Law Times

Page 2 September 23, 2013 Law Times • NEWS Should firms respond to bad reviews? Scope narrowed to homicide cases Continued from page 1 corporate ones, would look to Google to help them make decisions, according to Kowalski. For clients, "online [reviews] for lawyers are only useful if you have two things: You have no experience with lawyers or you have no one that you can talk to for a referral," he says. For Michael Niren, managing partner of Niren and Associates Immigration Lawyers, online reviews are a serious matter. "In the past, if you had a client who was not happy with your services, there weren't a lot of channels for them to express their discontent," he says. "Now with the advent of online reviews, they can really voice their opinions and impact your law practice positively or negatively." Niren agrees that Yelp reviews are much more significant in the United States than in Canada. He says Google reviews, which pop up on the right side of the screen when you do a search of a company, are much more significant. Niren and Associates has seven reviews on Yelp and more than 80 on Google. Niren says the firm actively monitors the reviews. "We call it reputation management. Your reputation online could make or break your law practice. It's part of your reputation management to see what people are saying about you online. "Decisions to hire you or not are often made by other people's comments. It's like TripAdvisor. . . . There's no difference with law firms." When his law firm has been successful in a case, Niren says he encourages clients to give feedback online. "We always tell clients . . . it's their choice. If they feel comfortable, they're welcome to post their review." The question, of course, is what happens when negative reviews hit the web. Niren says he's usually proactive about responding to reviews. Many review web sites allow owners to weigh in on the conservation. "Even if it's a justified criticism, I'll apologize for the poor experience and I'll do what I can to rectify it and I'll say so online. If it's a positive review, I will thank them for the review. It shows, from the user perspective, that I'm an active, engaged law firm or lawyer," he says. "Some law firms, I notice, are pretty passive about it," Niren adds. Kowalski isn't a big fan of responding to negative reviews, even if in the form of an apology. In a way, replying makes the matter worse, he suggests. "It puts the firm in a bad light." He adds: "It's already too late [to apologize]. You had your chance. You knew they had a bad experience before they went online. The only reason they went online is because you didn't satisfy what they wanted to do in the first place and they're so upset and so angry that they're just going to blast you online. "If you apologize at that point, the question is why did it even get to that point?" The only good option after a law firm notices it's getting bad reviews is to drown them out with positive ones, says Kowalski, who notes that's the reason law firms should be vigilant about their online reputation. "Generally speaking, reviews are extremely, extremely important," says Niren. Review sites may change the way lawyers work or add more to their to-do lists, but Niren likes to think of them as levelling the playing field. "Now clients have a voice for the whole world to hear," he says. "It's incumbent on lawyers and law firms to be aware of how they are perceived online." LT www.lawtimesnews.com Continued from page 1 raise eyebrows. The court at the time found there was a motive, circumstantial and forensic evidence, and an admission by Chaudhary herself to conclude she had killed the boy. Chaudhary was dating the boy's uncle, Vijay Gupta, and the family didn't approve of their relationship, according to the ruling. The court found she had killed the boy out of revenge. There were also red and white acrylic fibres in her car that matched what the boy was wearing the day he died. In addition, there was soil found on his body that experts said was a match to soil in the parking garage where Chaudhary parked her car. "This was about soil and fibres," Young told the court, describing the forensic issues as a "matching game." Police testified that during her arrest, Chaudhary said things that indicated she had killed the boy. Gupta also told the court Chaudhary admitted to the crime and asked him what he was going to do about it. Since the conviction, the former chief coroner for Ontario has ordered reviews of 45 pediatric autopsies conducted by Smith in which the conclusion was either homicide or foul play. The review found 20 "questionable" conclusions of foul play, according to the Superior Court ruling. Chaudhary's case was among the 45 cases reviewed. But in January 2008, another expert, Dr. Christopher Milroy, concluded someone had in fact strangled the boy to death. Dambrot found that despite the loss of the photographic evidence, Chaudhary didn't demonstrate prejudice. "On the contrary, it seems plain that the autopsy photographs could not assist the applicant in demonstrating her innocence," he wrote in Chaudhary v. Ontario (Attorney General) last year. He added that even if the photographs were available, they wouldn't aid any other expert to make different findings. "Dr. Milroy, whose evidence is relied on by the applicant on this issue, testified that even if he had the autopsy photographs of the bruise, he would not be able to contradict Dr. Smith's statement that the blow the deceased sustained could, but would not necessarily have rendered the victim unconscious," wrote Dambrot. But for Young, the possibility of harm in the future is sufficient prejudice to require the declaration. The attorney general of Ontario argued Chaudhary's claim isn't justiciable. "As Dambrot J. concluded, the appellant's claim is contrary to the constitutional standards that govern evidence retention. The Supreme Court and this honourable court have stated that the pretrial loss of potentially exculpatory evidence will not violate Charter s. 7 if the Crown provides an adequate explanation for the loss," wrote Robert Charney, counsel for the attorney general. "It cannot be correct that a convicted offender who has exhausted the appeal process is entitled to a higher standard of evidence retention than an accused person before trial." Chaudhary's claim is also "moot in any event" because Dambrot said he wouldn't have awarded the declaration even if there had been a Charter breach because current policies require the permanent retention of autopsy photographs, Charney suggested. For his part, Young has narrowed down the scope of the requested declaration to require authorities to keep all evidence in homicide cases only. LT

• Cover