Bellemare, ravi par la poursuite de Charest!

Dans les câbles
Effectivement, le PM s'est peut-être peinturé dans un coin avec sa menace de poursuite. Il n'aura pas d'autre choix que de mener sa menace au bout sinon il perdra encore plus de crédibilité. Les intérrogatoires subséquents du PM seront fort intéressants - et c'est là que Bellemarre le veut: dans les câbles. Reste à savoir de qui sera formée l'équipe d'avocats de Bellemarre.

Juste comme ça...
Savez-vous qui a comparu pour Me Bellemare?

Me
Me Ryan et BCF auront leur réputation ternie. Poursuivre un avocat, un avocat de grande envergure de surcroît, se taxe chèrement dans la profession.

Anonyme
Me a raison. Charest a dû trouver quelqun qui est prêt à vivre pour l'avenir avec le regard croche de ses confrères. C'est un sacrifice. Il a réussi. Bravo au client. Notons aussi que le défendeur est un praticien d'une grande envergure, bcp plus que Me Ryan.

Me
>>>> Suing a fellow lawyer has nothing to do with the plaintiff's firm.

Wrong. Ryan isn't a partner. Taking this client most
likely required approval from BCF's brains. In my opinion: it's as bad decision both for the practitioner and his firm, reputation-wise. "At BCF we sue distinguished members of the Bar" is the message.

This damaging reputation overturns or cancels by far any glamour that can result from representing an acting prime minister...

Re : Me
> >>>> Suing a fellow lawyer has nothing to do with the plaintiff's firm.
>
> Wrong. Ryan isn't a partner. Taking this client most
> likely required approval from BCF's brains. In my opinion: it's as bad decision both for the practitioner and his firm, reputation-wise. "At BCF we sue distinguished members of the Bar" is the message.
>
> This damaging reputation overturns or cancels by far any glamour that can result from representing an acting prime minister...

That's even more ridiculous. It's not about glamour it's about the interests of justice prevailing. LAwyers shouldn't shy away from taking on the PM's case BECAUSE they are concerned about their reputation. It has nothing to do with the plantiff's lawyer/firm. Fearing one's reputation in the eyes of confreres/soeurs should not trump over the pursuit of justice. This isn't a popularity contest for lawyers.

Re : Me
"At BCF we sue distinguished members of the Bar" is the message.
>
> This damaging reputation overturns or cancels by far any glamour that can result from representing an acting prime minister...

Who cares what other lawyers think about BCF and Me Ryan in accepting this mandate? They are representing the interests of their client, who happens to be the PM, who happens to be suing his former AG. Ya, so what??

Last time i checked, YOU as an attorney "Me" have a duty to your clients - and not to be the most popular lawyer in the crowd !

I find no breach of any ethical standard in accepting the PM's mandate nor, do i see any truth to your fear mongerings that BCF and Me Ryan are going to "damage their reputations" . Franchement.

Me
I agree.

I never said they should stay away from taking on a PM.

I said they should stay away from suing a lawyer, more so if he's Ad.E.-grade such as Bellemare.

I don't care if it's a popularity contest or not. That's
not the point. I simply describe what our reflexes would be towards Me Ryan in the upcoming years. Like it or not, he'll be "in baisse".

Me
You don't seem to realize that I'm not talking law or C.d.a. but rather PR and perception. Of course Ryan has a duty towards his client. I'm just saying it's a bad marketing decision. Fellow bar members condemn it. It's the reality. It's like suing a judge.

anonyme
Me a raison. Me Ryan creuse sa tombe.

Re : Me
> You don't seem to realize that I'm not talking law or C.d.a. but rather PR and perception. Of course Ryan has a duty towards his client. I'm just saying it's a bad marketing decision. Fellow bar members condemn it. It's the reality. It's like suing a judge.

I most certainly don't condemn it. I am rather astonished that your opinion is mainly focused on what other lawyers are thinking. It's a mandate like any other mandate. It wouldn't matter if the Ad.E. was a judge, either.

If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.

Me
>>>>>>> If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.

Bellemare is legally obligated by the C.d.a. to sustain the system's credibility. He is therefore legally bound to unveil whatever he knows, which is what he did. He acted upon a legal authorization drawn from the C.d.a. which makes the fault absent under 1457.

Me
>>>>>>> If we apply your logic again, an Ad.E. making those serious and public allegations about a fellow lawyer (who happens to be the PM here) is just as damaging from a PR and Marketing perspective.

Bellemare isn't loosing clients nor the respect of his colleagues. Read the polls. If I were a client of Bellemare's, I'd be just more proud of my choice of lawyer today. But I'm not. I'm a confrere and I raise my glass to him.

Me
* losing

Re : Me
> Bellemare is legally obligated by the C.d.a. to sustain the system's credibility. He is therefore legally bound to unveil whatever he knows, which is what he did. He acted upon a legal authorization drawn from the C.d.a. which makes the fault absent under 1457.


Fine. Let's apply your recent logic further although it deviates from your initial focus which was the reputation of lawyers as they are judged by fellow lawyers.

I find it difficult to believe that how many years later, Me Bellemare suddenly awakens to his duty under the C.d.a. and in the public eye, no less. The timing and the public forum within which he divulged his awakened conscience is what i find to be rather distrubing.

I look forward to reading the Enquiry Commission's report nonetheless. Thanks for your input.

Me
>>>>>I find it difficult to believe that how many years later, Me Bellemare suddenly awakens to his duty under the C.d.a. and in the public eye, no less. The timing and the public forum within which he divulged his awakened conscience is what i find to be rather distrubing.

You are absolutely right. However the fact that it is fishy isn't taken into account when deciding about his liability under CcQ.