News

Despite some fierce opposition within his own ranks, Ontario's chief justice is calling for the judiciary to push beyond its comfortable decision-making role to conduct more mediations in civil cases.

Admitting his proposed cultural shift is controversial, especially amongst judges, Chief Justice Warren Winkler argues the time is ripe to plan seriously to make judicial mediation more routinely available to civil litigants (not just on an ad hoc basis) by integrating it into Ontario's regular court services and renovating court facilities to provide the necessary meeting rooms and access to technology.

If civil courts don't offer more judicial mediation  a quicker and cheaper way of resolving disputes than trials  the justice system will become less accessible and less relevant to most Canadians, he predicts.

However the chief justice stresses also that court-based mediation should supplement, not diminish, judges' core purpose of deciding cases. Mediation mustenhance the trial process, not supplant it, he says.

Chief Justice Winkler contends that the issue today is not whether we approve of the increased role of mediation  that role is upon us, like it or not  but whether this cultural shift should extend to court-based mediation, presided over by sitting judges.

He goes on to advocate that judicial mediation should be expanded beyond its present form because the judiciary is well situated now to meet this pressing demand within our civil justice system, even despite the views of those within the judiciary who would resist this development.

Nevertheless he acknowledges that some judges don't want, or have, mediation skills. Some also fear they must make the dreaded descent into the arena to broker deals, a role they see as conflicting with their core mandate to decide cases above the fray.

Not all judges are well-suited for this additional role and should not be dropped, or forced, into such a specialized milieu, Chief Justice Winkler stipulates. In fairness to all involved, the expansion of judicial mediation will only be effective if the judges carrying out the mediations are willing and able to do so.

He says, however, that growing numbers of judges feel that judicial mediation is now part of the lifeblood of an ever-evolving system of civil justice; we must have it to keep up with the changing needs and expectations of litigants.

He asserts that for the public, the issue, quite simply, is one of access to justiceThe parties deserve timely, cost-effective, holistic justice which mediation provides. The court system, which is, after all, in the business of dispute resolution, must provide a means by which a lengthy, expensive trial can be avoided through the provision of an early, meaningful investment in a one- or two-day mediation.

Chief Justice Winkler first made his case that judicial mediation should be expanded in an unheralded lecture in March at the University of Western Ontario's law school. His written remarks, obtained by The Lawyers Weekly, are slated for publication this fall in The Advocates' Journal.

They are the chief justice's clearest, and most forceful, public statement to date that the judiciary and the justice system must change gears if the public's needs are to be met.

Judicial mediation already exists in most jurisdictions. In Ontario, for example, judicial mediation is available to try to settle certain cases just before trial, while ad hoc mediations are done in a minority of other civil cases, at the discretion of the regional senior judge or administrative judge.

Equal access remains illusory, notes Chief Justice Winkler, an ex-labour lawyer and litigator who, as a judge, has successfully mediated many high-profile cases.

We all know that counsel cannot simply place a phone call to the local trial office and obtain a one- or two-day judicial mediation presided over by a knowledgeable judge, he observes.

Unlike those pre-trial dispute resolution steps mandated by the Rules, access to willing and able facilitative judicial mediators ebbs and flows, depending on the availability of the appropriate judge and on whether it is felt that mediation ought to be made available in the circumstances.

Judicial mediation can also boost lawyers' success, he notes. A judge's view has, it is often said, 'cachet' with clients, and in this way can help lawyers settle thorny cases. When judicial mediation is timely, informed, and independent, it works.

Chief Justice Winkler points out that judges are often in the best position to mediate cases because their views are taken seriously by the parties. Why then deny the public this value-added aspect of judicial participation in mediation? he queries.

He also warns that if courts refuse to address the public's obvious need and demand for judicial mediation, people with means will turn to private mediation, while most people will be denied the tools of an accessible, effective and modern justice system.

Yet there are plenty of hurdles to surmount before judicial mediation can be integrated into regular court services, he says. Traditional court rooms and premises don't lend themselves to mediation. Court schedules and scheduling practices don't currently have the required flexibility for scheduling mediations.

Offering ad hoc, expert, time-consuming mediations into the already intricate scheduling matrix, even if done thoughtfully, would likely add critical delays, and costs, to other parts of the court system, he elaborates.

To add to this complexity, mediations frequently go on well beyond normal business hours. This is a practice that falls outside the operational norms of our traditional court system and one that is not easily accommodated.

He concludes that a shift to judicial mediation in those cases which lend themselves to ADR will likely carry operational and infrastructural costs while requiring a thoughtful review of the diversity of skill sets needed on the Bench in the future, and consideration of how best to deploy these skills.

Change will not and cannot come immediately, he concludes. The challenges are real, but they are not insurmountable. If we are serious about meeting this demand [for judicial mediation] we must plan seriously.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

Should privilege extend to communications between tax accountants and their clients? As there is no tax without law, advising on the law is what tax accountants do. The English Court of Appeal is now examining whether privilege should be based on the nature of the advice or the qualifications of the person providing it.

In Canada, only communications with lawyers attract privilege. Our law treats client communications concerning tax differently depending on whether the client is communicating with a lawyer or a chartered accountant. This may seem illogical: both lawyers and accountants belong to highly skilled and regulated professions, and confidentiality is a hallmark of both. However, Canadian courts have not been sympathetic to accountants' claims of equal treatment.

In the leading case by the Federal Court of Appeal, Tower v. M.N.R., [2003] F.C.J. No. 1153, accountants were told that while confidentiality may be preferred, the tax accountant-client relationship is in no way as fundamental to society and the administration of justice as the solicitor-client relationship and that no overriding policy consideration exists so as to elevate the advice given by tax accountants to the level of solicitor-client privilege.

In England, a case currently under reserve in its Court of Appeal, Prudential v. Special Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 1 All E.R. 1113, suggests that the issue may be looked at afresh. In Prudential, the accountants claimed that what they were doing was functionally equivalent to what lawyers do.

The judge at first instance held that he was bound by the precedent that legal privilege was only associated with the advice of lawyers on tax law. However, he noted in modern conditions accountants have the expertise to advise on tax law and it is firms of accountants, rather than firms of solicitors, who (often) do give such advice and represent clients in disputes with the Revenue on many aspects of their tax affairs and accountants do what lawyers are described as doing in the cases that establish legal professional privilege.

The judge commented that differential treatment from a privilege point of view was illogical. He went on to add, however, that this might mean that rather than extending privilege to the advice of tax accountants, one could question whether privilege should continue for the advice of tax lawyers in the area of tax planning.

His observations of how advice is provided in the tax arena emboldened accountants as to the possibility of an appellate change in the law. They caused consternation among tax lawyers that their ancient rights to privilege were threatened. The regulatory bodies of both accountants and lawyers intervened at the appeal stage. There is every reason to expect that the matter will find its way to the new U.K. Supreme Court.

The most recent case in our Supreme Court on privilege is R. v. National Post, [2010] S.C.J. No. 16. There, the court refused to recognize a new, broadly based journalists' privilege. Its decision was based, in part, on the fact that journalism does not have any formal professional mechanism for licensing or regulating its members. As well, there was no general requirement or practice that journalists promise confidentiality to their sources. In contrast, the professional structure of the chartered accountancy profession in Canada is virtually indistinguishable from that of the legal profession. The requirement of confidentiality on client affairs is written into its codes of conduct.

The court in National Post went on to hold that although there was no general journalistic privilege, privilege might arise for particular communications if the four general criteria, known as the Wigmore criteria, were met on the facts. The essence of these criteria is that the communication must have been made in confidence, confidentiality must be essential to the relationship, the relationship must be one that is to be sedulously fostered and the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the communication must outweigh the need for disclosure.

Arguably, the first three criteria are often met in advice provided by chartered accountants on tax issues. The fourth criterion  involving balancing is less certain. The Supreme Court has held that the balancing exercise will involve the evidence presented by the parties and also judicial notice, common sense and good judgment.

Although it is unlikely that Canadian courts will recognize a class privilege attaching to tax accountant communications, it is possible that a case-by-case privilege may be recognised. For example, communications to a tax accountant relating to a reassessment or a voluntary disclosure issue might be more likely to attract privilege than would garden-variety advice from an accountant recommending a tax shelter investment.

The possible re-examination of the law in England and the principles-based approach to privilege enunciated by our Supreme Court in National Post both suggest we have yet to hear the last word on tax accountant privilege.

John Chapman is a commercial litigation partner with Miller Thomson LLP in Toronto. Adam Stephens is a partner at the same firm whose practice encompasses a wide range of commercial litigation with a focus on shareholders' rights and real property law.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

Most drug litigation to date has centred on conventional pharmaceuticals  ​small and simple chemical drugs. A valuable, but more complex, prize will be on the table more often in future drug wars: biologic drugs.

Human growth hormone and the blood booster, erythropoietin, are two examples of famous protein biologic drugs that have already been copied. Many companies are developing copies of other biologic drugs, eagerly anticipating patent challenges or patent expiration in the coming years.
Billions of dollars are at stake internationally in the race to copy biologic drugs. Governments are under intense pressure to regulate this area.

Special rules for biologics

Copying a biologic is not straightforward, unlike a conventional pharmaceutical. Biologic drugs are often large and structurally complex. A copy of a biologic can potentially be similar to the innovator, but it won't be equivalent. For this reason, the copy is called a biosimilar drug.

Biosimilar companies want to get government marketing approval as fast and inexpensively as possible. They want to rely on the innovator's clinical data on the assumption that it shows that both the innovator drug and a biosimilar would be safe and effective. No biosimilar company wants to generate its own clinical trial data from scratch. Clinical trials are time consuming and can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. In contrast, innovators want biosimilars to provide substantial clinical trial data. The extent to which a biosimilar can rely on an innovator's clinical data is a key battleground.

Biosimilars in Europe, Canada and the U.S.

The European Union is a leader in regulation of biosimilar approvals. It approved biosimilars for human growth hormone, filgrastim and erythropoietin. Legislation and detailed guidelines have facilitated approval of biosimilars by reliance on innovator clinical data.

The U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) approved a growth hormone biosimilar in 2006, but emphasized that this did not establish a pathway for approval of other biosimilars. The growth hormone drug is relatively small and its mechanism of action had been extensively studied. The regulatory implications for other biosimilars remained unknown.

Health Canada approved the same growth hormone biosimilar in April 2009. There was also no clear Canadian guidance on a biosimilar approval framework.

Even though there was no U.S. or Canadian legislation in place, the approval of biosimilar growth hormone was significant because it indicated that biosimilars would be allowed to rely on innovator drug clinical trial data to a certain extent.

The path ahead

As 2010 began, there was still no clear biosimilar approval pathway in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. had endured several past failed attempts at legislation. Health Canada had circulated draft guidance (policy) documents for public review and comment.

Health Canada finalized its guidance document in March 2010. It set out principles for biosimilar approval by reliance on innovator clinical data. Typically, Health Canada would require a new drug application to include comparison studies against the innovator drug as well as other types of supplemental testing.

Around the same time, the U.S. government passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. It provided criteria for a biosimilar drug to rely on innovator clinical data. A biosimilar would need to show that it is highly similar to the innovator product with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity and potency. The Act also provided a 12-year exclusivity period to innovator companies. Biosimilars cannot be approved during this period. There is also a procedure to address patent infringement issues.

The FDA received the power to decide that certain complex products will not be eligible for biosimilar approval  the copier will have to conduct its own extensive clinical trials. At the other end of the spectrum, certain biosimilars may be similar enough to the innovator product to be designated by the FDA as interchangeable.

This means that they may be substituted for the innovator biologic, for example by a pharmacist, without a doctor's approval. The FDA would require that the risks or diminishment in efficacy are low before designating a biosimilar as interchangeable. This will be a high standard requiring that i) the biosimilar produce the same clinical result as the innovator biologic, and ii) no increased risk is created by switching to the biosimilar.

These regulatory concepts are quite general. Many challenges still remain for regulators to determine the specific principles that will be used in the evaluation and approval of biosimilars. Expect the debate to heat up as the FDA consults industry, special interest groups and the public to get feedback on implementation of the legislation.

Noel Courage is a partner at Bereskin & amp; Parr LLP in Toronto. He is a U.S. and Canadian patent agent whose practice involves drug patent and regulatory issues.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

According to Greening Greater Toronto, an initiative from the Toronto City Summit Alliance, commercial buildings  like those that house some of Canada's top law firms  account for approximately one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Commercial buildings also consume 37 per cent of the electricity and 17 per cent of the natural gas.

There's lots of attention paid to residential programs that promote recycling and energy efficiency, says Linda Weichel, managing director of Greening Greater Toronto. But it was determined [by research from the Toronto City Summit Alliance] that not enough attention is given to the commercial sector yet.

This is really a case where a lot can be done to reduce the environmental impact, but, for a number of reasons, not a lot has been done.

As part of Greening Greater Toronto's mandate to tackle the issues surrounding the environmental impact of commercial buildings, the Greening Our Workplaces Tenant Series launched in March with a presentation by Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP on the success of the firm's energy-saving initiatives.

The program aims to bring together building owners and tenants to discuss what can be done to make workspaces throughout the GTA greener.

There didn't seem to be a lot of communication going on between those two groups, says Weichel. And there also wasn't a lot of communication between tenants  [they] were working in isolation from each other rather than working together.
Weichel adds that one of the messages being presented during these meetings is that reducing environmental impact of commercial space is not only doable, but there is a business case for making these types of changes.

Stikeman Elliott LLP launched their GoingGreen Program in 2008, and subsequently became the first national law firm in Canada to be certified Carbon Neutral. As hosts of the second meeting of the Tenant Series on May 27, firm representatives spoke with other Commerce Court tenants about the success of their green initiatives.

Since the initiation of the GoingGreen Program, Stikeman Elliott has implemented many firm-wide changes with a focus on reducing their environmental impact  specifically with an eye towards energy efficiency.

From something as simple as having sleep modes on printers and copiers to more extensive projects like installing 230 motion sensors in boardrooms and offices, the firm has taken a broad-based approach to going green.

A big thing we've done was to have a green committee in each of our offices, says Jean McLeod, chief administrative officer at Stikeman Elliott. People are obviously really engaged in environmental issuesso we have a long list of things that are constantly going through to see what more can be done.

Recently, the firm hosted its annual Six-Shooter Saturday party at the Calgary Stampede  but this year's event had a distinctively green hue. By implementing various green policies, nearly 6,600 litres of recyclable and compostable material was collected  diverting waste from landfills.

Over 600 guests enjoyed filtered water in lieu of bottled water  an initiative the firm has also implemented in their offices throughout the country  which saved approximately 2,000 bottles during the event alone. Other green touches included 100 per cent biodegradable plates, cutlery and napkins, as well as compostable biopolymer cups and complimentary public transit tokens for the ride home.

Being environmentally conscious is a year round commitment, said Lou Cusano, Stikeman's Calgary managing partner, in a press release about the event. Green policies are only effective when consistently implemented, even when we step outside the office to have a bit of fun.

Another message Greening Greater Toronto is trying to send out, says Weichel, is that businesses do not have to have huge capital investments in order to make the types of changes that firms like Gowlings and Stikeman Elliott have made.

It's just being conscious of how people conduct themselves in the workplace, she says. There's a lot that can be done just based on understanding the pattern of activity in the space.

For example, says Weichel, the way a space is oriented can reduce energy consumption. By placing workstations close to windows, the high traffic areas will have more natural lighting.

Both McLeod and Weichel agree that there is a business case for going green, even if a capital investment is made.

Businesses don't have to make capital investments, stresses Weichel, but if they want to there are financial incentives available.
According to McLeod, Stikeman Elliott worked with the BOMA Toronto Conservation and Demand Management program to help offset some of the capital costs of their GoingGreen initiatives.

McLeod adds that the investment they made towards energy efficiency was returned in about two years.

The firm also saved over 6 million sheets of paper in 2009 alone by simply setting the printers' defaults to print double-sided. Not only does it save paper and waste, it also reduces the amount of energy that goes into printing, adds McLeod.

The benefit of implementing sound environmental practices extends beyond the firm's bottom line.

It's great for recruitment, McLeod points out. It's also great for the engagement of the [employees] that we have because [they] feel a part of it  they feel they're able to make a contribution.

In fact, Stikeman Elliott was identified as one of the Green 30 organizations by Hewitt Associates earlier this year. The list is based on a feedback directly from employees.

McLeod also adds that there has been a lot of positive involvement from the firm's leadership group, saying the partnership board has been very supportive of the initiatives from the beginning.

The feedback from firm's clients has also been positive, since companies in all business sectors are looking at best practices when it comes to the environment.

A lot of what we're doing we share with [clients]. But a lot of it is learning from each other and seeing what other people are doing  is there low hanging fruit or are there other things that are more substantive that we could be doing.

This sharing of knowledge and experience is built directly into the message that Greening Greater Toronto is trying to spread on Bay Street and throughout the GTA.

Measuring energy use or having a sense of behaviour and its impact is a great starting place, Weichel says. But, it's really about starting the conversations if they haven't been started already.
Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

Barely a week after abandoning a lawsuit that sought to dissolve a provincial commission of inquiry into Quebec's system of nominating judges, former Justice Minister Marc Bellemare testified under oath that Liberal Party fundraisers, with the consent of Premier Jean Charest, pressured him to appoint two loyal Liberals to the bench and to promote a third as assistant chief justice to the Court of Quebec.

In explosive testimony before the commission headed by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache, Bellemare also alleged that on the day he announced he was resigning in 2004, Charest reminded him that he was sworn to secrecy and could not disclose information regarding the role that party fundraisers played in nominating judges.

But under cross-examination on the second day of hearings from commission lead counsel Guiseppe Battista, Bellemare conceded that he had no corroborating evidence nor witnesses to back up allegations that rocked Quebec's legal and political circles. The only evidence he produced were cryptic notes he scrawled on a piece of cardboard while watching a hockey game on the day of his resignation, which he said he tucked away and forgot about.

Maybe there are people who at the time were aware of this and could confirm it to you, but I don't have documents or audio or video of that, said Bellemare, who appointed four judges to the Court of Quebec and promoted three during his tenure as justice minister from April 2003 until April 2004.

The inquiry was launched after Bellemare alleged last April that influential Quebec Liberal Party fundraisers tainted the judicial appointment process six years ago, with Charest's blessing. Charest fought back. On the same day that the premier appointed Bastarache to preside over a commission of inquiry into Bellemare's allegations, Charest launched a $700,000 suit against the former justice minister for false, malicious and defamatory remarks.

Though begrudgingly appearing before the Bastarache commission, Bellemare has not shied away from naming names. He dropped a suit to torpedo the inquiry he described as a costly and useless exercise only after obtaining an agreement that guaranteed his testimony would be broadcast. Bellemare testified that retired lawyer and businessman Franco Fava and chartered accountant Charles Rondeau pressured him on several occasions between July 2003 and August 2003 to make the right nominations. Bellemare added that Fava's pressure was colossal, and led him to call the premier on Sunday, Aug. 24, 2003 to request a meeting. On Sept. 2, 2003, nearly four months after the Liberals took office, Bellemare said that he met with the premier in a one-on-one meeting.

Bellemare testified that during the meeting he complained to Charest that pressure was being exerted on him to appoint Marc Bisson, a Gatineau, Que., lawyer and the son of a prominent Liberal organizer in the Outaouais, and Line Gosselin-Després, the cousin of former Labour Minister Michel Després, to the Court of Quebec. Bellemare said he was also pressed to appoint Judge Michel Simard as assistant chief justice to the Court of Quebec.

Bellemare has not disputed that all three jurists were competent and qualified for their appointments.

Justice Bisson was appointed to the Court of Quebec in November 2003, the same month that Justice Simard was promoted. Justice Gosselin-Després was appointed to the juvenile division of the Court of Quebec in January 2004.

Who appoints the judges in Quebecis it Franco Fava? Bellemare said he asked Charest during the meeting held at the premier's office. According to Bellemare, the premier replied that Franco is a personal friend, an influential party fundraiser. We need people like him. If he says to appoint Simard and Bisson, then do it.

Yet in spite of the pressure he alleges he faced to nominate certain judges, Bellemare testified that Quebec's judicial appointment process has its virtues.

I think our system is correct and functions well, said Bellemare. There are three stories for three nominations which had problems. No more. I consider them incidental errors endorsed by my premier. I said that's politics, unfortunately.

The three Court of Quebec judges who allegedly were nominated or promoted due to undue pressure will continue to sit on the bench during the inquiry hearings, said Renée Desrosiers, interim assistant to Elizabeth Corte, Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec.

The Bastarache commission will have no impact on the Court of Quebec's operations, whose regular activities will continue normally, said Desrosiers, reading from a prepared statement prepared by Justice Corte's office.

Bastarache commission spokesperson Guy Versailles declined to confirm or deny whether the three judges touched by the allegations have already been or will be interviewed by the inquiry's counsel. He also refused to state whether they will be asked to testify, pointing out that the names of witnesses are published on the inquiry's website a week before their scheduled appearance.

We do not disclose who we interviewed to protect their privacy and reputation, said Versaille. If we choose not to hear them before the public inquiry, the meeting we had with them holds no public interest. That is the course of action we have adopted, and one we intend to follow.

The Conseil de la Magistrature du Québec, an independent body that supervises the conduct of judges and organizes training programs for them, does not intend to look into the matter. According to André Ouimet, secretary of the conseil, the independent body only examines cases in which complaints have been officially lodged against judges that sit on the Court of Québec, the Professions Tribunal, the Human Rights Tribunal and municipal courts. I do not recall the conseil ever examining a case in which it lodged a complaint itself, said Ouimet.

A retired judge who spoke on condition of anonymity pointed out that the three judges who allegedly were appointed due to undue pressure by party fundraisers were described by Bellemare himself as being competent and qualified to hold the positions.

Their competence is not disputed, said the former judge. There is no question that these three judges are very well-regarded and well-thought of by the legal community. It's really unfair for them to be in that position.

The former judge added that while these may be trying times for the three judges who have been cited by Bellemare, they will no doubt continue to work diligently as they have for the past seven years.

A judge faces many circumstances during his career that are not easy, like rendering an unpopular decision. It takes a courageous judge to apply the law as he sees it, knowing he will be bashed in the media the next day. You have to live with that.

I have no doubt that these people have the moral fortitude to continue to do their work, with the same competence that they've been doing, said the former judge.

The commission, after hearing Bellemare testify for two days, had adjourned until Aug. 30, giving the Commission's counsel several days to sift through Bellemare's testimony, particularly since the former justice minister refused to be pre-interviewed.

All quotes translated from French by the author.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) and the Federation of Law Societies (FLSC) are butting heads over how best to reform law societies' ethical rules on conflicts of interest.

The 37,000-member national Bar association recently fired off a 16-page submission to the umbrella group for 14 legal regulators, disagreeing with key aspects of a long awaited report by the FLSC's Advisory Committee on Conflicts of Interest that was unveiled by the FLSC in June.

The Bar association's Aug. 17 response to the advisory committee, obtained by The Lawyers Weekly, contends that the advisory committee misapprehended the common law on conflicts, and did not sufficiently consult with the profession, before rejecting key reforms to the so-called current client conflict rule adopted as part of the CBA's Code of Professional Conduct last year.

If the FLSC proceeds to adopt its advisory committee's recommendations as part of its Model Code of Professional Conduct, lawyers will be left with conflicting ethical guidelines, notes Scott Jolliffe, chair of the CBA's Conflict of Interest Task Force which developed the CBA's reforms during 15 months of study and nation-wide consultation.

I think the public and the profession are better served by having the best appropriate rule reflected in both the regulations of the law societies and the ethical rules of the CBA, Jolliffe told The Lawyers Weekly.

We would like to open up a dialogue with representatives of the federation to work together in developing the best process going forward that would lead to the development of the best rule on current client representation that services the interests of the public and the profession, as well as the administration of justice.

The FLSC's president, John Campion of Toronto's Fasken Martineau Dumoulin, noted the CBA and the FLSC's advisory committee agree on many aspects of the conflict of interest rules. My first proposition is the [CBA Task Force] report was excellent and [their] answer was excellent, he told The Lawyers Weekly.

Campion noted individual law societies are currently consulting with their Benchers on how they wish the FLSC to deal with the advisory committee's recommendations. The FLSC's council will consider its members' feedback at its meeting next month.

Campion said he doesn't agree with the criticisms of the advisory committee's approach, but called the exchange with the CBA a superb debate.

I do agree that there is a fundamental difference in approach, he remarked. I would say the main division lies in what is required when you have a potential for conflict. And the federation's advisory committee report, leaving aside the sophisticated client, [stipulates you must have lawyer] disclosure and [client] consent. And who can be against disclosure? If you don't tell [clients about potential conflicts] they can't do anything about it. They can't protect themselves. And consent is the battleground.

In essence, the main bone of contention appears to be whether lawyers should be automatically prohibited from representing separate clients, who are adverse in interest in unrelated matters, unless they get informed consent from the clients (i.e. following adequate disclosure to the clients). The FLSC's advisory committee says yes to such a rule, based on its view of the public interest and Supreme Court of Canada authorities.

However the CBA has adopted a less black-and-white substantial risk principle as its litmus test. Its model code stipulates that a lawyer may simultaneously act for separate clients, who are adverse in unrelated matters, if there is no conflicting interest: defined as an interest that gives rise to a substantial risk of material and adverse effect on representation.

In commentary to its rule, the CBA says material and adverse effect on representation includes impairment of the lawyer's relationship with a client.

Presumably, therefore, under the CBA's rule, if a lawyer suspected that his current client, A, whom he represents in suing B, might lose confidence in their lawyer-client relationship if the lawyer took on B as a client in an unrelated matter  e.g. drafting B's will  the lawyer would be obliged to disclose the potentially conflicting interest to A, and obtain A's consent to take on B as a client.

The CBA had been fervently hoping since it reformed its Code of Professional Conduct that the FLSC would embrace the Bar's proposed reforms. Although the FLSC's Model Code of Conduct is non-binding, member law societies look to it for guidance in their ongoing efforts to try to harmonize their binding rules with fellow regulators across Canada.

However the FLSC's advisory committee, chaired by Toronto Bencher Bonnie Tough, rejected the CBA's proposed relaxation of the current client rules in force in some provinces, which the CBA regards as unduly stringent, unrealistic and counter-productive.

The CBA and the Advisory Committee on Conflicts of Interest share much common ground, writes the CBA, but we disagree on an issue of profound importance. There are real and serious difficulties, for clients and lawyers alike, with the Rule proposed by the Advisory Committee. We urge the Federation to engage in further consideration and consultation with a view to developing the best rule in the public interest. If further consideration and consultation is not possible, it would be preferable to allow the common law to continue to evolve, and not codify one interpretation of the current law into an even more inflexible rule of professional conduct.

The advisory committee's report says the CBA's current client rule doesn't take sufficient account of the fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client. The potential exists for a current client to feel betrayed if, without disclosure and informed consent, the lawyer acts in a matter directly adverse to the client's immediate interests.

The advisory committee said the CBA's rule that a lawyer can act without disclosure and consent if a matter is unrelated and if there is no substantial risk of material and adverse effect on client representation is inconsistent with the rule set forth by the Supreme Court in the Neil and Strother cases.

We are mindful of the intersection of fiduciary law with law societies' public interest mandates, the committee writes. The public interest is a multi-faceted concept. It includes considerations of choice of counsel, a key argument the CBA makes in favour of a less restrictive approach to conflicts of interest. But there is a strong public interest as well in maintaining the trust that must exist between lawyers and their clients. The public interest duty of law societies is arguably not upheld by an approach to conflicts of interests that: permits lawyers to act against current clients; even if only in unrelated matters; where the new client's interests are directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of the current client; without the client's knowledge or consent.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

While it now appears that Toronto police had no special powers to interrogate, arrest and detain people within a five-metre perimeter outside the recent G20 summit in the megacity's downtown core, the very law that featured that temporary regulation is itself unconstitutional, argues constitutional law scholar Errol Mendes.

He explains that in Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that federal regulations and airport officials that prohibited the distribution of political pamphlets at Montreal's Dorval airport (now known as Montréal-Trudeau) infringed on the freedom of expression of the two respondents (François Lépine and Christiane Deland).

The court was unanimous in its decision that s. 2 (b) of the Charter conferred a right to use public property for purposes of free expression, and the federal government did not possess the absolute power of a private owner to control access to and use of public property  in this case an airport, says Mendes, a professor of law at the University of Ottawa's common law section and the editor-in-chief of The National Journal of Constitutional Law. A year later, in R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156, the court again cited s. 2 (b) in upholding the right the union had to picket at secondary locations, such as retail outlets that carried the appellant's products.

By extension, the right to picket equally applies to political demonstrations, and therefore Ontario's Public Works Protection Act (PWPA), which gives guards or police officers the power to ask anyone approaching a public work to identify him or herself, and its controversial Ontario Regulation 233/10, are unconstitutional, says Mendes.

He explains that the regulation's provision of designating an area within five metres of a line drawn in an area surrounding the Toronto G20 summit is particularly troubling, since it has since been revealed that the zone was within the secured site and not, as previously thought, outside of it. If the police knew that in advance and went ahead and arrested people, they violated a whole bunch of Charter rights.

In its A Breach of the Peace preliminary report following the G20 summit, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which had five of its 50 monitors arrested and detained during the two-day event, believes that police conduct was, at times, disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive, and that policing and security efforts failed to demonstrate commitment to Canada's constitutional values.

Even before the summit, the CCLA warned that cordoning off large areas of downtown Toronto could violate several sections of the Charter: s. 7, which guarantees individual liberty, including freedom of movement; and s. 2 (b), (c) and (d) that guarantee freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

During the summit, the invocation of the 71-year-old PWPA to give police the power to search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter the security perimeter could constitute a breach of the s. 8 search-and-seizure protection in the Charter, according to Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel of the CCLA. She says the mass arrest of 1,105 people  the largest in Canadian history, which resulted in 263 charges being laid, many of them involving conspiracy to commit a criminal act  not only displayed the overreach of police, but violated s. 9 of the Charter (the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned).

We're worried that the way in which the breach-of-the-peace provisions of the Criminal Code were used by police may be unconstitutional, says Des Rosiers, who is on leave as a professor in the University of Ottawa's civil law section. They're not supposed to be used by police just to arrest people because they're fed up with them protesting. Police have a duty to protect the right of peaceful assembly.

The CCLA has called on federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to strike a committee to modernize the old-fashioned and antiquated Criminal Code provisions dealing with unlawful assemblies and riots. The association also wants an independent public inquiry into the actions of the police during the G20 summit, and has called on the Ontario government to either amend or repeal the PWPA that gave police broad powers that are inconsistent with current Charter requirements.

In force for a week leading up to and including the G20 meeting, Ontario Regulation 233/10 was only printed in The Ontario Gazette after the summit, on July 3, and has been dubbed the secret law that was only known to police and government officials.

Dave Vasey, a 31-year-old York University student believed to be the only person charged with breaching the five-metre regulation under the PWPA, showed up at Toronto's Old City Hall in late July only to discover his name was not on the docket and the court did not have information on his case. Vasey, who says he was just standing with a friend outside the security perimeter two days before the G20 summit, was surrounded at one point by as many as 10 Toronto police officers. When asked for identification, he declined to show any and was promptly arrested and searched.

But the PWPA only allows police to conduct a search if a person is entering or attempting to enter a public work, which didn't apply to Vasey, says Howard Morton, a Toronto criminal defence lawyer who, as a member of the Law Union of Ontario, agreed to act pro bono on G20-related cases, including Vasey's.

Morton is part of a chorus, which includes the CCLA, critical of the Ontario government for secretly introducing the PWPA regulation and not widely informing the public about it in advance of the G20 meeting.

If you want people to obey a law, the first thing you do is tell them it exists and explain to them what they're required to do or what they're not allowed to do. Whenever additional powers are conferred on the police, issues involving the Charter of Rights are automatically raised, says Morton.

Vasey plans to commence civil proceedings against the Ontario government and Toronto police. As well, two class actions have been launched by G20 summit protesters, including a suit against the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney General of Canada.

Those cases could benefit from the recent SCC decision in Vancouver (City) v. Ward, [2010] S.C.J. No. 27, according to Mendes. Until that decision, the lower courts gave the impression that as long as there was no malice on the part of the police when they were performing their duties  even if they ended up potentially violating Charter rights  there was no right to damages. What the Ward decision seems to imply is that even without malice, an individual is entitled to compensation.

In a unanimous ruling, the SCC upheld a trial decision that awarded Vancouver lawyer Cameron Ward $5,000 for a strip search that violated his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Ward, who had previously represented clients in civil rights cases against Vancouver police, including student complainants following the infamous pepper-spraying incident during the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders in Vancouver in November 1997, was partially strip searched and spent four-and-a-half hours in squalid conditions in a provincial jail on Aug. 1, 2002 after police acted on a tip and mistakenly accused him of planning to throw a pie at an event then-prime minister Jean Chrétien was attending in the city.

When he was finally released after the public ceremony, police refused to apologize and Ward went to B.C.'s Supreme Court to seek compensation from the City of Vancouver, which employs the police, and the province, which operated the jail at the time he was detained.

Now, he has the precedent-setting SCC decision to refer to when representing clients who find themselves wrongly arrested and detained. For the first time in 28 years since the Charter was enacted, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked whether damages are an appropriate remedy for a violation of a Charter right, and the justices said quite clearly and unequivocally, yes they are, says Ward, who has appeared before both the Commission for Complaints Against the RCMP and B.C.'s Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

In my view, fundamental civil rights and liberties cannot be suspended simply because some important people are coming to town. It's very important that the police and other security agents fully respect citizens' constitutional rights and that there ought to be consequences if they willfully violate those rights.

With allegations that women detainees during the G20 summit were strip searched and sexually assaulted by male police officers  as outlined in a July 26 letter to federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews from Claire Tremblay, national coordinator for the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights  Mendes would like the SCC to render an opinion not only on the conduct of police during the G20 summit, but on the PWPA they, in hindsight, wrongly relied on to wield their authority.

Political expression is the core of our democracy, and this was one of the most serious attempts to undermine that most important aspect of freedom of expression, he explains.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

Ontario's new Electronic Land Registration Services Act appears to be an attempt by the provincial government to raise cash by selling off registration access rights, and potentially even registration data, to address its budgetary needs.

The Act received royal assent on May 18, and will come into effect on a day to be proclaimed by the provincial government  without debate or public input. It was introduced on March 25 as part of one of the government's budgetary bills, and passed through the legislature without any real public knowledge, no publicity and no input from users of the electronic land registration system.

The Act was introduced and administered by the Ministry of Finance, rather than the Ministry of Government Services, which normally oversees the land registration system. During the last 30 years, the Ministry of Government Services and its predecessors have proactively sought and responded to input from the major stakeholders prior to virtually all legislative and regulatory amendments to the electronic land registration system. The system we have now is far more user friendly, and operates far better, as a result of this input from the major stakeholders and the corresponding cooperation from the ministry involved.

In other words, this convention of prior stakeholder consultation works well and the public is much better off for it. Why the change in procedure?

This new Act provides for the government to enter into service provider agreements where it will license to a service provider the access, use, copying, selling and other dealings with the land registry and writs data, and the resulting sublicensing to the end user. The Act also creates the office of the Electronic Land Registration Services Commissioner to oversee and regulate the financial and operating relationships among the government, the primary land registration services provider and the subsequent end users. This Act also exempts these agreements and the information provided to the new commissioner from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Shortly after the passage of the new Act, the public became aware that the Ontario government was seriously considering creating one big SuperCorp by amalgamating Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and the LCBO in order to sell 20 per cent or more of this large entity, thereby raising cash to address the current liquidity needs of the government. The new Act seems to be another attempt by the provincial government to raise additional cash by selling off access rights, and possibly the registration data, to address the cash needs in the current budgetary cycle.

One need only consider what happened with the sale of Highway 407 or the sale by the City of Mississauga of a portion of its hydro corporation, to appreciate the potential problems and long-term pain that can result from such decisions by the government.

The current electronic land registration system was built in a joint venture with Teranet Inc. and the provincial government subsequently entered into an exclusive license for the operation and management of the electronic land registry system with Teranet Inc. This license expires in 2017, and the government has until at least 2014 to decide whether it will renew Teranet's exclusive license on its expiry in 2017.

Other alternatives to consider at that time include having the province operate the land registration system itself or, more likely, inviting competitive bids from multiple third parties for the subsequent operation of the electronic land registration system. There does not appear to be any reason to have this new piece of legislation passed and service provider agreements negotiated now.

A number of real estate practitioners and other electronic land registry system users have started to question the fees charged by Teranet, especially in view of the corresponding fees being charged in other provinces for access to their newer electronic registry systems. Although we may be faced with the current exclusive license for its remaining term, there is no reason not to open this service to competition after the expiry of the current license.

This concept of the partial sale of public assets to raise money to invest in current budgetary items is problematic in several ways.

The first concern is that any potential buyer will only invest significant dollars in all or some of these assets if they gain a reasonable degree of control over such assets. That loss of control generally hurts the public, since there are significant increases in access fees and other costs, and a reduced ability of the government to make decisions in the public's best interest.

Money raised by selling public assets is, for the most part, only partially used to pay down debt or for long-term infrastructure projects which will benefit the province. Large portions of the money raised from prior asset sales by the province have been used to subsidize current services to the public which have no long-term financial benefit. Some skeptics have alleged that these subsidized services serve only to buy votes for the government in the next election. What we end up with is short-term gain in exchange for long-term pain.

At the very least, the government's decision regarding the electronic land registration system should be the subject of an open consultation and public debate well in advance of any final decision. This would allow the public and all stakeholders to be fully informed and express their views.

At the time of writing this article, the negative publicity and public outcry appear to have caused the provincial government to reconsider the creation and sale of the so-called SuperCorp. We can only hope that similar pressure will cause the government to reconsider any rash decisions about the electronic land registration system.

Steven Pearlstein is a partner at Minden Gross LLP in Toronto and a certified specialist in real estate law.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

You use it just about every day, and you suspect you'll upgrade to the latest version sooner or later.

Whether you do so sooner hinges on whether the changes and new features in Microsoft Office 2010 will make a difference in your law practice.

Faced with a changing world order in which Microsoft's dominance of the office software market continues to ebb, the Redmond, Wash.-based giant is going on the offensive to reclaim market share. It now competes with free office suites like OpenOffice.org and online alternatives like Google Docs, entering their markets with offerings designed to make defectors look again at Office, perhaps even luring them back to the full, installed package.

Microsoft's biggest competitor, though, may be prior versions of Office which, for many people, are good enough.

In the recently released Office 2010 for Windows (the Mac version will arrive in the second half of the year), Microsoft has not only kept the ribbon from Office 2007 but also put it in all other components of the Office suite, including Outlook.

Do you still use Office 2003 and wonder what the ribbon is? It's a sort of 'super toolbar' that sits at the top of the window, explains Matthew MacDonald, the Toronto-based author of Excel 2010: The Missing Manual and Access 2010: The Missing Manual, both for the Pogue imprint of O'Reilly. Most people find it eventually makes them more productive, but it takes some getting used to.
MacDonald didn't mention criticisms of Office's 2007 look. Microsoft did listen to those criticisms, particularly regarding the disappearance of the File menu in Office 2007, which led Microsoft to redo that part of the interface.

There's a new 'backstage view' where you can take care of file management tasks like opening a recent file, saving or uploading a file, printing, and so on, says MacDonald.

Jason Brommet, Microsoft Canada's senior product manager for Office, explains the name. If your Office document is your movie, Backstage is for the directors, sound crew and so forth.

It's also where Office keeps the metadata toolbox, and that irks Dominic Jaar. I would have hoped Microsoft would understand that metadata is important, it should be up front, says the Office 2010 beta user and CEO of Montreal-based Ledjit Consulting Inc. Now it's even further back.

Microsoft created new Office gadgetry meant to help people handle media, like photos and videos, within a given Office document. You can clip two minutes out of a ten-minute video inside Office instead of using a third-party tool, Brommet offers by way of example.

Outlook has become a hub of sorts, where people can monitor not just email but also Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter and other social networks.

E-mail can now appear ordered by conversation, similar to threads used in Gmail or Mac Mail. This feature may help people deal with piles of email on a given topic in less time by helping them focus on said topic.

Jaar isn't too impressed with this effort, though. Outlook organizes messages by subject, not a deeper analysis of the message, he says. Conversations aren't ready for prime time.

Since large numbers of people work in online office suites like Google Docs, Microsoft also offers pared-down versions of its Office applications via the web. This marks a departure for Microsoft in that it will let people view and edit Office documents on computers that don't have Office installed, and it's providing this set of tools for free.

The free Office Web Apps will meet the requirements of people who have modest collaboration needs, MacDonald says. But in a professional environment, people usually choose something like SharePoint for document tracking, revisions, change management, workflow, and so on.

Another possible strike against Office web apps: they store files on the Internet rather than a person's computer. Canadian lawyers may be wary of web-based applications that make their data vulnerable to a U.S. Patriot Act-based search.

Jaar does use Google Docs for non-confidential information, but unless the client agrees, I'm not comfortable suggesting people move to the cloud unless the cloud they use is in Canada, where at least they'll be compliant.

Whether Microsoft creates smartphone clients matters little. Third-party software developers have offered applications for reading and editing Office documents on handhelds since the early days of Palm, and such tools are still popular.

One ongoing criticism Office continues to suffer stems from its complexity. There are no macro problems, Jaar says, just little glitches that you can turn off. But the switches are hidden deep in the software, so you have to search in help and on forums to find them.

It's the downside of having tons of features, unlike more user-friendly stuff that has fewer features.

To help anybody who has ever been stymied by the number of versions of Office Microsoft will offer, Brommet advocates lawyers get the Pro Plus package for its interaction between Office client applications and Microsoft's various servers (like Office Communicator) as well as the information rights management it affords (like defining policies around individual documents or e-mails).

Another server, SharePoint 2010, features Workspace (formerly known as Groove). This feature lets people create offline workspaces on their computers consisting of documents (and libraries) that reside in SharePoint.

People can also set up ad hoc workspaces and include collaborators outside a corporate network without calling on IT or requesting a VPN for said outsiders.

Microsoft claims Workspace allows for real-time collaboration. The term evokes visions of Google Docs-like editing of a given document by two or more people at exactly the same time, but Jaar disagrees with that perception.

Contrary to Google, you don't see the changes live, Jaar explains. It's still like SharePoint, with locked documents. It isn't yet a true collaborative platform??it's a first-generation attempt.

Still, Jaar favours Office 2010, if for selfish reasons. I hope everybody migrates to 2010 since it makes me sick to convert my documents to Office 2003 formats when I collaborate with my colleagues, he says.

Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

When Simon Ruel was recently beckoned to be deputy chief counsel of the Bastarache Commission, the Montreal lawyer was delighted to have an opportunity to leave his imprimatur in the inquiry into alleged political interference in the nomination of Quebec judges even though he was mindful of the long grind that awaited him.

An experienced civil litigator, Ruel is well-versed with the inner workings of public inquiries. Senior counsel on the government litigation team at the Gomery Commission and commission counsel with the Cornwall sex scandal public inquiry, Ruel penned The Law of Public Inquiries in Canada, a recently published book that examines the legal and strategic issues behind inquiry bodies.

It's a privilege, remarked Ruel, counsel at the civil litigation services of the federal Department of Justice. It's not often that lawyers have an opportunity during their careers to represent a matter of public interest on specific incidents in a neutral and objective manner. It is very interesting work.

Though literally a staple of the Canadian legal and political landscape, with more than 1,500 federal public inquiries launched since Confederation, it remains unchartered ground for most lawyers. Often perceived as a means for government to delay action, public inquiries can and repeatedly have served as vehicles for examining and analyzing policy in ways that the justice system cannot, notes Ruel. Some inquiries have had such a notable impact that it has led to the creation of new institutions, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service spawned after the MacDonald Commission or the Canadian Blood Services following the Krever Commission. Others, such as the Walkerton Inquiry into the E.Coli contamination of the water supply, instigated legislative amendments.

Lawyers generally play two or three roles in an inquiry, that is, either act as a counsel for the commission or represent a witness or a participant, said Marie Cossette, of Langlois Kronström Desjardins in Montreal, who has taken part in three public inquiries. In all of these cases, in order to be able to effectively fulfill his role and play an influential role in the proceedings, lawyers must understand how inquiries function. But in general that is not the case.

Inquiries, like the judiciary, are independent, often endowed with wide-ranging investigative powers, convened in the wake of public shock, horror, disillusionment or skepticism to uncover the truth, as Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Justice Peter deCarteret Cory put it in Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97. Its rules and procedures, however, are far more supple than those governing the courts, with rules of evidence, for instance, allowing for hearsay to be introduced. They are also open and public in nature, airing on television or increasingly on the Internet, in a bid to help the public to understand the stakes, allow them to keep abreast of developments during the proceedings and in some cases even enable them to vent their frustrations.

But the combination of the presence of the cameras along with its compliant rules and procedures can make it a tough slog for lawyers involved in inquiries, particularly commission of inquiries, notes Sylvain Lussier, a Montreal lawyer with Osler, Hoskin & amp; Harcourt LLP who was the Government of Canada's attorney before the Gomery Commission. While the findings of a commissioner cannot result in either penal or civil consequences for a witness, Lussier points out that it can lead to collateral damage or taint a person's reputation. Indeed, a good reputation for most people is a person's most highly prized attribute, notes the SCC in Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440. With so much at stake, inquiries often end up adversarial, weighed down by an atmosphere more akin to an acrimonious trial than a fact-finding mission.

The price that people pay is often too high but it seems that it's a necessary evil, remarked Lussier, who strongly recommends lawyers about to embark in a public inquiry to get some expert media coaching in order to avoid the pitfalls. Due to the attention of the media, not only do you have to calculate the impression you are going to make on the commissioner, with your questions and interventions, you also have to calculate the impression you are going to make on television, on the media. So you end up having to weigh what is going to be less damaging for your client.

While conceding that it can be quite a challenge, Ruel urges commission counsel and lawyers representing participants and witnesses to cooperate in order to avoid lengthy delays and interminable legal disputes. From my perspective and having lived through it, in order for a commission of inquiry to function in a harmonious manner, all parties have to make concessions to avoid conflict, said Ruel. There is great value to having constant dialogue between the parties to ensure procedural fairness.

Lawyers also have to be aware of the importance of strategic planning, added Ruel. Lawyers must ask themselves fundamental questions such as if they are going to collaborate, how are they going to do so; what spin are they going to give to the evidence and testimony; how are they going to cross-examine and who is going to do it, all the while keeping in mind that in many public inquiries political considerations have to be considered.

Working in public inquiries requires far more than just legal preparation, said Ruel. Strategic considerations are important. One has to understand what is at stake and equally important understand what's at stake for your clients.

But regardless of whether they act as commission counsel or represent either participants or witnesses, lawyers too must be prepared to pay a price, warns Cossette. Most cases before public inquiries are complex and extremely time-consuming. Lawyers therefore should ensure that they have enough time on their hands to be able to read, analyze, and understand the case just as they would in a lengthy trial, added Cossette, who was counsel at the Gomery commission, deputy counsel to the Commission investigating the Concorde overpass collapse and represented Quebec's provincial police officers at the Poitras Commission.

Lussier takes it a step further. He says that lawyers should expect their practice to take a hit.

It makes a big dent in your practice because it becomes your one file, said Lussier. You cannot develop your practice. In fact, in some sense it can be damaging because whatever existing files you have you have to pass it on to your partners and you certainly can't take on new mandates.

Yet despite the challenges, neither Cossette, Lussier nor Ruel would even conceive of passing up the chance to work at a public inquiry. The mandates are fascinating, the work is rewarding, and you end up working with la  crème de la crème as it's always the top lawyers who take part in inquiries, says Cossette.
Click here to see this article in our digital edition (available to subscribers).

Interested in taking a break from your law practice, but not from the intellectual stimulation associated with the law? There are several ways you can enrich your skills and experience while taking time away from your practice.

More legal practitioners are using the internet giant's business tools, says the author of a new book on how Google know-how can benefit lawyers.

Vancouver law firm Bull, Housser and Tupper has once again been recognized for its attention to the “people” side of the business. Managing partner Herb Isherwood and human resources manager Ann Johnston spoke to PracticeLink about how BH and T keeps employees engaged and why it's so important.

Most public companies are well on their way to converting to International Financial Reporting Standards. The situation is a little more complicated for private enterprises, which can choose between IFRS and the New Canadian GAAP. Here is what private business owners must understand about their options.

Whatever else can be said about the economic downturn of the past two years, it is unquestioned that law firms, like every other sector of the economy, have learned (or more likely re-learned) they cannot ignore the fundamental rules of business.

Consider preparing printed material for the client to take away with them, material that will help them understand what is going on. "Hand-holders" are tangible symbols of the help that’s being given, of the work that has been and will be done on the client’s behalf.

You’re not just practising law, you’re running a business. Try some of these simple tips and you’ll not only keep clients and staff happy, you’ll boost your practice’s bottom line.

Do you find yourself daydreaming about teaching yoga, delivering mail, doing anything but practising law? Maybe you’re in the wrong field. Or maybe you just need a change of scenery. Here’s how to perform a thorough self-assessment to determine if law is the right career for you.

If you want to build firm revenue, don’t let individual players steal the show. Working as a team means greater value for the client and greater long-term success for the firm.

While other firms are bracing themselves to weather the bleak economy, here’s how you can use these tough times to foster change and catapult your firm into the forefront of the marketplace.