Law Times

PAGE 2 NEWS Solicitor-client privilege questions were raised Continued from page 1 and expensive, but a lawyer who is asked to breach his or her professional obligations may go to court and get the court to rule on the point." Keith Cameron, a registered lawyer/lobby- ist with Lang Michener LLP in Ottawa, agrees lawyers braced themselves for further encroach- ments into solicitor-client privilege as the date for the new law to take effect approached. "I will not be spearheading any challenge or anything," he tells Law Times. "What we've been told, at least privately by the registrar [now commissioner] is you're wearing two hats, and you can't wear them both at the same time. Either you're a lobbyist or a lawyer. If you're acting as a lobbyist then you have to follow these rules; that makes for a difficult situation, though." Other lawyers, though, do not anticipate difficulties, in some cases because they focus their lobbying more on government policy and legislative initiatives than sensitive areas such as government procurement. "From my point of view, it's a little more pa- perwork but there isn't a concern about solici- tor-client privilege," says Gerald Kerr-Wilson Q. of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. Kerr-Wilson, a legal vice president with the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Associa- tion until 2006, represents cable and satellite companies before the Copyright Board of Can- ada while also serving as a registered lobbyist for nine cable and telecommunications companies. He tells Law Times questions about sensitivity for solicitor-client privilege were raised during seminars led in advance of the new regulations by one of his former colleagues at Faskens — Guy Giorno. Ironically, Giorno, who advised the Cana- dian Bar Association about the new provisions as well, has since joined Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office as chief of staff. "He may be able to do something now in respect of something he previously had concerns," quipped Brown. Despite the attention given to the unique issues surrounding lawyers who act as lobby- ists, their number is low compared to the over- all population of lobbyists registered with the federal government. Of the 3,399 active files in the public regis- try, only 263 active registrations are for lobby- ists from law firms, including lawyers who have more than one client. LT JULY 14/21, 2008 / LAW TIMES Benchers to get paid for travel time Continued from page 1 get here for a hearing or a meeting or whatever." Bencher Judith Potter, who is from London, suggested Con- vocation go further and com- pensate benchers for their time when they have booked days off and travelled to Toronto for a hearing panel that is subse- quently postponed or cancelled. "We can't just go back to our offices and pick up our files and carry on," said Potter. "We have not scheduled the other work that's done by many of us . . . and it means we have lost a week." The change to bencher per diem rates will see an increase to $530 from $500 for a full day of work, and $320 from $300 for a half day. The move, which Wright said would make up for inflation since the rates were first set in November 2005, is expected to cost $40,000. The finance committee report notes that when bencher remu- neration was first introduced it aimed to "temper somewhat, but Why does the legal profession trust Martin's? A. Analysis and commentary from renowned authors you won't find anywhere else Martin's Annual Criminal Code 2009 Edition not eliminate, the financial sacri- fice of being a bencher." Benchers must donate 26 days of work before being eligible for remuneration, a stipulation that "represents the benchers' unpaid contribution to the profession and the public, and amounts to more than five business weeks away from the office," states the report. The cost of bencher remu- neration to the law society for the 2007 financial year was $357,000: $159,000 in 2006, and $134,000 in 2005, according to the report. In 2007, 24 of 70 eligible bench- ers claimed remuneration, versus 18 of 69 in 2006, and 24 of 73 in 2005, states the report. The report notes that many benchers don't claim remunera- tion as a matter of principle, be- cause they don't exceed the 26- day deductible, or are forbidden from claiming due to employ- ment contracts. Bencher Constance Back- house voiced her opposition to bencher remuneration. "I appreciate this motion is de- signed to rationalize and improve upon our original bencher remu- neration policy," she told Convo- cation. "I can see the arguments in favour of the motion, however, those of you who were here when we first voted with respect to whether to bring in bencher remu- neration at all will remember that it was a hotly contested matter. "Many of us voted against bencher remuneration at the out- set and, as a matter of principle, I will be voting against this because I am still against the concept of bencher remuneration." Criminal lawyer Bill Trudell, who dedicates most of his practice to defending members at law soci- ety tribunal hearings, says he sup- ports "reasonable remuneration for benchers." But he says more needs to be done to support members. "We have to put aside some money to create whatever kind of office, whatever they call it, for the members only," says Trudell. In other Convocation spending news, benchers approved $150,000 in funding for the Ontario Civil Legal Needs Project, which will assess the legal needs of low- and middle-income earners. The proj- ect was created by LSUC's access to justice committee and Pro Bono Law Ontario. LT www.canadalawbook.ca www.lawtimesnews.com Martins Annual (LT 1-2x4).indd 1 7/8/08 2:43:18 PM

• Cover