Law Times

unauthorized faxes because it cost the fi rm $2 a page. " e bottom line is this: we do not own a fax machine and Legal Aid does not reim- burse us for the cost of fax transmissions ($2.00 a page) that we must pay to the owner of this contraption. So, if your offi ce happens to fi nd it convenient to fax a 30-page factum or Statement of Facts to our offi ce on a mat- ter funded by Legal Aid, we end up having to absorb the $60. A er a while (particularly as your offi ce is not the only one that has gone fax crazy), it starts to bite." An initial letter to the department sug- gested the fi rm would charge for the faxes, but Green later said that wasn't the case. Lawyers, of course, have moved well be- yond worrying about the cost of faxes. Another tech- nological change fi rms were dealing with at that time was the advent of document scanners. But again, cost was a big factor as fi rms as- sessed whether they would outweigh the gains from being able to image legal documents. And it was only in 1992 that lawyers were still considering whether to use DOS. But in a debate that still resonates today, arguments centred on whether lawyers would do better to adopt the more user-friendly Macintosh system or the more popular DOS Continued from page 8 Judges' limo service among 1990s cutbacks given the need for compatibility with other people. And even as Microso Corp. was rolling out Windows at that time, many law fi rms were still reluctant to em- brace the new system given the expense and the fact their pro- grams already worked with DOS. Besides technology, there have been lots of attempts to rein in judges' perks over the years. Back in 1991, then-attorney gen- eral Howard Hampton rebuff ed a move by Ottawa judges of the Ontario Court general division to have their lunches prepared by Ministry of the Attorney Gen- eral staff . It was a perk extended to judges at Osgoode Hall and at 361 University Ave. in Toronto. In response, the Ottawa judges hired their own cook. It was the same year the prov- ince cut back limousine service to Toronto-based Court of Ap- peal and general division judges. As the ministry sought to cut its budget by $14 million, it was no longer willing to provide the service to 110 judges at a cost of $308,000 a year. e service in- volved picking up the judges, de- livering them to the downtown courts — usually in groups of three or four — and then driving them home at the end of the day. Other perks subject to scru- tiny over the years include the wine cellar at Osgoode Hall. In 1995, critics took issue with the 1,412-bottle reserve available to Law Society of Upper Canada benchers as the regulator was suf- fering major fi nancial challenges. But the law society defended the practice, noting it couldn't aff ord to pay an honorarium to bench- ers at the time. It's hard to imag- ine, but the law society was also the place that debated whether to ban smoking in the benchers' re- ception room at Osgoode Hall as recently as 1998. A motion to ban smoking narrowly passed with the debate featuring arguments that the health data wasn't per- suasive; that benchers deserved to "partake in puffi ng"; and that the reception was a social room and not a workplace. One thing that has changed for the worse, depending on your perspective, is law school tuition fees. Back in 1993, law school tuition at the University of To- ronto was just $2,500 with plans to increase it to almost $7,000 in the subsequent years. Of course, those fees look like a bargain compared to today. On the fl ip side, lawyers at least earn a lot more. On the 2001 sunshine list, for example, the Ontario Court chief justice at the time earned just under $215,000. By last year's list, the current chief justice was earning almost $300,000. Last year's top-earning lawyer was Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall Law School. Now deputy attorney general, his sala- ry on last year's list was a bit more than $488,000. LT www.lawtimesnews.com Photo: Valentyn Volkov/Shutterstock outweigh the gains from being able to image The 1,412-bottle wine reserve at the Law Society of Upper Canada became a source of controversy in 1995. It was only in 1998 that the regulator banned smoking in the benchers' reception room. March 24, 2014 • Law TiMes Page 10 litigate #HƃGEM)TGGPG/E/WTVT[LLP $C[5VTGGV5WKVG 6QTQPVQ%CPCFC/*8 6 ( Excellence in Litigation and Competition Law agmlawyers.com thelitigator.ca We Untitled-1 1 14-03-17 7:15 PM

• Cover