The 2011 Bencher Election was considered a landslide victory for female representation. Consider that not even half of elected Benchers are female (19 of 40 Benchers or 47.5% are female). Sadly, the traditional institution engenders the male right of privilege which includes self-governance and self-regulation.
Is this ratio supposed to sound impressive - 19/40? ? When your son or daughter doesn't pass their math quiz and gets only 19/40 -- would you be impressed and verklempt with pride?
What is Joseph J. Sullivan doing to improve the profession?
What exactly does Joseph Sullivan do, to "continue to analyze and improve the governance of the profession by the Law Society"?
What was he doing before he became a candidate? during the campaig and after?
Joseph Sullivan office didn't make a perfunctory effort to respond to my calls in the Spring 2011.
If one relies on Mr. Sullivan's candidate profile, then it would appear that Joseph Sullivan has no solutions for problems with the LSUC's self-governance. In his bencher candidate profile, he identified himself as a "reform candidate".
Joseph Sullivan was elected by his Hamilton peers in April 2011.
James Scarfone appears to be worried about the woeful "dictates of bureaucratic mandarins"
Why didn't James Scarfone refer to bureaucrats by some other term ?
A mandarin was a bureaucrat in Imperial China.
Is there a reason James Scarfone used a term "bureaucratic mandarin" that has cultural and historial significance to Imperial China? what's on the mind of James Scarfone - scholar-officials from Imperial China?
Perhaps Scarfone's votes came from his peers in Hamilton, not necessarily members in Toronto, Markham, Richmond Hill, Brampton, etc.
In James Scarfone's candidate profile, he expresses his perspective on self-governance.
His candidate profile stated,
"Self-governance is a privilege to be jealously guarded and entrenched, never to be taken for granted. Losing it will cost us money out of our pockets, reduce the dignity and esteem that our profession maintains, and subject our practices to the dictates of bureaucratic mandarins. This means we need to ensure the public is protected. . ."
What solutions does James Scarfone have to improve self-governance?
How would independent government over-sight on the profession cost members more money?
Doesn't James Scarfone realize that some ill-conceived initiatives cost members more money? Does he have any ideas into what that means? (e.g. Civility Complaints Protocols)
How will promoting the public interest (e.g. independent over-sight over specious proceedings) "reduce the dignity and esteem" of the profession? What is James Scarfone talking about?
What is James Scarfone's opinion of the profession's reputation in Hamilton ? (the community he practises in) Is his belief based on public opinion polls? The LSUC's public opinion polls? These should be posted on the LSUC website, if such LSUC public opinion polls truly exist.
Why should the public interest be subordinated to lawyers' interests?
Why should practising lawyers/Benchers and their firms (Gerald A. Swaye, Gerald A. Swaye & Associates Professional Corporation, Roger Yachetti, Yachetti, Lanza and Restivo, Joseph Sullivan, James Scarfone) be given a competitive edge over other competing lawyers in the Region? That does not promote the public interest, this competetitive edge in the market of legal services.
It would appear neither James Scarfone nor Joseph Sullivan have given much thought at all to the numerous problems of self-goverance.
No comments:
Post a Comment