28. The Sham and the Shame of the NS Barristers’ Society

View listing of all articles at HOME

• If you are new to this site scroll to the bottom of this page to read 1.INTRODUCTION and then work upward
• If you have accessed a single posting click on "home" at the bottom of the page first
• Visit our important sister LINKS to the left - scroll down

The Sham and the Shame of the NS Barristers’ Society: An Actual complaint filed with the NSBS against 2 lawyers working on a Children Services Case

Judge for yourself if the Barrister's society is doing its job. Names have been omitted to protect the identity of the children involved.

March 7, 2006 - Complainant filed original complaint - 4 documents included as evidence
March 22, 2006 - NSBS to Complainant - signed Barry Marchand , Officer, Complaints and Investigations
April 10, 2006 - Complainant to NSBS
April 27, 2006 - NSBS to Complainant- signed Elaine Cummings, Professional Responsibility Counsel
May10, 2006 - Complainant to NSBS
May 25, 2006 - NSBS to Complainant- signed Victoria Rees, Director of Professional Responsibility
July 2, 2006 - Complainant to NSBS



To: Director of Professional Responsibility March 7, 2006
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society
Centennial Building
1101-1645 Granville Street
Halifax, NS B3J 1X3

In 1999, I approached Children’s Services for help for my daughter when it was obvious that she was suffering from depression and was not bonding with her new baby. I requested assistance in finding mental health counseling for my daughter. No such services were offered to her. Instead, the Minister of Community Services moved in and destroyed my family by taking legal action against my daughter and her boyfriend for alleged neglect over a 2 week period after my daughter removed my grandson from my home.

This case, *********** (later renumbered as ***********), commenced March 2000 and continued until October 2001. The parties in this case were;

1. the Minister of Community Services (Applicant).
2. my daughter **********, and ************ (Respondents),
3 me, ********** (third party),

I bring complaint to the Barristers’ Society against 2 lawyers:

1.Gordon Kelly (Blois, Nickerson & Bryson) - legal counsel for the Minister
of Community Services and
2. Peter Crowther (Newton & Associates) - my
legal counsel

Neither Gordon Kelly, nor Peter Crowther should have participated in this court case because both lawyers had participated in a previous legal matter concerning my daughter - a private adoption in 1996. In this previous case, Peter Crowther (MacIntyre Newton) was my daughter’s lawyer, and Gordon Kelly (Blois, Nickerson & Bryson) was legal counsel for the adopting parents.

Though my daughter removed my grandson from my house with the intention of raising him, the Dartmouth office of Children Services took advantage of my daughter’s situation and “convinced” her within a 2 week period to place him for adoption. As a result, my daughter worked proactively with Children’s Services against both the father and I, insisting now that she wanted my grandson adopted out.

I dismissed Peter Crowther within a very short time because I deemed his services sub-standard and, at the time, I fully informed him of these reasons. I found it very curious that the next time I was in the Devonshire courthouse in Halifax, Mr. Crowther, aware that I still had not obtained the services of another lawyer, proactively solicited me in the hallway, informing me that he would be willing to take me back as a client. Needless to say, I was not interested in the least.

It is also important to note that, at the time this case with the Minister of Community Services went to court, my daughter had expressed the wish for my grandson to be adopted out to the people who had adopted her first son and, as it turned out, both of these lawyers, Gordon Kelly and Peter Crowther worked on this adoption.

At the time of the court case, I had no knowledge of the previous connection these 2 lawyers had with my daughter until some time after the court case concerning this matter concluded. It was only then that I came across the documentation concerning my daughter and this 1996 adoption identifying Peter Crowther (MacIntyre Newton) as my daughter’s lawyer, and Gordon Kelly (Blois, Nickerson & Bryson) as legal counsel for the adopting parents.

I believe it is important to bring this to the attention of the NSBS. It was the responsibility of both of these lawyers to make sure that there was no conflict of interest before they accepted this case. Because of this conflict of interest concerning both my lawyer and the Minister’s lawyer, serious questions need to be raised concerning the intention of these 2 men concerning my grandson. I find it hard to believe that it was just a mere coincidence that not one, but two, lawyers who were previously connected with my daughter in the adoption of my first grandson were both connected with the case concerning the apprehension of my second grandson.

Families are important and sacred. I respectfully request that these lawyers to be disciplined to the full extent of your powers.

Sincerely Yours,

**************
cc **************
Michel P. Samson, MLA - Richmond, Liberal Justice Critic
Kevin Deveaux, MLA -Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, NDP Justice Critic
Murray K. Scott, MLA - Cumberland South, Attorney General and Minister of Justice,Minister responsible for the Human Rights Act


Enclosed: [Hand written on original handed in to NSBS]

Consent for adoption dated June 5/1996
Certificate of Independent Legal Advice dated June 5/1996
Letter fr. Peter Crowther -dated June 24, 1996
Letter fr. Gordon Kelly dated June 20, 1996

------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Nova Scotia
Barristers’ Society

March 22, 2006

Dear ************:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter and attachments dated March 7, 2006 in which you raised concerns over alleged conflict of interest by two lawyers, Mr. Gordon Kelly and Mr. Peter Crowther in representation of your daughter’s matter.

The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society’s Professional Responsibility Department investigates concerns which reveal allegations of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, professional incompetence or professional misconduct with respect to a lawyer’s practice of law.

As you have identified two lawyers in your complaint letter, I am asking that you submit individual complaints against each lawyer for investigation. I have enclosed two copies of the complaint form and brochure that explains the Complaint Resolution process.

All complaints must be received in writing and provide evidence and specific details in support of their allegations. We ask that you provide any additional documentation to support your allegations against each lawyer and to send us copies only.

If you have any questions, please call.

Sincerely,
Barry Marchand
Officer, Complaints and Investigations
Enclosures

------------------------------------------------------------

To
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society April 10, 2006
Centennial Building
1101-1645 Granville Street
Halifax, NS B3J 1X3

Barry Marchand, Officer, Complaints and Investigations:

RE: Complaint filed with NSBS March 10, 2006.

Thank you for your letter dated March 22, 2006. Let me clarify a few important facts. First of all, on March 10, 2006, I submitted my written complaint to Ms. Marion Ritchie, the receptionist at Suite 1101, 1645 Granville Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia. M.D. was present with me at the time and was witness to this transaction. As proof of this submission, Ms. Ritchie signed a receipt, dated March 10, 2006, for same, also witnessed by M.D.

Second, the actions of these two lawyers became a conflict of interest in my matter, not my daughter’s. Both of these lawyers participated in a previous adoption matter with my daughter. This did not become a conflict of interest until these same two lawyers became actively involved in the subsequent legal matter involving the Minister of Community Services where I was Third Party. As previously stated, at the time, I was not aware of this conflict of interest, but I am also aware that it is the responsibility of the lawyers to be sure that there is no conflict of interest with any of the parties involved. My daughter and I were the only **********s in Nova Scotia (this should help when checking for conflict of interest) and the previous adoption matter was less than 4 years previous.

I believe, I made myself very clear in my original letter of complaint that I was not only raising a complaint of conflict of interest but that I was also raising an even more grave concern that both these lawyers had been involved in the same previous adoption matter - and yet - both did not detect this conflict of interest even though both had worked together on this previous matter.

“ It was the responsibility of both of these lawyers to make sure that there was
no conflict of interest before they accepted this case. Because of this conflict
of interest concerning both my lawyer and the Minister’s lawyer, serious
questions need to be raised concerning the intention of these 2 men concerning
my grandson. I find it hard to believe that it was just a mere coincidence that
not one, but two, lawyers, who were previously connected with my daughter in the
adoption of my first grandson, were both connected with the case concerning the
apprehension of my second grandson.”

Because of the circumstances of this case, it is critical that this complaint stands as I submitted it - the actions of both of these lawyers need to be investigated together, at the same time, by the same people.

And again I repeat “Families are important and sacred. I respectfully request that these lawyers be disciplined to the full extent of your powers.”


Yours Sincerely,

********************

---------------------------------------------------------

From:
Nova Scotia
Barristers’ Society

April 27, 2006

Dear ************:

Re: Your Complaint against Gordon Kelly and Peter Crowther
I acknowledge receipt of your complaint against Gordon Kelly and Peter Crowther dated Match 7, 2006 as well as your email to Barry Marchand dated April 10, 2006.

By letter dated March 22, 2006, Mr. Marchand requested that you submit individual complaints against each lawyer for investigation and to provide evidence and specific detail in support of your allegations, however you have declined to do so.

The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society’s Professional Responsibility Department investigates concerns which reveal allegations of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, professional incompetence or professional misconduct With respect to a lawyer’s practice of law. A copy of our brochure is enclosed for your information.

In your complaint, you have alleged that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Crowther were in a conflict of interest as a result of their involvement in what appears to be an application by the Minister of Community Services for apprehension of another of your daughter’s children in 1999.

It appears that in 1996, Mr Kelly represented the adoptive parents and Mr. Crowther represented the natural parents. In 1999, Mr. Kelly represented the Minister of Community Services and Mr. Crowther represented you, as a third party. It is not clear from your complaint what your position was in relation to this action. It is important to note that a lawyer is not automatically in conflict of interest by virtue of having acted in a matter involving the same or similar parties to those in a current matter.

I understand that this situation has been difficult for you. However, without evidence or specific details to substantiate your allegations, we have no basis to commence an investigation.

Please provide additional evidence to support your allegations, otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint.

Sincerely
Elaine Cumming
Professional Responsibility Counsel
Encl.

--------------------------------------------------------
To :
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society May 10, 2006
2006Centennial Building
1101-1645 Granville Street
Halifax, NS B3J 1X3

Barry Marchand, Officer, Complaints and Investigations,
Elaine Cummings, Professional Responsibility Counsel
Victoria Rees, Director of Professional Responsibility and
Marion Ritchie, Receptionist for NSBS :

RE: Complaint filed with NSBS March 10, 2006.

I acknowledge receipt of the letter from Elaine Cummings dated April 27, 2003 as well as the previous letter from Barry Marchand dated March 22, 2006. By the way - NO enclosures were included in the letter from Elaine Cummings.

First of all, I suggest that you go back to my original letter of complaint that was filed March 10, 2006 as witnessed by M.D.. Included in my filing are copies of 4 document which Ms. Marion Ritchie, the receptionist at Suite 1101, 1645 Granville Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, copied from the originals. I handed all of these document to her with my original letter of complaint and itemized all the documents in handwriting at the bottom of the original complaint as enclosures. I detail those enclosures here:

1 and 2. The Consent For Adoption, and the Certificate of Independent Legal Advice , both dated June 5th,1996, and both signed by Peter Crowther .
In the Consent For Adoption it states “I hereby consent to the adoption of ____ _____ ________ by ******and *******.” [As it turns out, he became the future (now past) president of the NS _______ Association]
In the Certificate of Independent Legal Advice, Peter Crowther writes “I acted solely for ____ ____ _____[the father] and ______ ______ _____, the mother of the child, _____ _____ ________, in this matter.

3. A signed letter from Gordon R. Kelly to Peter Crowther dated June 20, 1996 and stamped received June 21, 1996
Re: The Proposed Adoption of _____ _____ _______ (Born the __th day of ___, ____) by ******** and ********* with a cc to ******** and ********:
In this letter, Gordon Kelly states, “ Thank you for your letter of June 7, 1996. I have requisitioned funds from my client for payment of your account and will be in receipt of same shortly.”

4. A signed letter from Peter Crowther to _________(my daughter) dated June 24, 1996 RE: ADOPTION OF _________ ________ : In this letter Peter Crowther states, “Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I have recently received from Gordon R Kelly, Solicitor for the adoptive parents of your son.”

I trust you have not misplaced these documents but if you have I would be more then willing to supply everyone with additional copies.

I also suggest that you reread my original letter of complaint. What do you not understand?

I was Third Party. I was fighting to get my grandson out of the system, back home where he belonged-with me . The father was fighting to get his son out of the system as well - My daughter, who had not bonded with this child and who had not even been directed to any services that would help her after I had requested this for her from Children’s Services, was not fighting to keep this child in the family. It is important to note that my daughter recently stated “I asked for services at the beginning, the middle and the end [of the court process] and nothing was ever given to me.”

What other evidence do you want? I have already given you the file number of the case that I and my family was involved in.

As for splitting my complaint in two, in his letter of March 22, 2006, Barry Marchand positioned this as a request:

“I am asking that you submit individual complaints against each lawyer for investigation.”
In turn, in my communication dated April 10, 2006, I informed you that I was declining this request, clearing explaining my reasons - These reasons have not changed.
If you continue to press me to split my complaint, I will insist that you prove to me that that I must do so.

I reiterate : “ Because of the circumstances of this case, it is critical that this complaint stands as I submitted it - the actions of both of these lawyers need to be investigated together, at the same time, by the same people. And again I repeat ‘Families are important and sacred. I respectfully request that these lawyers to be disciplined to the full extent of your powers.’ “

Sincerely,

*************************
Enclosures: Attachment includes copies of all communications between NSBS and me concerning this complaint

cc ***********
Michel P. Samson, MLA - Richmond, Liberal Justice Critic
Kevin Deveaux, MLA -Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, NDP Justice Critic
Murray K. Scott, MLA - Cumberland South, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and Minister responsible for the Human Rights Act

--------------------------------------------------
From:
Nova Scotia
Barristers’ Society

May 25, 2006

Dear ***********:

Re: Your Complaint against Gordon Kelly and Peter Crowther

I acknowledge receipt of your complaint against Gordon Kelly and Peter Crowther dated March 7, 2006, your e-mail, with attachments, dated April 10, 2006, and your e-mail, with attachments dated May 10, 2006. By letter dated March 22, 2006, Mr. Marchand requested that you submit individual complaints against each lawyer for investigation and to provide evidence and specific details in support of your allegations, a request that was reiterated in Ms. Cummings letter of April 27, 2006, however you have declined to do so.

The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society’s Professional Responsibility Department investigates concerns which reveal allegations of conduct unbecoming a lawyer, professional incompetence or professional misconduct with respect to a lawyer’s practice of law.

In your complaint, you state that Mr. Kelly represented the adoptive parents of your daughter’s child. In relation to that adoption, Mr. Crowther represented your daughter and her child’s father.

In 1999, Mr. Kelly represented the Minister of Community Services and Mr. Crowther represented you, as a third party, in relation to what appears to have been an application by Child and Family Services for the apprehension of another of your daughter’s children.

The only party in common in these two matters is your daughter. There is no evidence that Mr. Crowther was acting against the interests of your daughter in the 1999 matter. You have also not provided any evidence that would show that Mr. Crowther’s loyalty to you was in any way impacted by his previous representation of your daughter. As well,, there is no evidence that Mr. Kelly was acting against the interest of his former clients, the adoptive parents, while representing the Minister in 1999. In any event, lawyer are permitted to act against former clients in fresh and independent matters that are wholly unrelated to a matter in which the lawyer represented that person.

There has been no evidence provided that would indicate that the 1996 and the 1999 matters are in any was related. They appear to have involved two different children and one was a private adoption while the other was an application by a government agency. The fact that both matters involved your daughter does not make the two matters the same or even related .

I understand that this situation has been difficult and emotional for you. However, without evidence or specific details to substantiate your allegations, we have no basis to commence an investigation. Futhermore, on the basis of the information you did provide, the facts, if proven, would not constitute professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming, or professional incompetence. As a result pursuant to regulations 9.2.2(a)(iii), your complaint against Mr. Kelly and Mr. Crowther has been dismissed.

Pursuant to Regulation 9.3.1, you are entitled to have this decision reviewed. If you wish to pursue that option, you are required to write to the Executive Director requesting a review of the decision within (30) days of receipt of this letter.

Please note that any decision resulting from such a review is final

Sincerely

Victoria Rees
Director of Professional Responsibility
VR/egc
c. Gordon Kelly
Peter Crowther
Bruce Outhouse, Q.C.
John A Young, Q.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To:
Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society July 2, 2006
Centennial Building
1101-1645
Granville Street Halifax, NS B3J 1X3

Barry Marchand, Officer, Complaints and Investigations,
Elaine Cummings, Professional Responsibility Counsel
Victoria Rees, Director of Professional Responsibility and

RE: Complaint filed with NSBS March 10, 2006 which included document EVIDENCE!

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria, Victoria! Up until now, I have been patient, polite and thorough with all of my communications to you. You are denying me due process and you full well know it.
The Barristers Society has done nothing to assist me, consistently not recognizing the documented evidence I submitted with the original complaint, ignoring my questions for clarification, ignoring the fact that I informed you that I had not received the unnamed pamphlet that Ms Cummings thought was important enough, at least, to attempt, to put in the last communication, and steadfastly refusing to give me any response to my request for proof that I had to divide my complaint in two. I am still requesting this pamphlet and seeking this proof !

Every time I wrote to the Barristers’ Society someone different replied, First Barry Marchand on March 22, 2006, then Elaine Cumming on April 27, 2006 and then you, Victoria, on May 25, 2006.

In the last communication I received from the Barristers’ Society, dated April 27, 2006, I was informed that I had “no basis to commence an investigation “ and “we will be unable to process your complaint” In addition, there is no indication that copies of my original complaint was sent to the lawyers in question. From all this, I understood that my complaint was not acceptable as submitted and would not even be processed - that I, in fact, had not even gotten through the front door. Together with the fact that you have steadfastly refused to answer my questions or give me the information requested, the Barristers‘ Society has not dealt honorable with me .
Taking all this into account, I do not see that you have the grounds to “dismiss” a complaint that, according to the communications given me, does not even fit the criteria to be “processed”. In addition - I challenge this 30 days to appeal - on the grounds mentioned above and on the grounds that this letter was NOT delivered to me in a timely manner and was NOT sent registered mail.

This is NOT the first time that I have made a complaint to the Barristers’ Society so I am well aware of the process. Earlier, I had made a complaint against Valerie Paul-Romkey for the quality of services she had rendered me in this same case after I had dismissed Peter Crowther. Though Valerie should have received a harsher decision then she got, she did receive 2 cautions. Poor Valerie, being a lowly female lawyer, she obviously did not rate the same protection that you are extending to Mr. Kelly - and, I am well aware that it is Mr. Kelly that you are bent on protecting .

The complaint process that I experienced was an exchange of letters back and forth between me and the lawyer in question through the Barristers’ Society. Through these letters clarifications, evidence and even new accusations were raised. You, by this sudden, inappropriate dismissal have denied me due process.

As for your pretense of being totally devoid of logic - shame on you! This is just further evidence of the sham our justice system has become, and I am ashamed to say, I see this every time I enter a family court in Nova Scotia as a court observer.

I know I am wasting my time, because it is very apparent that you are all determined to play out this farce to the end, or perhaps working in such a demented environment, you have somehow come to believe your own illogical thought patterns. Anyhow, here it is again: These lawyers had a conflict of interest with ME !

If I had known Peter Crowther had been my daughter’s lawyer in the previous adoption case - or, for that matter, any other case - I never would have hired him in the first place ! -Why would I? That I fired this lawyer was evidence that I believed he was not doing the job I felt he should be doing for me .

And, as for Gordon Kelly, if I had known he had been the lawyer for the adopting parents of my first grandson - whether my daughter had said anything about wanting these people to adopt him or not - I would have challenged, in court, his right to work on this case. Keep in mind - there was 2 lawyers on the case for the Minister- this is not the usual - even after I became self-represented !

And then , you say there is NO connection between the cases! Give my head a shake! ! Both of the children in question were my grandsons ! Yes, one was a private adoption, which, as a matter of fact, I supported my daughter in. I was there, at the hospital, when my daughter, both of us tear-stained, handed this precious little boy over to the adopting parents. I, in fact, was the person who made the connection with a mutual acquaintance which put my daughter in contact with the adopting parents. My daughter had made the decision to give this child up for adoption before he was born.

Yes, the other was a case against my daughter and the father put forth by the Minister of Community Services to take my [second] grandson into permanent care. I was Third Party in this case. This child was one year old at the time he was taken. He was a happy, bright, and personable little fellow. For his first 9 months he lived with both me and his mother, the next 2 ½ months with me, and the next 2 weeks, the weeks in question, with his mother and other family.

I had sought help for my daughter’s “Baby Blues” from the beginning but the Minister did nothing to direct my daughter to counseling, as requested - Instead, my daughter was convinced to give up her hope of raising this child , and was used by the Minister to fight both me and the father who had bonded with him and loved him desperately.

You cannot say these cases are not related. IF the Minister had won this case, then my second grandson would have been adopted out - And with both of the lawyers who had participated in the first adoption, present in this court case with the Minister, it does not take rocket science to figure out what was afoot !

Because neither one of these lawyers informed either myself or the Court of their connection with the adoption of my first grandson, I was denied my right to challenge Gordon Kelly’s right to be on this case, and, as already stated, I never would have hired Peter Crowther in the first place!

As a court witness and advocate, I have been ashamed to witness great injustices and a lack of respect for the law and due process in our courts in Nova Scotia.

Do not bother inserting your (and I am speak to everyone in the Barristers Society here) false phrase of sympathy “I understand that this situation has been difficult and emotional for you” because either you knowingly, with full understanding, inflict this injustice on me, and others who seek redress through your Society or your logic has become so demented, encouraged by the already demented group-think, that you have convinced yourselves that what you are doing is right.

In the end, it will not be you who will make judgment, neither will it be I , nor the Barristers’ Society, nor the judges or the justices of Nova Scotia.

I do not need your false sympathy because I have a “peace that passes all understanding” - does anyone recognize where that phrase comes from? - because I know, in the end, we will all have The Ultimate Judge who sees all things, who knows all things, even the very secrets of your heart, who cannot be manipulated, and is never self-deceived.

May you all sleep well tonight. I know I will.

Sincerely and with truth,

*******************

A few notes:

1. Very Important ! Victoria Reese did not acknowledge my original attachments with the original complaint which were copies of the documents I gave them!

2. I have not declined to submit evidence. I had already given documents that they seem to want to ignore and not acknowledge. I also asked them for clarification on what else they might want - they have not responded to this request of mine. If this letter is suppose to be clarification, you don’t clarify and dismiss at the same time! This is not allowing due process. And I HAVE given specific details concerning the case.

3. I requested that they give me proof that I must split my complaint - they have not given this to me and totally ignored my request for clarification.

4. I mentioned in my last letter that nothing was enclosed in the last letter that I received from Elaine Cumming as stated in her last letter to me . She stated that she was enclosing an unspecified brochure . And the NSBS made no effort to get this information to me when I brought it to their attention in my last letter.

5. I am dumbfounded that because they state these are different children (both my grandchildren) and because one case was an adoption and one an action by Community Services (which then could lead to an adoption - to the original adopting parents) that there is no conflict of interest.

6. And there being no conflict of interest with my daughter and the adopting parents is NOT the issue and they DARN WELL know it!

Me and the father were fighting to keep this child in the family - this past relationship was a conflict of interest to us! The father of the first child was not the father of the second. I was a party who was fighting for this child, as was the father! The Minister’s lawyer was the same lawyer who arranged the first adoption and my lawyer had been my daughter’s lawyer!

As for evidence against Mr. Crowther - he had the obligation to inform me that he had worked for my daughter in the past. If I had known this, I never would have hired him in the first place - When Mr. Crowther was working for me, my daughter was actively working with the Minister against both me and the father. And I fired mr Crowther for incompetence !

As for Mr. Kelly acting against the interest of the former adopting parents ? Give my head a shake ! The concern was that he had been brought in to this case along with James Leiper and that he, because of his previous relationship with these adopting parents, was not acting in the best interest of the child, as a lawyer to the Minister should, but was acting to ensure that this child was indeed taken by the Minister so he could later be adopted out. If I had known who he was, I would have challenged his right to work on this case.

7. Come on now - Not one, but 2 lawyers that were involved in the first adoption case, BY CHANCE?, became involved in this case and neither one informs either me or the Court of their previous involvement in the first case!

8. Also - from all the communication given thus far, I understood that this complaint had not even been formally recognized as such because I had not complied with their requirements to file separate complaints! - Which again I reiterate - I asked them to show proof of my need to do so and they ignored my request! So how can they dismiss a complaint they have not formally recognized , or as Ms Cumming put it in her last letter “process“? From this letter, my understanding was the process had not even begun!