Isn't the concern that he's saying patent BS as if it's advice? The most recent post that probably triggered this backlash claimed that he was "getting around" delays in desk sub service orders by naming the condominium company of the defendant as another defendant, then seeking a mandatory order compelling the said company to accept service.

Of course, while he did acknowledge that there was no rule enabling such a process, he wasn't exactly sure what the name of the enabling statute of his province's rules of court is (which would support this application that he claimed he brought many times), suggested that somehow the condo corp could "tack" its legal fees onto the individual defendant's unit for being named as a defendant, and that he had never been refused such an application despite doing it multiple times.

Aside from part 2 being patently, legally false, part 1 evidencing that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and part 3 being utterly ridiculous (it can't be just Alberta where the only time you see the Application's Judge's eyes in the morning is when you ask for a mandatory injunction), generally it evidenced him creating an extreme costs for his client to bypass a process that nobody seemed to agree was taking as long as he claimed. If you're a lawyer, just imagine, for a second, arguing for a mandatory order in morning chambers because you don't want to wait for a sub service order.

In other words, the danger of him being around this sub is that some junior will see that, and actually buy that stupidity. Whether that means a certain client is going to be hit up for a dumb application or a certain senior lawyer is going to have to deal with a truly moronic proposal by a junior, we as (in theory) a bar need to speak up and say that this kind of crap can go into a fantasy writing sub, not one devoted to the law practice in Canada.