Amir Attaran @profamirattaran August 27, 2022:
The @LawSocietyLSO does not deserve to be called a regulator of lawyers.
It is a shield for corrupt lawyers.
But what do you expect from an organization of lawyers “regulating” other lawyers?
Jacob Shelley (Shelestowsky) @JacobShelley August 26, 2022:
November 30, 2021 I filed a formal complaint with @LawSocietyLSO against @roccogalatilaw who referred to Drs as pedophiles, among many other things. Acknowledged Dec. 1. Crickets since.
Alexis Gee@lexomatic Aug 26 Replying to @JacobShelleyand@LawSocietyLSO:
I’m sure protecting the public requires a formal complaint and not a regulator, whose mandate is protecting the public, acting when becoming aware of questionable activity that is covered in codes of conduct. But I’m just a lowly member of the public.
Jacob Shelley (Shelestowsky) @JacobShelley :
@LawSocietyLSO has a public duty. Protecting public interest is part of that. So is acting in a timely manner. Code of Conduct starts with Integrity. Complaint will be forthcoming, to be sure – as will looking into challenging the Society itself to fulfill its public duty.
Lion Advocacy @LionAdvocacy Aug 26, 2022 Replying to @JacobShelley @LawSocietyLSO and @roccogalatilaw:
In my respectful view, complaints (or the existence thereof) to the LSO about another lawyer should not be made public without the consent of the other party, as it allows for a one-way communication advantage. 
Secrets are a law society’s and a lawyer’s best friend. Especially when they harm children, the public interest, paying clients, and or shit on the rules of the legal industry like my lawyers, Murray Klippenstein and Cory Wanless, did. Secrets are a judge’s (and ex-judge’s) best friend too.
Jacob Shelley (Shelestowsky)@JacobShelley Replying to @LionAdvocacy @LawSocietyLSO and @roccogalatilaw:
I’m curious what advantage you see. This is a public regulator. These matters should be public – might even improve them.
Because the complainant can present their side of the complaint, but the responding lawyer is invariably not able to respond either at the direction of their counsel, or because responding may be contrary to the complaint rule process itself. Pfffft! LSO doesn’t give a shit about its rules or processes; LSO needs to protect its dirty lawyers, especially if they are white males. And, it’s not about protecting the truth, the public or the complaint process; it’s about gagging and controlling complainants to give lawyers, who have all the power, more power.
LSO’s confidentiality demands enable crimes by lawyers. How will the corrupt enabler of the corrupt in its legal club keep the big bucks rolling in for the rich without secrets?
Jacob Shelley (Shelestowsky)@JacobShelley:
This only reveals problems with the complaint-based system, in my mind, one that shrouds everything in secrecy. The regulator has a public duty and it is not fulfilling that duty. Nature of complaint wasn’t disclosed – I only referred to the public mutterings. I’d be more in your camp for private activities – but public-facing statements are already public. I’m just the person that complained about them (or one of them, anyhow).
Junebugspitfire @junebugspitfire Replying to @JacobShelley @LawSocietyLSO and @roccogalatilaw:
Just so you’re both aware, the Law Society doesn’t care…Except LSO does care to (in my view):
- enable pedophiles and licence them, giving known convicted abusers of children protected access to children;
- keep secrets about dirty lawyers, knowingly harming the public interest and those retaining lawyers;
- silencing and controlling complainants so as to hide the LSO’s dirty lawyers making masses of money deceiving their clients and harming the public interest;
- enable racist lawyers;
- enable lying lawyers;
- enable law-violating lawyers;
- keep more money rolling in for the rich and powerful; and
- con the public to maintain the LSO’s regulatory facade to fulfill its primary role of keeping the rich getting richer (by raping the public interest). Rape of children and the environment requires a conned public believing there is a “justice” system in Canada (which there isn’t, there’s just a prohibitively expensive, inaccessible legal/judicial industry), which needs law societies to con the public into believing lawyers are regulated.
Refer also to:
Life is about perspective. You might think you’re a lion…but….
… My ex lawyers toyed with me and my case, stringing me along (withheld my website and $40,000.00 in my trust account, ignored my correspondence, etc.), lying more and more, ending with Klippenstein going so far as to lie in an Affidavit to the court blaming me for his galling behaviours. He sent his dishonest Affidavit to the defendants (in violation of my client solicitor privilege, as noted by the judge). Klippenstein regulates himself; he is on the board of the LSO, self regulator of lawyers. He knows his abuses will be tolerated and protected. …
Where is the self regulator of lawyers, the LSO? Oh, right, too busy protecting itself from being sued again by Klippenstein. This time, with him as a Bencher (on the board of the self-regulator he’s suing).
In the early years of my case, Klippenstein tried to convince me he was a kind cuddly lovable man, but in the court room he lets his mighty claws out, fiercely fighting those that harm his clients and the public interest. I never saw Klippenstein use his claws against the defendants in my case. I only saw him lash his claws at his self regulator (the LSO), me, my case, my website, my savings, my files and my drinking water. (I remain living with frac’d and contaminated water.)
Law Society Ontario (LSO)’s white privilege bucket runneth over