in bar exams?

Renegade:
I find myself more and more as the devil's advocate or hopeless opposition but...

Assume that you hold a scuba diving license. You hit a cyclist and run away. The cyclist dies. Should your scuba diving license be revoked?

It's not OK to kill people, the lawyer in question will almost certainly be jailed for negligent homocide or something like that. And he will be in jail for a long time, but what does this event have to do with his law degree and success in bar exams?
-eleman (December 13, 2011, 01:42 AM)
--- End quote ---


Devil's advocate is the best one to be~! :D


Mr Rau sought legal advice on the board's decision after a public backlash over its finding that Eugene McGee was not unprofessional when he hit and killed Ian Humphrey in 2003, left the scene of the accident, made several phone calls and arranged legal representation before going to police.

...

McGee was not breath or blood-tested for alcohol after the crash and was later fined $3100 for driving without due care.
--- End quote ---

Killing cyclists is only a $3,100 fine.

Yeah... I know... I'm pandering to the populist drivel of oversimplifying and confusing issues. It's much funnier that way. ;D :P

But seriously, actually not breaking the law in major ways might be a bit of a standard that you'd want those in the judicial system to uphold. That could just be me though. :P

Sorry - I have a very difficult time approaching this topic with any semblance of seriousness. It's just so wonky.

IainB:
It seems to make a lot of sense.

I gathered that the lawyer who killed the cyclist was not acting for or against the cyclist in any way - i.e., the cyclist was not known to the lawyer, and was not a client or otherwise involved in some case the lawyer was acting on.
If the lawyer had run over a client, then that might have been deemed to be unprofessional - depending on the motivation and circumstances - but killing someone on a bicycle with whom he had no connection with and quite accidentally (which seems to be the case here) was not adjudged to be unprofessional per se, in this case.
Indeed, why should it be?
That is a rational approach.

This was a hit-and-run, I gather. Running away from the scene to (say) get his affairs in order for his defence would seem to be a professionally prudent thing to do, though a potential breach of traffic law in some countries.
He was apparently not drunk (or not proven to be, at any rate) and only charged with driving without due care - a relatively minor traffic offence. It was an accident.

If he had been charged and found guilty of a criminal offence, then he could could almost certainly have been adjudged unprofessional and been disbarred, but that was not the case here.

My law lecturer (a barrister) used to regularly remind us - when we were studying complex judgements - to remember that "The law's an ass".

Carol Haynes:
Not sure but I think in the UK a lawyer with a criminal conviction can't practise - even if the conviction is unrelated to their work.

Ironic really as most lawyers seem to work on the principle of getting as close to being illegal as possible without getting convicted in order to ensure their clients avoid taxes or avoid justifiable conviction.

I know there are codes of conduct but a lot of lawyers get as close as possible to breaking the rules without actually doing so - hardly in the spirit of the thing but when societies law is based on arbitrary irrational rules what can you expect?

Its a bit like the National Health Service employing doctors from other countries when it is know they were stuck off for malpractice (or even incompetence) but that doesn't apply in the UK because it happened overseas! One local example was finally struck off after years of incompetent gynaecology even though his bosses and the medical board knew he had been struck off in Canada when they employed him.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page