Author Archives: amysalyzyn

T Corcoran: Time to Free Joe Groia

Posted on by

From the Financial Post, November 21, 2012

By: Terence Corcoran

For the original article on the FP website, including links to related stories, click HERE

The civility movement is an attempt to interfere with free speech in court

For more than three years we have been watching with increasing incredulity the Law Society of Upper Canada’s persecution of Joe Groia, one of Canada’s most successful corporate lawyers. Did I say persecution? It is probably “uncivil” to call it that, although the story of Mr. Groia’s marathon encounter with the Law Society has all the hallmarks of — or, as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford might say, smacks of — systematic and oppressive mistreatment. Continue reading →

LSUC: Information for Lawyers Acting for Police Officers in Ontario SIU Investigations

Posted on by

The original document can be accessed on the LSUC website by clicking HERE

Ontario Regulation 283/11, made under the Police Services Act, came into force on August 1, 2011, and amends Ontario Regulation 267/10, Conduct and Duties of Police Officers Respecting Investigations by the Special Investigations Unit. Ontario Regulation 267/10 prohibits subject officers, who are police officers whose conduct appears, in the opinion of the Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) director, to have caused the death or serious injury under investigation, from being represented by the same legal counsel as witness officers. Witness officers are police officers who, in the opinion of the SIU director, are involved in the incident under investigation but are not subject officers. Section 6 of Ontario Regulation 267/10, as amended, provides that to the extent that it is practicable, the chief of police shall segregate all police officers involved in the incident from each other until after the SIU has completed its interviews, and that “a police officer involved in an incident shall not communicate directly or indirectly with any police officer involved in the same incident concerning their involvement in the incident until after the SIU has completed its interviews” (emphasis added).

To the extent that a lawyer may be jointly retained by two or more subject officers or witness officers, the lawyer should be aware of rule 2.04(6) of the

Rules of Professional Conduct, which addresses joint retainers. The rule provides that where a lawyer accepts employment from more than one client in a matter, the lawyer shall advise the clients that: (i) the lawyer has been asked to act for both or all of them; (ii) no information received in connection with the matter from one can be treated as confidential so far as any of the others are concerned; and (iii) if a conflict develops that cannot be resolved, the lawyer cannot continue to act for both or all of them and may have to withdraw completely.1

Lawyers who act for more than one officer with respect to an investigation by the SIU must comply with the requirements of both the joint retainer rule and Ontario Regulation 267/10, as amended. A lawyer retained to act for multiple officers must observe the law and not defeat the purpose of section 6 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 by serving as a conduit between segregated officers jointly represented by the lawyer. Further, the law requires that a lawyer retained to act for multiple officers must not disclose anything, confidential or otherwise, said by one segregated officer to any other segregated officer until the SIU has completed its interviews.

A lawyer who is unable to comply with section 6 of Ontario Regulation 267/10 and the lawyer’s obligations under Rule 2.04(6) would effectively be unable to accept a joint retainer in such circumstances. As the rule requires that a lawyer cannot treat information as confidential as between joint clients and the regulation requires that the police officers not indirectly communicate with each other concerning their involvement in the incident, it is difficult to see how segregated police officers can properly be jointly represented. Lawyers should also review the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in

Schaeffer v. Wood, which discusses issues relevant to the Rules and regulation. The Supreme Court of Canada granted an application for leave to appeal this decision on June 28, 2012.

 

FN 1. There is a limited exception to this rule for joint retainers in the lending context that is not relevant here.

 

J Gray: Bre-X lawyer Joe Groia blasts proposed suspension for incivility

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail, Published Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Jeff Gray

Bay Street lawyer Joe Groia, facing up to a four-month suspension for “incivility” during the high-profile Bre-X trial a dozen years ago, argued Tuesday that the sanctions he faces from his profession’s regulating body violate his right to free speech.

In a hearing before a three-member disciplinary panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Mr. Groia’s lawyer, Earl Cherniak, argued that the law society’s submissions on the penalty his client should face wrongly single out comments Mr. Groia made criticizing the regulatory body’s recent push to police lawyer behaviour for civility. Continue reading →

P Small: Toronto courtroom rudeness

Posted on by

Published in The Star

Peter Small November 20, 2012

Toronto courtroom rudeness: Make ‘uncivil’ lawyer pay $247,000, prosecutor says

A prominent Toronto lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct for uncivil courtroom behavior should be suspended for two to four months and ordered to pay $247,000 in costs, a prosecutor says.

In successfully defending Bre-X Minerals geologist John Felderhof against insider trading charges 12 years ago, Joe Groia engaged in deliberate and pervasive rude behavior, Law Society of Upper Canada prosecutor Tom Curry argued Tuesday. Continue reading →

Seizing the Opportunity: Lawyer Licensing and Legal Education for the Future

Posted on by

From Blogging for Equality, and posted on November 3, 2012

Seizing the Opportunity: Lawyer Licensing and Legal Education for the Future

Professor David Wiseman
The Ontario legal community is being presented with an historic opportunity to forge a new partnership between legal regulators and educators on the nature and content of professional licensing and education. To seize this opportunity, we need to bring together all the stakeholders at a table that is set for open identification of wants and needs(and interests and impacts), meaningful engagement with issues, difficult discussions about resources and collaboration on innovative problem-solving.  The law schools and legal regulators should have equal seats at the table, which ought to be at arms-length from both, and which should also include law firms and lawyers, practitioner associations, Legal Aid, legal clinics, pro bono law, law students, equality-seeking groups and the general public(to name the most obvious).  The results could usher in a new horizon of experiential legal education with integrated lawyer licensing that harnesses the profession’s practical expertise and promotes knowledge and skills for systemic advancements in access to justice.  Imagine!
For the full post, click HERE.

Five Year Report on Regulation of Paralegals in Ontario

Posted on by

Report to the Attorney General of Ontario Report of Appointee’s Five-Year Review of Paralegal Regulation in Ontario

Pursuant to Section 63.1 of the Law Society Act November 2

Prepared and Respectfully Submitted by: David J. Morris, MBA

From the Executive Summary of the report:

In the interest of striking some measure of balance between enhancing public access to justice and ensuring protection for those receiving legal advice from non-lawyers, on May 1, 2007, persons providing paralegal services in Ontario joined the province’s lawyers under regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Continue reading →

Event: Does Zealous Advocacy have a Future in Canada?

Posted on by

When: Thursday December 6, 2012 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM EST Add to Calendar

Where: Heenan Blaikie Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 2900 Skyfold Boardrooms Toronto, ON M5H 2T4

To register, go to the website by clicking HERE

What are the appropriate limits to “vigorous”  advocacy?  When and how does it  constitute professional misconduct in the form of “incivility”? What  is the role of the Law Society when the presiding judge has not objected to  counsel’s conduct? In June, the Law Society of Upper Canada ruled  in its high profile discipline hearing that Joe Groia crossed the  “civility” line during his successful defence of John  Felderhof. Groia’s case, now on appeal, has sparked wide and heated  discussion. On Thursday, December 6, a panel of leading  Canadian jurists will debate the impact of this and other developments on  lawyers and their clients across the country.  Come and join the  discussion, either in person or by live-stream, in what promises to be a  spirited and informative evening.  Wine and cheese will follow at the live  event. Continue reading →

Job Opportunity: Legal Research and Writing with Ethical Lawyering – Loyola

Posted on by

From the Legal Writing Prof Blog (click HERE for website), October 28, 2012

Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, is seeking for two full-time Lawyering Skills faculty positions to teach Legal Research and Writing, and Ethical Lawyering beginning in the 2013-14 academic year.

Legal Research and Writing is a graded, year-long course with a curriculum emphasizing effective legal analysis, communication and advocacy skills, both written and oral, with significant opportunities for one to one interaction between professors and students. Each professor teaches two sections of approximately 20-25 first-year students; each section meets once a week. Each professor also teaches one semester of Ethical Lawyering, an innovative course combining professional ethics with client interviewing and counseling skills for upper division students. In addition to teaching, professors are expected to collaborate in the designing of course materials, to provide service to the greater law school community, and to participate in the professional legal writing community.

Candidates must have superior academic records, expertise in research and writing, and at least four years of professional experience beyond law school graduation. Teaching experience is preferred.

To apply, submit a resume and a list of three references. Include a cover letter that explains your qualifications and your interest in teaching the course. Materials should be submitted to Barbara Lu Baltazar, Director of Human Resources, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOS ANGELES, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015 or by email to job@lls.edu, by December 10, 2012.

Questions about the LRW program or this position can be directed to Professor Cindy Archer, Director of Lawyering Skills at 213-736-8380 or cindy.archer@lls.edu.

1. The position advertised may lead to successive long-term contracts of five or more years. 2. The professor hiredwill be permitted to vote in faculty meetings. 3. The school anticipates paying an annual academic year base salary in the range $80,000- $89,999. 4.  The number of students enrolled in each semester of the courses taught by the legal research & writing professor will be 41 – 45 (spring semester) and more than 60 (fall semester).

L Sossin: “Administrative Justice and Adjudicative Ethics in Canada”

Posted on by

Published: (2012) 25  Canadian Journal of Amin Law and Practice 131.

This article explores the idea and practice of adjudicative ethics in the context of administrative justice in Canada.  This analysis is divided into three parts.  The first part distinguishes adjudicative ethics from judicial ethics on the one hand and public service ethics on the other.  The section considers adjudicative ethics in practice, drawing on examples from the codes of conduct of particular adjudicative tribunals to legislation addressing conflicts of interests on a province-wide basis.  Adjudicative ethics is also situated within the broader context of accountability legislation.  Finally, the third section canvasses unsettled areas and the challenges ahead.  The article highlights the patchwork nature of adjudicative ethics in Canada, and contends that a more coherent and comprehensive approach is needed.

C Schmitz: Sparks fly over Douglas case resignation

Posted on by

By Cristin Schmitz for the Lawyers Weekly, September 21, 2012, issue:

The abrupt resignation of the Canadian Judicial Council’s independent counsel could be challenged in Federal Court, says counsel for the complainant at the Douglas Inquiry.

Complainant Alex Chapman’s counsel, Rocco Galati of Toronto’s Galati Rodrigues, queried how independent counsel Guy Pratte could quit his duties to present evidence at the Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry examining misconduct allegations against a Manitoba judge, without first obtaining permission to withdraw from the inquiry committee.

“No lawyer in any court can get off the record without a motion, and I may take steps to clarify that myself for my client in the Federal Court,” Galati told The Lawyers Weekly. “I doubt that independent counsel can simply resign on their own decision — ​​they need leave of the [inquiry] committee. If any independent counsel who takes a retainer can just resign, well then it makes a mockery of this process.”

The inquiry committee, chaired by Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, is deemed by the Judges Act to be a superior court.

For the full story on the Lawyers Weekly website, click HERE.