Law Times

PAGE 2 NEWS June 15, 2009 • Law Times Springer wanted same bonus as top rainmaker Continued from page 1 major law fi rms," wrote New- bould. "It would be far less than what Mr. Springer could be said to reasonably expect to pay if costs were awarded against him on a substantial indemnity basis. Although the rates charged by his solicitors were not disclosed, those rates were no doubt far higher than the rates Mr. Springer sug- gests would be reasonable of Ms. Family, Youth and Child Services of Muskoka Family, Youth and Child Services of Muskoka, a multi-service children's agency, provides Child Welfare, Children's Mental Health and Youth Justice programs in the District of Muskoka. We are currently seeking a: We are currently seeking a: CHILD WELFARE LAWYER CHILD WELFARE LAWYER For a copy of the Request for Proposals which details the requirements of the position and the timeframes for response, contact Kathy Davis, Director of Administration kathy.davis@fycsm.ca 705-645-4426 / 1-800-680-4426 "Please see our job posting on jobsinlaw.ca" Application deadline is July 3, 2009 Muskoka_LT_June15_09.indd 1 6/9/09 12:21:07 PM Key Developments in Environmental Law 2008-2009 Rothstein and Mr. Centa." Aird & Berlis claimed hourly rates for Rothstein from $315 to $350 on partial indemnity, and $525 on substantial indemnity. Th e fi rm sought $180 to $225 for Centa on partial indemnity and $338 on substantial indem- nity. For Killey, the rates sought were $60 as a student, $175 to $200 on partial indemnity, and $300 on substantial indemnity. "In reviewing the hourly rates claimed by the defendant, gener- ally the rates appear reasonable," wrote Newbould, although he added that the partial indemnity rates claimed for Centa "may be a little on the high side," and the non-student rates for Killey "are somewhat high." Th e fi rm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis throughout the trial based on a number of factors, such as alle- gations in the statement of claim that partners in the fi rm breached fi duciary duties, and that Spring- er sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, which is only for cases "where there has been rep- rehensible, scandalous, or outra- geous conduct." Th e request also was claimed on the basis of remarks by Dunne during the trial that Springer was "'blindsided' and he compared the defendant fi rm to Todd Ber- tuzzi who had blindsided Steve Moore during an NHL game," wrote Newbould. But the judge decided, "[T]he allegations in the pleadings in this case do not support an award of substantial indemnity costs." Springer was called to the Ontario bar in April 1986 and worked at the Outerbridge fi rm until November 1998, accord- ing to Newbould's trial deci- sion. He moved on to Aird & Berlis, where he specialized in insolvency litigation and re- structuring. He became a part- ner in January 1990, which he remained until leaving in 2002 to run a start-up private equity restructuring company. Springer argued he should have received more money through the fi rm's compensa- tion scheme based on his perfor- mance. In January 1999, he re- ceived 185 partnership units and 65 bonus units for "extraordinary results," according to Newbould. Th e value of those units was not included in the decision. In January 2000, he received 225 normal units and 200 bo- nus units, each worth $2,600. In January 2001, he got 400 nor- mal units, each worth $2,895, and a cash bonus of $560,000. In January 2002, he was given 175 normal units, and on the same day advised the fi rm he was leaving. Springer felt he de- served 100 more units in 2001 and 325 more in 2002. Springer had previously urged the executive committee to award him more partnership units to make him on par with partner Jack Bernstein, an international tax expert recognized as the fi rm's top rainmaker who received the most partnership units. Th e costs award is on hold Springer's pending for leave from the Ontario Court of Appeal. application LT Advocates' on board Continued from page 1 this, but it's also one of the most time-consuming, emotionally draining types of cases you can do." Zaduk says he took about four months off of his yearly schedule Follow the continuing shift of the legal climate towards going "green" This collection of timely, insightful and judicious articles is written by a cross-section of highly qualified environmental law practitioners from across Canada. Articles include: • Environmental and Climate Change Disclosure in 2008 • The Canadian and Québec Legal Framework for Greenhouse Gases Emissions • Resource Revenue Sharing in the Context of Consultation Requirements • Regulation of Cooling Water Intake Structures: A Case for Consultative Policy Making • The Kearl Oil Sands Cases: Climate Change in Environmental Assessment and in the Courts • Is Government Liability Expanding for Historic Pollution Clean-Ups? A Case Comment on Berendsen • Comments on the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Barrette • To Remediate or Not to Remediate: That is the Question • The Future of Environmental Approvals in Ontario: Baker v. Lafarge Canada Inc. • The Convergence of Administrative and Judicial Interpretation of Leave to Appeal Authority Under Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights: Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environmental Review Tribunal) Hardbound • 150 pp. • May 2009 • Standing order $105 • P/C 0152140000 Current edition only $115 • P/C 0152010000 • ISSN 1920-2512 to work on the case — two months to prepare and two months at trial. Th at means he's devoted a third of his year to a single case that paid him half of his normal rate. "It's a good thing to contribute your services to a worthy client, re- ally subsidize. But you can't keep doing this," he says. "I've done a good number of murder cases in my career, almost all on legal aid because of the exigencies involved. But we just can't continue to do this. "Th e government has been completely irresponsible in dealing with the criminal bar. Th ere is no way on earth they can justify basi- cally freezing our wage at what it was 20 years ago." Toronto criminal defence lawyer and author Robert Rotenberg, who also has added his name to the boycott, says it angers him to hear the defence bar blamed for problems in the city's court system. "People work very, very hard in this profession. We all do things that we never get compensated for. We all do things for free for peo- ple. We all have clients that don't pay us. We all have legal aid bills that we leave hundreds of hours on the table for," he says. "It's at the point where it's just, why should the defence lawyer be the For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.263.2037 Canada Law Book is a Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. Berger_Key Developments (LT 1-4x3).indd 1 LT0615 www.lawtimesnews.com 6/10/09 9:44:34 AM poorest-paid person in the court? I just don't understand it." Addario admits there is a segment of the population that always will consider lawyers greedy. But he suggests the "fair-minded pub- lic" wants to know that the legal aid system is operating as intended and producing reliable verdicts following well-run trials. "Th e argument could be made by both myself and the attor- ney general, and other opinion leaders, that even if you think that we need better law-and-order measures in this country, that having a viable, properly funded defence bar is important to the system, whether or not you feel sympathy for defendants or victims, or the police, or the challenges faced by the prosecution," he says. "It is not possible to take a viable, properly funded defence bar out of the equation as the system is presently structured. It is not possible. So there is a selling job, but it is not a selling job that I am required to do alone — it's also shared by the attorney general, opinion leaders, and those who will be making decisions about the allocation of funds." Th e lawyers have framed their boycott of big cases around what they consider an inadequate top legal aid rate of $98 per hour. LT (Formerly Enviro Stanley D. Berger and Dianne S nmental Law: The Year in Review) axe by Florence Dagicour by Sandra A. Gogal by by Alfred Page, Adam Chamberlain and John Vellone Ahab Abdel-Aziz and Matthew Benson by Sean Nixon by H by John P. Barry, Jean- Y ves Bernard and by David Crocker by Jack D. Coop arry Poch Nadia MacPhee by Joseph F. Castrilli

• Cover
• Dress For Success
• White-Shoe Lawyers
• Focus On Real Estate Law