Law Times

lAw Times • April 26, 2010 NEWS Springer has 60 days to appeal: lawyer Continued from page 1 he would do well under the new compensation arrangement, the appeal court judges noted. "Th e appellant testifi ed that he met with the fi rm's managing partner (who died shortly before the ap- pellant commenced this action) in February 2001, shortly after the units allocation for 2001 was announced," the judges wrote. "Th e appellant testifi ed that the managing partner indicated her wish to conduct a formal inter- view with him, as contemplated by the memorandum that had been sent to all partners in that regard, to explain to him where he would 'fi t' in the new com- pensation system. Th e appellant claimed that the managing part- ner told him that he would fi t at the highest level under the new system." For his part, Springer claimed that had he known of his pay cut in advance, he would have with- drawn from the partnership ear- lier and received a higher payout based on his 2001 allocation, the appeal court judges pointed out. Nevertheless, the appeal court ruled that even if Aird & Berlis owed Springer a fi duciary duty in this case, there was evidence that he knew of the eventual pay cut anyway. "Th e changes in the method of allocation of partner- ship units among partners were well-publicized and well-known to the appellant well in advance of the actual allocation made for 2002," they wrote. "Th e trial judge found that on a plain read- ing of the documents relating to the new compensation system, it would have been apparent, given the nature of the appel- lant's practice and his contribu- tion to the fi rm, that his income would be substantially reduced under the new system." Th e judges added: "Accord- ingly, we are satisfi ed that there was a basis in the evidence for the trial judge to conclude that the appellant was aware that his partnership compensation would likely decrease in 2002. It follows that even if there was a fi duciary duty as asserted by the appellant, and even if that fi duciary duty was breached by the respondent, it did not cause any loss to the appellant." Linda Rothstein, the Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP managing partner who represented Aird & Berlis, tells Law Times: "My client is very pleased with the court's decision and the end of this unfortunate episode in the fi rm's business." She adds the ruling fi ts with existing jurisprudence. "Th e Court of Appeal is saying that in these circumstances, there was no fi duciary duty to advise or warn a partner about what their prospective units may be. I don't think it's new law. It's completely consistent with what the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have been say- ing about fi duciary duties." Dunne, however, says an ap- peal to the Supreme Court is pos- sible. "Well, it's certainly an op- tion. Whether we proceed, and we have 60 days to decide that, is really a decision to be made by my client upon refl ection. But the Supreme Court of Canada in Galambos [v. Perez] has shown that it is interested in the area of fi duciary duties and law fi rms." Th e Law Society of Upper Canada lists Springer as a non- practising lawyer. He was called to the Ontario bar in April 1986 and worked at the Outerbridge fi rm until November 1998, according to Newbould's trial decision. He moved on to Aird & Berlis, where he specialized in insolvency litiga- tion and restructuring. He became a partner in January 1990, which he remained until leaving in 2002 to run a startup private equity re- structuring company. LT Lawyer has been using laptop since Day 1 in law school Continued from page 1 Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler brought the technology issue to the fore at the opening of the courts ceremony last Septem- ber, when he urged the courts to adapt to the electronic age. "Anachronistic methods of doing business that do not take advantage of available electron- ic court information are ineffi - cient for the administration of justice," he said. "Th ey can also be costly to the users of the sys- tem and inconsistent with the expectations of the public." It's an argument that reso- nates with Granger. Last Octo- ber, he delivered his judgment in a complex trial involving al- most 3,000 exhibits and about 70,000 pages. Each document was scanned into a litigation support program, saving thou- sands of dollars in photocopy- ing costs alone. Granger says electronic storage can also im- prove advocacy because judges can immediately access rel- evant information. "If you did it in hard copy, you'd have bankers' boxes full of these photocopied exhibits," he says. "Sitting in front of me is a laptop with everything at my fi ngertips: those 2,882 ex- hibits, 300 days of evidence, 3,500 pages of submissions, and a judgment of 700 pages. Wherever I go, it goes. I've got think there will be a point where a court says that's not part of counsel's disclosure obligation. You have it in a standard format and you're going to have to fi g- ure out how to utilize it." For his part, Robichaud says laptop use has become the norm for most lawyers in court and traces his own dependence on it to his time in law school less than a decade ago. "I used it from Day 1 and Sean Robichaud says he was speechless when a justice of the peace ordered him to turn his laptop off. that one chained to my wrist." Edward Prutschi, a lawyer with Adler Bytensky Prutschi in Toronto, also sees the Whitby case as an outlier. He fi nds in- creasingly complicated disclo- sure now routinely comes in dig- ital format and that a signifi cant shift in lawyers' attitudes has be- come apparent in recent years. "I think the bulk of judges, counsel, and all actors in the process are moving slowly to adoption of technologies that will make the process more manageable. You do get some of the old guard who get disclosure on CD and request that it be printed out. But there's starting to be some push back to that. I I haven't stopped since. It's a pretty rare day where I pick up a pen and start writing anything anymore." Pulat Yunusov, a student who has just completed his third year at Osgoode Hall Law School, says the trend has only intensifi ed since Robichaud graduated in 2004. "If you come to one of my classes, you will see a room with rows and rows of laptops with people typing. Th ey are critical to us. I don't like being tied down to any physical loca- tion, so most of my data and readings are online." Of course, it's not only students who are embracing technology. Professors run web sites for courses, and the school has a large audio archive of lec- tures and talks available online. Yunusov fears any restriction on technology risks limiting access to justice for those who can only aff ord representation by smaller fi rms. "When a solo lawyer comes up against a powerful party like the Crown or a large fi rm, this cheap technology levels the playing fi eld, at least a little bit," he says. Still, Granger says he's sur- prised more lawyers, especially younger ones, don't bring lap- tops into his courtroom. "I think some lawyers see the tradition of courtrooms with paper and books and they've yet to move into this new era of electronic technology," he notes, adding they sometimes seem to be waiting for a sign. "I heard a motion not too long ago where one counsel was not using a computer, but as soon as he saw me using mine, he couldn't wait to get his out." LT PAGE 5 Federal Labour & Employment Legislation 2010 Inside you'll find these important federal Acts and selected regulations: • • • • • • • • • 2010 ORDER your copy today Perfectbound • 1,406 pp. • April 2010 On subscription $83 • P/C 0817140000 One time purchase $93 • P/C 0817010000 ISSN 1481-7136 • • • • • • • As well as many regulations under these Acts. New in this edition: • - new Part VII.1 "Benefits For Self-Employed Persons" LT0426 For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.565.6967 Canada Law Book is a Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. www.lawtimesnews.com Consulting Editor: Paul Broad Canada Labour Code Canada Pension Plan Canadian H Employment Insurance Act Employment Equity Act Expenditure Restraint Act ages and H uman Rights Act Fair W Labour Adjustment Benefits Act Documents Act Personal Information Protection and Electronic Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act Public Service Employment Act Trade Unions Act Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act Public Service Labour Relations Act ours of Labour Act age Earner Protection Program Act Wages Liability Act W Employment Insurance Act

• Cover
• Judicial Supervision
• Aging Lawyers
• Focus On IT/Telecommunications