29-07-2018, 01:51 AM
Just more ideas about Bloomfield. If Bloomfield's Last Will and Testament left his personal papers to an Archives, then if the papers were declared not to be personal papers, then the default or reversionary interest would be in the heirs at law because they would not fit in the category of personal papers set forth in the Will.
It would seem like the title to the legal papers which were not within the definition of "client papers" (which the client would own), might be (or might not be) considered "personal papers." Maybe they would be considered to be "business papers" and not "personal papers". I don't know the answer for that question (but it could be googled).
As far as I can see on the internet, the Bar Association would not have any authority to destroy any legal papers or client papers (or personal papers for that matter). I could be wrong about that, but that's just my basic assumption. The papers, if destroyed, would have to be destroyed by an attorney who had custody of them. But if they were client papers, then the client would still own them if the client were still alive or in the case of a corporation, still in existence. Since Bloomfield represented Schenley Beverage and Heinekins Breweries, these are still around.
Hence the Bar Association would almost have to appoint an attorney to inspect the papers. Actually, the heirs would more likely have the right to decide which attorney would have custody of the papers to process them and/or dispose of them.
In the typical situation, if an attorney in solo practice dies unexpectedly, the family or the heirs would probably almost always arrange for an attorney to succeed the deceased attorney. When an attorney leaves his practice, he will often sell the practice which means he essentially sells the files to the successor. If the attorney has just died, presumably the heirs would be able to sell the practice. But maybe not, since they are seldom attorneys themselves.
Traditionally, non-attorneys have been prohibited from owning or participating in a legal partnership. In more recent times, it seems like this tradition has been bent a little due to franchising of legal practice.
To reiterate, if there is any evidence of a crime in the papers, the client confidentiality does not apply, especially if there were crimes like murder, conspiracy to commit murder, espionage, or any other capital crimes which have no statute of limitiations.
In the JFK case, it is a cold case and there are undoubtedly people still alive today who were "conspirators" in the legal definition, especially in the cover-up of the murder. This would make them accessories-after-the-fact.
To settle the issue of the Bloomfield papers, it seems like these questions would have to be answered and there is very, very likely an answer in some case or statute since this is a common fact situation. From googling, it looks like courts in Canada will reference US cases if necessary if no Canadian cases have decided about an issue.
It does look, however, like the Canadian Bar Association involved is not just dealing with this situation for purposes of a cover-up. If this case gets publicity and if client papers are found to have been delivered to strangers, then it could make the legal profession in Ontario (or Quebec or wherever) look bad. I can understand their concern.
James Lateer
It would seem like the title to the legal papers which were not within the definition of "client papers" (which the client would own), might be (or might not be) considered "personal papers." Maybe they would be considered to be "business papers" and not "personal papers". I don't know the answer for that question (but it could be googled).
As far as I can see on the internet, the Bar Association would not have any authority to destroy any legal papers or client papers (or personal papers for that matter). I could be wrong about that, but that's just my basic assumption. The papers, if destroyed, would have to be destroyed by an attorney who had custody of them. But if they were client papers, then the client would still own them if the client were still alive or in the case of a corporation, still in existence. Since Bloomfield represented Schenley Beverage and Heinekins Breweries, these are still around.
Hence the Bar Association would almost have to appoint an attorney to inspect the papers. Actually, the heirs would more likely have the right to decide which attorney would have custody of the papers to process them and/or dispose of them.
In the typical situation, if an attorney in solo practice dies unexpectedly, the family or the heirs would probably almost always arrange for an attorney to succeed the deceased attorney. When an attorney leaves his practice, he will often sell the practice which means he essentially sells the files to the successor. If the attorney has just died, presumably the heirs would be able to sell the practice. But maybe not, since they are seldom attorneys themselves.
Traditionally, non-attorneys have been prohibited from owning or participating in a legal partnership. In more recent times, it seems like this tradition has been bent a little due to franchising of legal practice.
To reiterate, if there is any evidence of a crime in the papers, the client confidentiality does not apply, especially if there were crimes like murder, conspiracy to commit murder, espionage, or any other capital crimes which have no statute of limitiations.
In the JFK case, it is a cold case and there are undoubtedly people still alive today who were "conspirators" in the legal definition, especially in the cover-up of the murder. This would make them accessories-after-the-fact.
To settle the issue of the Bloomfield papers, it seems like these questions would have to be answered and there is very, very likely an answer in some case or statute since this is a common fact situation. From googling, it looks like courts in Canada will reference US cases if necessary if no Canadian cases have decided about an issue.
It does look, however, like the Canadian Bar Association involved is not just dealing with this situation for purposes of a cover-up. If this case gets publicity and if client papers are found to have been delivered to strangers, then it could make the legal profession in Ontario (or Quebec or wherever) look bad. I can understand their concern.
James Lateer