Clear admission of lawyers’ privilege

Re Law society does not impede police Letter, Nov. 15.

In his letter, the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada in trying to defend its reputation, in fact, confirms there is a separate standard for lawyers when it comes to administration of justice. He states in his letter that the Star article did not fairly distinguish the circumstances which differentiated why some lawyers were suspended rather than disbarred and that usually that when full restitution has been made by a lawyer, he or she would be suspended rather than disbarred. This, of course, begs the question: When is a thief a thief? If one steals and is caught and then makes restitution, is he or she not still guilty of theft ? Our law clearly states that a person commits the offence of theft by conversion when, having lawfully obtained funds or other property of another under an agreement or other known legal obligation to make a specified application of such funds or a specified disposition of such property, he knowingly converts the funds or property to his own use in violation of the agreement or legal obligation. This letter by the treasurer is a clear admission that lawyers enjoy a different standard in the eyes of the law society. Unlike a common thief, if caught a lawyer is forgiven if he makes restitution. With respect to the police, one of the mandates of the law society is to protect the public from unscrupulous lawyers. It should therefore follow, that once the society has investigated and found evidence of embezzlement, fraud or theft, it should have an obligation to encourage prosecution and co- operate with the police. As for the police, they can only bring the matter before the courts and must rely on other members of the law society to convict one of their learned friends and which lawyer wants that job? John Winters, Toronto