On loyalty

Our beleaguered Mayor of Toronto has been in a heap of trouble lately, much of it his own doing, but an equal amount due to the deliberate attempt by his foes on council and in the media to continually portray him in the worst possible light, thus distracting him from governing effectively. While Ford's troubles at his own hands, be they drink, food, drugs, or a refusal to take advice, his travails at the hands of his adversaries are sadly par for the course in the modern political era. Yet there is an additional source of Ford's troubles that are neither his own doing nor politics as normal. I refer to the appalling lack of loyalty amongst his inner circle. The very people who pledged their loyalty to Ford during the election and the first couple of years of his term have almost all suddenly abandoned ship when it appeared the ship was in the midst of capsizing. Now, one cannot fault many of those people, who have their own families to support and futures to worry about, for leaving his employ to seek greener, and possibly calmer, pastures. Such self-preservation is not itself an act of betrayal. However, the willingness to speak to the media, in particular the Toronto Star, the powerful media outlet that has made the decimation of the Ford administration its raison d'etre, is the ultimate act of disloyalty. These individuals certainly had no interest in publicly badmouthing the mayor when times were good and when they felt their own resumes would be enhanced by their association with Mayor Ford. These individuals are a symptom of the larger problem in business, politics, and even day to day friendships, specifically a lack of loyalty in favour of one's immediate gratification.

One of my favourite questions to ask of individuals when I am getting to know them and one of my favourite dinner party questions is: What is the characteristic you most value in your friends? My answer is always the same and has been since I was a teenager...loyalty.

Loyalty is  the principled notion that you can and will stand by your friend, spouse, business partner, or colleague through thick and thin, through good times and bad. Sadly, in a post-consumerist society marked by the narcissism of Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and reality TV, loyalty now seems as quaint as family picnics on Sunday or virginity until marriage. This is truly a sad fact. Looking out for one's best interests needn't necessarily mean throwing someone else overboard. And when taking care of one's own interests conflicts with loyalty, loyalty ought to win out.

This idea of loyalty as an absolute virtue raises some ethical dilemmas from time to time, but even these quandaries can be disposed of in a manner that rises above the conflict in competing values. For example, take the all too common scenario of your best friend admitting to a crime, stepping out on her spouse or of cheating their boss or on a test. Your friend has run afoul of a value or values that you hold at least a dear as loyalty. How to resolve this seeming value system showdown? Which value triumphs? I have always felt the answer is actually quite simple, and need not involve the sacrifice of either of the conflicting virtues. I would approach that person, explain my concerns with their transgressions, and encourage them to come clean, turn themselves in, get treatment etc. You have thus not only not been disloyal, but doubly demonstrated your loyalty- first by not giving them up, and secondly by encouraging them to do what is right, you may have forced them to confront their demons and start a fresh path.

I am fortunate to have many friends I have accumulated over the years, most of whom have been around for 25 or 30 years, since high school or university. Over the years, the strength of many of these friendships has waned as we become busy with careers, kids, families, mortgages, and the often inevitable distance that now separates us as a result of career or marriage related relocation. In some cases the passage of time and our different directions have left us with nothing in common except the past. Yet the friendships survive because of a sense of loyalty to one another. In simple terms, this means I may not see you for years, speak to you for months, yet when you call me for help, if it is within my power to do so, I will do my utmost even at great sacrifice of time and often money. The only reciprocity is my knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you would do the same for me.

In the course of my career I have represented many criminal law clients, and my dealings with the constabulary have developed in me a tremendous disrespect for the institution of policing. I think the way officers will lie to back one another up is an affront to our justice system and to the very Charter on which it is balanced. Yet I must confess a grudging admiration for the loyalty these officers show to their colleagues.

It is often said that there is no honour among thieves, except as most professionals involved in the criminal justice system will attest, organized crime specifically, and lesser criminals generally, have a heightened sense of loyalty. I have seen many clients plea out and accept the consequences rather than rat out their friends. It is also worthy of note that next to pedophiles, the most hated inmates in jail (and those next in need of solitary confinement for protection) are those perceived to have been disloyal. The snitches.

When the criminal underworld employs a greater familiarity with loyalty than the political and business world upon which we rely to run our country, we ought to all be concerned. And perhaps take stock of our own lives and what, if any, sacrifices we would make for loyalty to those who have earned it from us.

Maybe there is hope after all

I have been accused by those around me of railing against the youth of today as if I were some crotchety old man talking about how my generation was different and of being prone to starting sentences with the words "when I was young...". And indeed I am guilty as charged. I have long held that today's teens are the most coddled, privileged generation and that this does not bode well for the future of our country. I have opined both in previous posts on this blog, and in rants to anyone who will listen, that today's teens lack of respect for authority; my generation's helicopter parenting; our legal tying of the teachers' hands; awards for participation; the educational system's relaxing of basic grammar and spelling rules; and the advent of ubiquitous social media, will all lead to this generation of teens becoming the soft underbelly of an already spineless society. But it appears I may be wrong, and that there is hope for this generation. Real and exciting hope.

My son has been in Army Cadets for two years now, and in four weeks he leaves for his second summer of training at Canadian Forces Base. I just attended the annual review parade for his cadet troop, and came away with a sense of pride, not just in my own son but in the youth of our nation. At the annual review, as well as over the last couple of years that Jacob has been in Cadets, I have been fortunate to see a generation of teenagers at their utmost. These teens, almost equal numbers of each gender, are of course regular teenagers. I am sure when not in front of their commanding officers, teachers  or parents they swear, sneak booze and cigarettes, and are sexually active. But they are also good students destined for higher education and successful careers where they will be able to support themselves and their families as well as make a contribution to the community. They are unfailingly polite, respectful of authority, have a strong work ethic, are physically fit, self-motivated, and many, if not most, possess leadership skills far beyond their years.

While I am on the subject of teens, I have, through my son, met many other of his high school classmates, who, while not in Cadets, are equally impressive. In addition to being academically inclined and demonstrating  hard work and perseverance, they play competitive sports or pursue some other endeavour such as dance or music at a competition level. They hold down part time jobs to earn their own spending money, do far more hours of volunteerism than just the minimum required by their school, and have a clear idea of their future path.

So maybe hope is not lost at all. Maybe my son's generation will be the best yet. They are growing up with the benefits of the most advanced science and technology in the history of the world. At first glance it appears they squander too much of that for superficial and banal purposes but a closer look reveals a generation who will ultimately use their own internal drive, intellect, physical abilities, and technology, to do great things for themselves and for our community. If these teens I see are indicative of what is to come, I have no worries that the future of our country is in good hands.

Time for compulsory national service

A year and a half ago my oldest son and I were in Israel. I noticed something about the teens and 20-somethings there, in contrast to those in their early to mid-20s that I encounter here, I cannot seem to get out of my mind. My son picked up on it too. The young Israelis seemed older, more mature, more sophisticated, more worldly than Canadian kids the same age. Maybe they travelled more. Maybe it was living a country that was constantly under attack. Maybe it was that every one of them knew someone or had themselves been to the front lines of a war zone. Yet while those things may have been part of the reason why Israeli youth grow up quickly comparative to their North American peers, I suspect the real reason lay in the State of Israel’s two to three year mandatory national service requirement which for most commenced upon the completion of high school.  
 

Logically, this would seem to make sense. By the time most Israelis start college or university, or join the workforce if higher education is not in the offing, they already have at least 2 years of real world experience under their belts. While this experience is often gained in a war zone, just as often it is gained in the military environment sans combat, but with military training, structure and command. For many, the national service requirement is not served in the military at all, but in a hospital, a school or government office. In any event, it is a 2 year stint at the age of 18 in which the teenagers can't help but develop life skills, navigate work force politics, and obtain a sense of adult responsibility. They are forced to learn self-discipline, respect for authority, as well as to work under often severe conditions. Contrast that with the average middle class Canadian teen who enters university or college at the age of 18 straight from high school and Mommy and Daddy’s house, with no real world experience. After two years, most of them remain cocooned in the amniotic sac of higher education (or the post-high school work force where they are still buffeted from real world concerns as they still live at home). Thus, at 20, most Canadian kids are still just that, kids. Israelis by contrast are already adults who understand the concepts of self-starting, hard work, goal setting and responsibility. They develop the drive and focus to succeed, or at a minimum to get the job done on time and to exacting standards. Young Israelis have, ironically given the constant state of high alert of their nation, an ability to see the long game.

In his book Start Up Nation, Dan Senor (http://www.startupnationbook.com/) wrote that Israel was at the forefront of technological innovation and entrepreneurship, noting specifically that Israel had the most new businesses per year of any first world nation. This was attributed to in large measure to the military service required of young Israelis. Specifically, he writes:

                
 "No college experience disciplines you to think like [the military does], with high stakes and intense pressure,” one veteran notes, explaining how state service preps Israelis to communicate, to forge teams, and to improvise at work. 

Fortunately in Canada it is unlikely that our children, if they were required to enter the military, would ever see action in conflict. But the mere aspect of being in an environment where your parents’ money or contacts mean nothing, where you are taken out of the creature comforts of home, out of your tightly knit cabal of friends, and put in a position where you must follow strict rules and obey a chain of command will toughen up our children. For economically disadvantaged children who might not otherwise be given the opportunities afforded to those of the middle class, or teenagers who are not academically inclined, military training will provide them a much needed avenue out of poverty as it will ensure the most marginalized of our society will be guaranteed skills training and development that will make them viable members of the workforce. In some of my earlier articles on this blog I have referred to the problems created by the cycle of poverty. Compulsory national service may mitigate some of that by reducing the numbers of uneducated and unemployable.

National service, here as in Israel, does not need to mean the military. I would propose options such as teaching, hospital work, and not for profit outreach programs, where we could harness the energy and idealism of our youth in the farthest reaches of our country. In other words, if you chose to teach for your national service, it wouldn’t be at the Montessori in an upper middle class suburb, but rather perhaps an underfunded school in an under-served northern community or disadvantaged inner city neighbourhood. We could use national service programs to assist with the very social safety net of which we are so proud but which the government can ill afford to continue funding at the same levels as we have historically. This would be a much needed supplement to the social safety net while at the same time preparing our teenagers for the challenges of adulthood.

I strongly believe Canada is the greatest nation in the world. I also believe that no matter how much every generation of parents worries about the younger generation, those kids usually turn out okay, just as we did. But comfort should not mean apathy. There is much to be done and Canada can be even better. Let us not rest on our laurels. Let us strive to make every future generation the absolute best it can be, and in the process improve the social services of our country via national service, and ultimately the economy and politics by sending forth from their national service the best prepared, most informed, most mature, compassionate and responsible generation than we have ever sent before.

Truly Great

I read this morning in the Toronto Star that Garth Drabinsky was stripped of his Order of Canada.This followed an article in the same paper less than two months ago announcing the recipients of the 2012 Order of Canada, which will be handed out in the coming months.Yet all the discussion at my office, and even the lawyers' lounges and professional offices I have attended this week centers around last Sunday's Oscars. As anyone who knows me is well aware, perhaps my biggest pet peeve is our obsession with celebrity for celebrity's sake.

 

My thoughts on this subject go back at least to 2004, when my Rabbi, Lawrence Englander, was awarded the Order of Canada for his 30 years of community service. His investiture into the Order of Canada recognized that over the course of more than three decades, his leadership and vision at Solel Congregation in Mississauga helped to create, among other things, a food bank which feeds over 5000 people a month, a housing project for the poor, and breakfast programs for financially disadvantaged children. In addition, he has galvanized his congregants to action in the social, cultural, charitable and political fabric of our society. I often cite him as an example of a true greatness and exactly the type of person who ought to receive these awards and the accolades of our community. The vast majority of those granted such an honour as the Order of Canada or the recent Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals fit the same mold as Rabbi Englander.

I have over the years watched these Order of Canada ceremonies on local cable when the Governor General hands out the highest award this country can bestow upon a citizen. I have studied the details of the recipients each year when the announcements are made. These men and women, from all parts of the country, of all races and religions, have little in common with one another except for their remarkable achievements. Throughout their careers and their lives, they have made their communities, and the country, better places. They have impacted their respective professions, discovered and created, been shepherds, teachers, and beacons.

But what is truly remarkable about this year's group of recipients (and of all years in fact) is their very ordinariness. They are not glamorous, many are not wealthy, and none of them are particularly famous by contemporary standards. They are ordinary people doing ordinary things in an extraordinary fashion. If it were up to me, the study of the lives of these individuals or at least viewing the video of the ceremonies each year would be mandatory in all schools. Why? Because in our celebrity-obsessed culture, where fame is based not on merit, but merely on wealth, glamour, or simply being famous, our children should be required to study real greatness- not in some historical context during a course but in a real life way that they can understand. It would be ideal if the one obligation that was attached to being awarded the Order of Canada would be to speak to at least one group of school children. Our children need to understand that real greatness is not found in  people who play sports for a living, or act or sing or appear in gossip pages or worse, reality tv shows. Which is not to say that none of those famous actors/musicians/athletes use their positions to make society a better place (the concept of what in Hebrew we call Tikun Olam) but even when they do, I would argue their exalted wealth and fame demands it from them and they do not necessarily deserve special praise for doing what they ought to be doing anyway. So many of these athletes and entertainers never miss an opportunity to quote the Bible or praise their God yet simultaneously forget the biblical commandment "from each according to his means to each according to his need". My comments are not meant to detract from the very real physical gifts which bless our athletes and entertainers. Some are indeed very talented at what they do (although more are merely mediocre despite their overwhelming fame). But even the best are not great. We tend too often to confuse fame with greatness. We ascribe great personal characteristics and imbue people with a humanity and intelligence undeserved merely because they stare back at us from our media on a daily basis. All the while we ignore the real greats because they’re not part of the celebrity-industrial complex.

I find it distressing that the average child will, if asked, choose as a role model a Tom Brady, or a Justin Bieber, or a Kardashian of one sort or another. It reminds me of the comedian Robin Williams' comment about some of the first FOX TV reality shows of the 90s: "it's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there". While our professional sports role models are clearly the best at what they do, and while most of our other acting or singing celebrities have at least a modicum of talent, they have in most instances done nothing to deserve this hero worship we foist upon them.

Yet we have become so enamored with the rich and famous that we forget all those who are really changing the world. Our collective apathy for the world around us has made election turnouts lower than ever before, made it more difficult than at any other time for charitable organizations to raise funds or attract volunteers, and has even made us less civilized (ruder and more impatient) in our day to day interactions with strangers. This selfishness has allowed us to forget that if we spent a little less time worshipping celebrities and a little more time improving ourselves in our own small ways, as spouses, parents, children, friends and citizens, we could make a real impact on those around us, and just maybe in the process leave a mark other than the indentation on our sofa.

I am reminded as I write this that the former Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson concluded the Order of Canada ceremonies some years ago with a particularly poignant quote from Aristotle on this exact topic: “Dignity is not in possessing honors, but in deserving them”.

The decline of the English language

Forgive me if you will the fact that I will start this article with words that would have caused me to roll my eyes had they been uttered when I was a young student-at-law a 22 years ago by my boss or my father (which may explain the eye rolling of my children and my current student-at-law when I begin conversations this way), but "back when I was your age..". The older I get the more I catch myself beginning my rants with these words. One recent such diatribe was caused by a week of being frustrated at people around me continually using incorrect grammar and not understanding what I meant because of my choice of words- words which are obvious to me, that I knew when I was in high school, that my teenager uses in regular conversation, so I'm not just referring to some arcane legal terminology. Words most educated adults should know but too many don't. Usually this is an issue when I am dealing with younger lawyers and staff, those in their 20s and early 30s. These are for the most part highly educated individuals, all born and educated in Canada. The fault lies with the decline of standards in our educational system; our lowest common denominator infotainment culture; and one of the few downsides to modern technological advances, namely tweet and text-based conversational shorthand.

While I concede some of the issue may be my own prickliness when it comes to language, grammar and vocabulary, the cold, hard fact is that the English language is devolving at a pace faster than reality television if that is possible. And yes, television and popular culture are certainly to blame. As is the educational philosophy I have seen in my kids' schools over the years where they were not penalized with reduced marks for spelling or grammar (in courses other than English) as long as the substantive thoughts and answers underlying the poor writing were understandable. This decline is also a result of the lazy, abbreviated writing of text messages, tweets, Facebook posts, and email. And don't get me started on the cocoon of self-entitlement in which that generation was raised, always being told they were great and never being dealt with honestly when they were wrong. But it is no longer, as it was just several years ago just Generation Y. The abuse of the language has now fanned upward to affect all ages. I regularly receive emails from another lawyer in their 40s or 50s (a letter which in the prehistoric days before email would have been typed and sent by regular mail on firm letterhead) that is written so flippantly that it avoids any pretense of properly using capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar and formality.

We now live in an age where intelligence is considered a liability, erudition is considered a vice, and the president of the United States is mocked by his critics for being an intellectual snob who can't relate to the common folk. We live in an age where the Honey Boo Boos are lionized and celebrated, where for a politician to achieve popularity she has to dumb herself down to be "one of us", where a book which sells 10,000 units is now considered a best seller, and where the summer's most widely read fiction was most notable not for its erotic nature but for its semiliterate writing.

The one station in society where I would expect that language standards would be upheld is in my profession. As lawyers, we are generally paid not just for our knowledge (which anyone with the inclination can obtain) but for our ability to communicate our clients' ideas, thoughts, positions, stories and legal arguments, better than they can, whether orally or in writing. What sets a great litigator apart from a good litigator is the ability to persuade, and persuasion is at its core about mastering the art of communication.

I still recall the days on the metaphorical knee of my mentor, the late Doug Stewart, listening to him dictate a letter, reading briefs of law he so meticulously drafted, or watching him deliver an oral argument in court. He exercised the English language as a sword to advance his clients' interests, while simultaneously using it as a shield to protect those same clients. To him, as to the other fine lawyers of his generation, the language was a tool not just to communicate, but to communicate more effectively than others.

The greatest writers use the art of the wordsmith not just to tell a story but to have that story move us emotionally to laugh and/or cry, or to develop pictures in our heads more vivid than any celluloid screen can possibly illustrate. Language is the reason a great many voracious readers are almost always disappointed by the movie version of a book they loved.

So to end this article where I started, forgive me for sounding like some old, retired English teacher or crotchety old man, but those of my generation who teach children in our schools, mentor the younger generations in our respective professions, and all of us as parents, have an obligation to understand that the new ways are not examples of language evolving but rather devolving, and we must band together to protect our language before all of our children talk like the illiterate morons on reality television. Sadly, like it or not, our thoughts and ultimately our actions, are put in place only by the words in our heads. If the verbiage of our society is at an elementary school level, how can the thoughts and actions that follow possibly be any loftier?

What ya gonna do when they come for you?

The January 4, 2013 sentencing of 5 former Toronto drug squad cops to 45 days of house arrest with not a day in jail is something that should concern us all. These five rogue cops were convicted when "jurors accepted that the defendants conducted a search of Ho Bing Pang’s Scarborough apartment in February 1998, without a warrant, then “did wilfully attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice, by practising deception, including by making a false or misleading account of events in their memo books, and/or by lying to the court in their testimony” to conceal what they’d done" (Toronto Star January 5, 2013 http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1310868--dimanno-measly-justice-for-dirty-cops).

Even the conviction, already under appeal, seems light when all the facts are considered. There were originally many more charges stemming from multiple incidents with this particular squad. In order to secure the conviction, the Crown dropped numerous other charges, focusing on a single episode and as such the jury didn't even hear evidence of similar unpunished actions by these officers. This fact and the leniency of the sentence simply send the wrong message to the police, not to mention to the notions of fundamental justice and fair treatment under the law, hallmarks of our legal system. 

My colleagues and I all have stories of officers who frequently lie by falsifying evidence, conspire with their colleagues to ensure their notes reflect the same sequence of events, steal confiscated property (including drugs), and mete out their own brand of frontier justice in the backseat of a scout car or an interrogation room with a "faulty" camera. And then there are those who are more or less honest but just plain lazy and will happily cut corners to secure a conviction rather than put in the necessary time and effort. As any criminal lawyer in the city can tell you, this sort of behaviour is so common place that it rarely raises eyebrows amongst the defence Bar any longer except as a means to secure an acquittal or negotiate a better plea for an accused client.

The truest measure of a just society is by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Another is by the extent of police powers. Canada is a beacon of fairness in this regard and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that all citizens, and particularly those accused of a crime, are entitled without qualification to fair treatment at the hands of the state. While such mistreatment at the hands of the police is nothing new, nor is the concept of police lying under oath, we are recently starting to see much more judicial and media awareness. Note a recent case from Brampton, home to the busiest criminal court in Canada. In R. v Dinh, (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc5644/2011onsc5644.html) Justice Deena Baltman found as a fact that Peel police had used excessive force against the accused during a drug sting. The accused alleged he was beaten in a hotel by the police.The judge also found that the police had refused the defendant’s right to counsel, and exceeded the authority of their search warrant.  More recently, I was recently retained on a case where the police sought to execute a search warrant against my client's business. The warrant explicitly stated the police could search and seize all hard copy business and banking documents, but could not seize or even search computer hard drives and cell phones. Notwithstanding the clear wording of the warrant, the police took screen captures of the cell phone and carted several computers out the door right under the nose of another lawyer present at the scene warning them not to do so.

These sorts of goings on are par for the course. A review of the Toronto Star archive just for the last year reveals dozens of articles about individual instances of police misconduct ranging from officers lying under oath, improperly detaining prisoners and denying them the right to counsel, exceeding the boundaries of search warrants, personal use of illicit drugs, sexual harassment of those in their command, and assaulting suspects. These are just the cases that make it to light. Hundreds more dealt with  by the police in this manner every year refuse to make complaints once their cases are tossed out of court, wanting understandably to be done with the police for good. And what of the ones that somehow get shoved under the rug, when the Crown withdraws the charges, thus ensuring there could be no adverse finding against the police? And of the many harassed in some of our poorest neighbourhoods who, having not actually been arrested, feel too powerless or afraid to speak out?

The five Toronto drug squad officers and their supporters would say that the fact they lost their jobs is penalty enough. They, and sadly many law abiding citizens will suggest that such shortcuts are a necessary evil to get dangerous criminals off the streets because it is so difficult to obtain a conviction and keep offenders in prison long term. We hear talk of the revolving door justice system and are constantly being told our streets are unsafe, that pedophiles, drug dealers, muggers and rapists lurk around every corner. And if the police need to break some rules in order to keep the real rule breakers off the streets we will be better off for it. That, sadly, is the thinking of too many law abiding citizens.

Let me digress from my screed briefly to say that the vast majority of my interactions with the RCMP, OPP,  and municipal and regional police forces in Southwestern Ontario over the my 20 years as a lawyer have resulted in professional dealings with honest, decent hardworking individuals whose job is far more difficult and dangerous than mine. I have counted many fine men and women in blue among my clients over the years (for non-police related matters) and some I am proud to call friends. They chose policing for noble reasons and go about their job by the rules, accepting the inevitable flaws in the system that make their work at times seem like a Sisyphean challenge. But there remain those with a Boss Hogg mentality and such reprehensible conduct must be punished to the full extent of the law.

"Why should I care", you ask? "I’m a law abiding citizen and I want to feel safe in my own neighbourhood", you say. "I don’t want drug dealers and rapists on the street. And if I’m not doing anything wrong the police have no reason to mistreat me", you have convinced yourself. Well, you would be wrong in those thoughts. The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (http://aidwyc.org/) has spent 20 years trying to free wrongfully convicted in Canada. Their clients know first hand how an innocent man or woman ends up behind bars for years.The fact is you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time; look like someone else; have a nasty breakup where your ex levels allegations of spousal abuse or child molestation (and any family lawyer can tell you this happens less rarely than you might think); or be targeted by police due to people in your social or business circles doing things about which you have no idea. We cannot draw a line and say good citizens or "lesser criminals" deserve protections under the law while those “known to police” or who commit more heinous crimes are somehow less deserving. 

Our Charter guarantees fair treatment under the law and the assurance that our police not only must uphold and enforce the law but abide by it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and we should all be concerned about the lenient sentence these officers received, a sentence that they would certainly not be satisfied with were they the arresting officers on crimes with such blatant disregard for human dignity. A slap on the wrist for these officers is a slap in the face to all Canadians who willingly from childhood accept what are taught about putting our faith and trust in the police. That trust has been sadly tainted yet again by the lack of jail time in this case.

Christmas Blues

This time of year always gets me down. Not really sure why since as a Jew it's not my holiday. Perhaps it's the endless pressure to make nice at a series of cocktail parties and holiday dinners; the fake niceness from people who are rude or dismissive all year; the overly attentive and cheerful retail workers who at any other time of year forget that they work in a customer service business. Maybe it's that I value authenticity and abhor hypocrisy. And this time of year is full of it. People who don't give a damn about their neighbours all year suddenly spending hundreds of dollars on gifts for their already pampered children and then as an afterthought buying some dollar store game to donate to a toy drive. People spending hundreds on a single family dinner kicking in several dollars worth of canned goods to a food drive. Or coming out of the mall, having spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gifts and then dropping a measly few bucks in the Salvation Army kettle only because they feel guilty if they don't.

Don't get me wrong. Donating toys, clothing, food and money to assist those most in need is just plain good citizenry. My sadness stems not from the fact that we do it at this time of year but rather the juxtaposition with what we don't do all year long. When I lived and practised law in Mississauga about ten years ago, I sat for a number of years on the board of Foodpath (now the Mississauga Food Bank) the largest food bank in Peel Region, serving thousands of clients a month. At Christmas and Easter, the haul was bountiful. But there were months during the year where we were literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to make sure all those in need could be serviced, and meeting the annual operating budget was and always a concern. People who require the assistance of food banks and other front line charitable organizations require those services all year long. All the holiday talk about peace, love, and generosity of spirit, giving-better-than-receiving fades away as quickly after Christmas as the old year fades away into the new.

And what of the unnecessary token gifts and not so veiled business promotional items handed out willy nilly as if from some drunken Santa at this time of year. Not a day has gone by in the last two weeks where I didn't receive at my office some chotchka from another law firm, court reporting service, mediation company, process serving company or other service provider to whom I pay thousands of dollars a year in fees or refer work. Little paper calendars with no room to actually write anything, date books that can't record a scintilla of what I can put in my iphone, cheap pens, fridge magnets, mouse pads and two dollar clocks- all embossed with the logo of that particular business. If you really want to send me a logo-embossed gift, have the decency to send me something with MY firm's name on it. Your so-called gift is nothing more than a cheap shill for your firm, a firm with which I already happily do business. And as for holiday cards, don't need them. Get dozens every year, all cold and impersonal, recycled as fast as they arrive. The cost to your company in printing, postage and person-hours is money that could be better spent elsewhere, such as charity or community service. I don't know the total economic cost just within in the legal profession in Toronto to all these holiday cards and gifts but it's not hard to imagine millions of dollars. Do any of these people seriously think I would punish them by taking away my business if they neglected to send me a holiday greeting card or useless bauble with their name on it if in fact they have provided me or my clients good service over the last twelve months?

All of this money would better serve our community, and uphold the best tenets of our once highly regarded profession, were it donated to food banks, breakfast programs, social service not-for-profits, senior care programs, toy drives and the like.

And that is why none of my clients or business contacts receive holiday cards and gifts. Enough is enough. After 20 years of being sucked in, this year and in the future, if I have an extra few thousand in my promotional budget for Christmas gifts and cards, I'm divvying it up amongst some of those organizations whose need far outweighs those of me and the professionals with whom I do business.

Law Society's Misguided Decision

THE LAW SOCIETY’S MISGUIDED DECISION

by Darryl Singer

On September 28^th 2012, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) terminated funding of the Ontario Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP), effective December 31, 2012.  For 35 years OLAP has been an arm's length/Chinese-walled service provider to LSUC members suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, financial stresses, marital breakdown, stress, burn-out and a myriad of other personal and professional issues that impact a lawyer's ability to properly practise law and serve one's clients. The LSUC is trying to replace all of OLAP’s services and programs with Homewood Human Solutions (Homewood), a commercial for profit EAP provider, - a move that should be discomforting to all members of our profession and the public. Why?

·         OLAP is a not-for-profit charitable organization staffed by a lean complement of highly trained and qualified professionals supported by a group of lawyer volunteers. OLAP's dozens of volunteers are themselves for the most part former clients of OLAP, who, having suffered and overcome their own demons, now choose to give back to our profession by acting as peer counsellors, speakers, authors, and ambassadors for OLAP. OLAP has contracted with a commercial EAP service provider, Shepell fgi who provide therapists and counsellors to supplement the work of OLAP’s staff and volunteers.

·         Homewood is a commercial for profit, generic EAP service provider with no experienced peer (lawyer) staff or volunteers.

·         With OLAP, there has been no direct relationship between the service providers (OLAP staff, Shepell or OLAP volunteers) and the LSUC. This ensures complete confidentiality between lawyer-clients and the treatment providers, with the lawyer-clients being able to focus on themselves without fear of intrusion by the professional regulator. Not only must the lawyer-clients be protected by confidentiality, there must be the unequivocal perception of such confidentiality lest members be fearful of reaching out for the help they need.

·         Today, except for serious misconduct or criminal activity, anything disclosed to the OLAP case worker or any OLAP volunteer by the lawyer-client is not sent to LSUC. This ensures that lawyer-clients in trouble can openly talk about their problems to obtain the best treatment regimen possible for their particular dilemmas. OLAP assists its clients to get back on track both personally and professionally. It has significant experience helping distressed lawyers transition out of practice in a way that takes into account professional obligations to LSUC and clients, thus upholding the highest standards of professionalism and the protection of the public.

·         While Homewood may adequately provide services of similar nature and quality to Shepell, the demolition of the wall between the LSUC and the EAP provider is very unwise. 

·         Homewood will not just replace Shepell with professional services, but in fact replace the OLAP infrastructure in its entirety. No longer will distressed members of the Law Society be able to seek assistance from OLAP case workers who know the unique pressures of the legal profession and the sensitivities of members in trouble. And what of the peer volunteers? The psychic and emotional benefits to a distressed lawyer being able to be counselled and mentored through the process of recovery by a fellow lawyer who has "been there" cannot be overstated. 

·         An informal survey conducted amongst OLAP's volunteer base recently indicated that many of the existing volunteers are not interested in giving of their time to benefit the bottom line of Homewood. It is likely many of them will drop out and be difficult to replace, given that the volunteer relationship is directly with the EAP and no longer with a safe not-for-profit intermediary like OLAP.

·         The expectations of our peers, our families, our clients, and society at large serve to put additional unnecessary pressures upon lawyers that can lead to financial difficulties. The situation is even more acute for those lawyers practising outside the confines of large Bay Street firms, particularly sole practitioners, whose presence as defendants at LSUC discipline hearings is over-represented, perhaps due to their vulnerability to the pressures of the profession.

·         Also, no significant transitional period has been arranged to move the existing hundreds of clients from OLAP- Shepell to Homewood. What is the emotional and health related costs to those individuals? OLAP has provided services on a continuous basis for over 35 years and it is important that these services remain in place. The integrity of our profession demands it.

I know of what I speak. After fifteen years of professional and financial success, I ended up in a three year spiral of addiction and depression which cost me my health, my savings, much of my professional reputation, and scared (and scarred) my children. I shudder to think of where the bottom would have been had I kept falling down into the abyss. OLAP was the life raft that saved me when I was near drowning. From my first meeting with an OLAP case worker who made me feel safe, secure, let me know I wasn't alone, that lots of members of our profession go through this, to the contact with volunteer lawyer peer counselors, to the excellent services provided through Shepell, I was able to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in several years. An action plan was developed with the OLAP case worker which involved divesting myself of my practice and taking concerted steps daily to ensure I would recover and get back to the person and professional I had always been.

Today, I am happier and healthier than at any time in my 45 years. My children are happier as I am a more attentive parent. My professional reputation is restored; my law practice is busier and more lucrative than ever. I am a better father, son, friend, and boss than I ever was, and the next woman to marry me will get a version of me that neither of my ex-wives would believe possible. I owe it all to the initial visit with OLAP one winter day in 2009. My story is not unique.

In the last year, I personally know of two lawyers who attempted suicide, several with degenerative genetic illnesses that have hindered their ability to properly service their clients, many who have gone through divorce, a scarily large number who show the signs of depression, and many more who used to be able to pay their bills but cannot seem to find their footing in this new economic reality. There are tens of thousands of lawyers in Ontario. That means thousands in need of OLAP's services.

LSUC's decision to essentially abolish OLAP is myopic. It is not just lawyers in distress who will suffer, but the very public LSUC claims to protect, and the very image of the profession it governs. Perhaps the Attorney General as the guardian of the public interest should look into LSUC's decision.