Scandalous ;)

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

This girl is not unfamiliar if you have read these types of forums. She is feisty for sure 😉

So this article should not be a big surprise.. but it made me go "oooohhhh" and giggle a few times 🤭

https://torontosun.com/news/crime/law-student-and-escort-faces-good-character-hearing

[roamingguy 300292]

You might have giggled a bit, but it's a lady like that, that cause guys to be reluctant to provide any screening/verification information to any professional companion.  She sounds unprofessional, very unprofessional both as lawyer and a companion

If she'd leak professional private lawyer to lawyer confidential communications to her Twitter account, what other information given in confidence would she post to her Twitter account...or worse?

Sounds like someone to steer clear of, both if you need a lawyer and a companion.

Just My Two Cents

RG

[peacectryguy 12547]

I don't know the lady but from reading that, "feisty" might be understating things. I'm not one to believe in total political correctness but she appears to have no filter and appears to get angry rather easily. And I agree with RG on the trust factor if she revealed anything confidential in nature. Maybe I'm off base about her though. It isn't a good look though.

[Guest]

   I concur with my distinguished fellow lobbyists. In some business environments, public exposure can be considered good publicity. But for the discreet adult industry, it's definitely not welcomed unless it's limited to a few obscur porn movies. Many people have shown themselves capable of managing two different jobs or lives. But when they end up making the news, it's normally a clear sign of failure.

[Phaedrus 209521]

This article really pisses me off.

The point of it - such as it is - seems to be that her previous behaviour in the legal profession crossed some lines and some folks think that she shouldn't be a lawyer as a result. If what's alleged about that is true... well, they may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced that's a newsworthy story.

The only point of this article seems to be that the aspiring lawyer in question is also an escort. That has absolutely no bearing on her legal abilities, but it allows a lazy journalist to write a story with some titillation for the masses and a clickbait headline. It sounds like she's already out publicly as being an escort, but what good does outing her further achieve?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Phaedrus said:

This article really pisses me off.

The point of it - such as it is - seems to be that her previous behaviour in the legal profession crossed some lines and some folks think that she shouldn't be a lawyer as a result. If what's alleged about that is true... well, they may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced that's a newsworthy story.

The only point of this article seems to be that the aspiring lawyer in question is also an escort. That has absolutely no bearing on her legal abilities, but it allows a lazy journalist to write a story with some titillation for the masses and a clickbait headline. It sounds like she's already out publicly as being an escort, but what good does outing her further achieve?

     She deserves a fair part of responsibility for this. From the article, it looks quite clear she made little effort to lay low as an escort. She's quite outspoken and doesn't hide her face to promote herself. Reasons why she's now facing a hearing. If newsworthy or not is up for debate. But you got to admit all the ingredients are there. You can be sure that even if ignored for the moment, it won't be if she becomes a judge twenty years from now. Also, even without the news story, future clients(for legal advices) will easily find her past. Just ask yourself, if with a Google search you found out your lawyer, financial adviser or dentist was a former male escort or stripper, would you still do business with them? You can make the argument on how their past doesn't impact their current career. But by making no effort to be discreet about it says a lot on their judgement or lack of. 

      This young woman is trying to get away with two conflicting public occupations. She definitely should have known better.

[Phaedrus 209521]

30 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

     She deserves a fair part of responsibility for this. From the article, it looks quite clear she made little effort to lay low as an escort. She's quite outspoken and doesn't hide her face to promote herself. Reasons why she's now facing a hearing. If newsworthy or not is up for debate. But you got to admit all the ingredients are there. You can be sure that even if ignored for the moment, it won't be if she becomes a judge twenty years from now. Also, even without the news story, future clients(for legal advices) will easily find her past. Just ask yourself, if with a Google search you found out your lawyer, financial adviser or dentist was a former male escort or stripper, would you still do business with them? You can make the argument on how their past doesn't impact their current career. But by making no effort to be discreet about it says a lot on their judgement or lack of. 

      This young woman is trying to get away with two conflicting public occupations. She definitely should have known better.

The fact that she's an escort is NOT why she's facing a hearing. It has nothing to do with the complaints against her. The article makes that clear at the beginning.

And no, if a google search turned up that a professional I was thinking of seeing had been a sex worker 20 years ago, I wouldn't care. What matters is the service they provide and that you're paying for. Perhaps it would be an issue for some folks... but I'd have thought the audience on this board would have been slightly less judgemental about that sort of thing than the general public. Bear in mind also that a google search on someone's real name is *not* going to throw up their sex-worker identity, unless there are articles like this that explicitly link the two. That doesn't mean nobody would ever find the link... but Joe Average who's just looking for a lawyer (or dentist, or whatever) probably wouldn't.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Phaedrus said:

The fact that she's an escort is NOT why she's facing a hearing. It has nothing to do with the complaints against her. The article makes that clear at the beginning.

And no, if a google search turned up that a professional I was thinking of seeing had been a sex worker 20 years ago, I wouldn't care. What matters is the service they provide and that you're paying for. Perhaps it would be an issue for some folks... but I'd have thought the audience on this board would have been slightly less judgemental about that sort of thing than the general public. Bear in mind also that a google search on someone's real name is *not* going to throw up their sex-worker identity, unless there are articles like this that explicitly link the two. That doesn't mean nobody would ever find the link... but Joe Average who's just looking for a lawyer (or dentist, or whatever) probably wouldn't.

     Being an escort may not be the main reason, but it certainly didn't help. Her honest/hostile behavior on social media put a big bullseye on her forehead. From there it simply snowballed.

     The big concern is not really her past, but the fact she seems to crave conflicts and attention. Not necessarily something you want from an SP or a lawyer. A little aggressivity is fine, but not when clients risk ending up under a spotlight.

     I'm not a hacker, but I showed many how a lot can be find with Google and social media. The key is not someone's name, it's their personnal email adresses. It's amazing what you can find if you just follow each bit of new pieces of information you discover. I agree most average Joe's won't do background checks. But with stories of financial fraud, medical malpractices and conflict of interest, people are getting more incentives to do their homework about who they're dealing with.

[roamingguy 300292]

3 hours ago, Phaedrus said:

This article really pisses me off.

The point of it - such as it is - seems to be that her previous behaviour in the legal profession crossed some lines and some folks think that she shouldn't be a lawyer as a result. If what's alleged about that is true... well, they may have a point, but I'm not 100% convinced that's a newsworthy story.

The only point of this article seems to be that the aspiring lawyer in question is also an escort. That has absolutely no bearing on her legal abilities, but it allows a lazy journalist to write a story with some titillation for the masses and a clickbait headline. It sounds like she's already out publicly as being an escort, but what good does outing her further achieve?

I agree that the story wouldn't have even been written, hell a reporter would have cared less except for the fact she was an escort.  Had she just been an aspiring lawyer facing the Bar then we wouldn't have heard a word about her.  She would have faced the Bar quietly without press coverage. That said, it doesn't change the fact flags are raised about her discretion, both in the legal profession and as an escort.  The confidentiality issues as a lawyer are being dealt with by the Bar.  But for clients in this lifestyle at least we've been made aware of her lack of discretion and know that there are more discrete professional companions out there and she's one to avoid.  Was that the intent of the Sun, no.  They'd likely want to get a "news" scoop on clients she sees so they'd be part 2, 3 4 5 etc etc etc of this "newstory"

The only issue about her ability as a lawyer is her apparent inability to keep matters confidential.  The only reason we heard about it, she's an escort.  And one thing has nothing to do with the other

Another rambling

RG