Lawyer defends Leduc's oversight;

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

19 July 2008

Posted By DAVID NESSETH,

Why, asked lawyer Marie Henein, would her client open a document restricted to special eyes, when he wasn't one of the privileged two allowed to do so?

The Cornwall Public Inquiry has heard how former diocese lawyer Jacques Leduc did not read the final version of a $32,000 settlement between the diocese and a man allegedly abused by a city priest.

"It's written in giant letters on the envelope, 'private and confidential, to be opened by Bursar or Bishop only,' right?" Henein asked Friday.

Leduc said he never prevented either the bursar or the Bishop from examining the document, but didn't open it himself, which he now regrets.

Leduc claims that without his knowledge, the settlement's final draft was crafted with a new condition that said the alleged victim had to agree not to pursue criminal charges if payment was to be received.

Leduc spoke at a press conference in January 1994 to address then- Bishop Eugene LaRocque's concerns surrounding media reports about the settlement. It wasn't until after, he said, that he learned about the clause.

"As you can imagine, I feel very foolish this morning and embarrassed, for having made representations to the press and the general public without having reviewed the document in question," wrote Leduc, in a public statement.

FAILURE TO REPORT

Henein also told the inquiry Friday that the local diocese failed to act on opportunities to contact the Children's Aid Society (CAS) when it learned of sexual abuse allegations against its priests.

Leduc said he didn't believe he had an obligation to report the allegations to police or CAS at the time.

Seven references to CAS in a diocesan guidelines document on sexual abuse, Henein explained, show that the diocese was aware of its protocol despite Leduc's own lack of action in reporting the alleged abuse.

"Did the Bishop, Father (Denis) Vaillancourt, or Msgr. (Donald) MacDougald, in your capacity as legal advisor, ever say to you 'we just don't understand what the protocol means?'" Henein asked.

"No," Leduc said.

In her cross-examination of Leduc, who spent his fifth straight day testifying, Henein tried to paint the picture of a very formal relationship between him and LaRocque.

"Not the kind where you could stroll into his office?" she asked.

Leduc said he needed to go through the Bishop's secretary.

Henein suggested the Bishop was an independent arm who, at least locally, was at the top of the decision- making ladder.

Although Leduc was the legal mind on an ad hoc committee struck by the Bishop in the mid-eighties to address allegations of sexual abuse by Father Gilles Deslauriers, the Bishop made all final decisions.

"We make the implementations, but I fear they may not be implemented," Leduc told current Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic diocese lawyer David Sherriff-Scott. "We have no authority."

Deslauriers pleaded guilty in 1986 to four counts of gross indecency and received two years' probation.

Sherriff-Scott worked to demonstrate to the inquiry that there were no "constraints or limitations" on the committee.

He also noted that the families who made the sexual abuse complaints indicated that they didn't want the matter to extend to police or CAS.

"They wanted the diocese to deal with it internally. Full stop," said Sheriff-Scott.

The inquiry, which is exploring how institutions handled historical sexual abuse allegations, will resume July 21 with a new witness.

Comments on this Article.

the people of cornwall aren,t that stupid to believe you.hope the commissioner doesnt fall for that one.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By luckyred

you read it bozo.your not fooling anyone.why not just charge him with perjury

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By luckyred,

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT (straight from the Upper Canda Law Society site)...

"6.06 (1) Provided that there is no infringement of the lawyer's obligations to the client, the profession, the courts, or the administration of justice, a lawyer may communicate information to the media and may make public appearances and statements.

Commentary

Lawyers in their public appearances and public statements should conduct themselves in the same manner as with their clients, their fellow licensees, and tribunals. Dealings with the media are simply an extension of the lawyer's conduct in a professional capacity. The mere fact that a lawyer's appearance is outside of a courtroom, a tribunal, or the lawyer's office does not excuse conduct that would otherwise be considered improper.

A lawyer's duty to the client demands that, before making a public statement concerning the client's affairs, the lawyer must first be satisfied that any communication is in the best interests of the client and within the scope of the retainer."

So...Ms Henien or any other lawyer involved with the Inquiry did you report Mt Leduc to the Law Society for professional misconduct as you are obligated to do under Rule 6 - 6.01(3)(Duty to Report) under Rules of Misconduct?

"Unless a licensee who departs from proper professional conduct is checked at an early stage, loss or damage to clients or others may ensue. Evidence of minor breaches may, on investigation, disclose a more serious situation or may indicate the commencement of a course of conduct that may lead to serious breaches in the future. It is, therefore, proper (unless it is privileged or otherwise unlawful) for a lawyer to report to the Society any instance involving a breach of these rules or the rules governing paralegals. If a lawyer is in any doubt whether a report should be made, the lawyer should consider seeking the advice of the Society directly or indirectly (e.g., through another lawyer)."

I don't see anywhere where Mr. Leduc may or maynot have been reported to the law society by his colleagues!

I WONDER WHY.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By RealityChecker,