Uncivil litigation

There is an excerpt from a video deposition that has been making the rounds on YouTube for about the last year or so, that a lot of people seem to find funny.  I am not one of them.

I suppose the custom would be for me to link to it, but I am not going to do that.  I am not doing it because typically, most jurisdictions have rules that say that evidence obtained in a lawsuit during the discovery process cannot be used for any collateral purpose.  How the video made it onto the internet, assuming that rule is operative in the state from which it originates, raises a whole series of other troubling questions.  In any event, my view is that it would be a violation of that rule for me to further distribute the video.

Nevertheless, the disturbing content is a good case for ethical analysis.

The Andrew Speaker Controversy (Part II) – An analysis under Canadian rules

The facts surrounding the Andrew Speaker controversy provide a very interesting case study for an inquiry into how far professional disciplinary regulation in the legal profession ought to reach into personal activities unrelated to the lawyer’s professional practice. I would like to emphasize once again, that none of the allegations made against Mr. Speaker have been proven in court. Nor has any investigation into Mr. Speaker’s conduct been commenced by any disciplinary tribunal to which he may be subject.

This analysis proceeds on the assumption that Mr. Speaker has breached no laws of his own any other country, and that the allegation that he traveled against the advice of his doctors, as detailed here.

As my December 28, 2007 article demonstrates, on these assumptions, Mr. Speaker would likely face no discipline from any disciplinary authority over the legal profession in the United States.

How would he fare in Canada?