More often than not, referral of a legal problem to lawmakers, or to rules committees for broad consultation, is manifestly preferable to making up procedural law on the fly. In the Ontario Superior Court decision released this week in Moore v. Getahun, 2014 ONSC 237 (CanLII), the trial judge issued an injunction against the practice of litigation counsel reviewing draft reports with expert witnesses.
The relevant paragraphs from the ruling appear at paragraphs 50-52:
 For reasons that I will more fully outline, the purpose of Rule 53.03 is to ensure the expert witness’ independence and integrity. The expert’s primary duty is to assist the court. In light of this change in the role of the expert witness, I conclude that counsel’s prior practice of reviewing draft reports should stop. Discussions or meetings between counsel and an expert to review and shape a draft expert report are no longer acceptable.
 If after submitting the final expert report, counsel believes that there is need for clarification or amplification, any input whatsoever from counsel should be in writing and should be disclosed to opposing counsel.
 I do not accept the suggestion in the 2002 Nova Scotia decision, Flinn v. McFarland, 2002 NSSC 272 (CanLII), 2002 NSSC 272, 211 N.S.R. (2d) 201, that discussions with counsel of a draft report go to merely weight. The practice of discussing draft reports with counsel is improper and undermines both the purpose of Rule 53.03 as well as the expert’s credibility and neutrality.
In a much-anticipated research paper on training lawyers to be ethical professionals, Shelley M. Kierstead of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School and University of Toronto’s Erika Abner have published groundbreaking work in “Learning Professionalism in Practice.” How and where do lawyers learn to be professional? What are the modes of learning? Is professional ethics the responsibility of law society regulators, the legal academy, or the profession? Can ethical lawyers bring “swimmers” onto their lifeboat?
The paper, funded by a fellowship grant from the Chief Justice of Ontario’s Advisory Committee on Professionalism (now the OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowships in Legal Ethics and Professionalism), explores the occupational setting of lawyers as an environment replete with “micro-ethical moments”:
“Mindful practice, which incorporates self-awareness and critical reflection on these micro-ethical moments, is learned through apprenticeship models that allow for on-going modeling, close observation, reflection and feedback. In particular, new learners learn to develop a certain level of comfort with uncertainty – a hallmark of professional practice.”
To review the abstract and paper, click here. For more information regarding the fellowships, visit the OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellowships site.
If there has been a mystery from the events of 2013, it is the emergence in Canadian public life of respected professionals as instigators of questionable deals and conflicts of interest. The intrigue surrounding Senator Mike Duffy captured national attention, but we were also mindful of the fact that, in Québec, it was getting hard to find anyone with a clean past to step into the glare of municipal politics. In law, we ended the year with the disappearance and death of Javed Heydary, and the trail of missing millions from his trust account.
What is common to the cast of characters is that all the alleged culprits – many of them lawyers and other professionals – were high-achieving, Type A personalities who commanded wide respect and loyalty. Many in the legal profession and academy have been scratching their heads to find an explanation. Have we had enough oversight? Regulation? Statutory penalties?
Maybe, just maybe, we have to study the high-performing professionals themselves. After all, ethical lapses originate in the mind. Can we see the behaviour as imbalances of innate and acquired cognition?
It was in French. ‘How’s your French,’ I asked. ‘Awful,’ he replied. ‘I guess you haven’t read it,’ I continued. ‘I expect it says what you say it says,’ he explained. Alas.
In the final article in the Accidental Mentor, I share my memory of the late George Miller, an extraordinary lawyer. He taught me never to interpret a document without reading it first. Simple enough? How many times have you broken that rule? Scan or click on the QR Code above-right, to read the article.
~ ~ ~
La semaine dernier, je parlais à un avocat et je me suis aperçu qu’il n’avait pas lu le document dont nous discutions.
Un document écrit en français. ‘How is your French,’ lui dis-je. ‘Awful,’ dit-il. ‘I guess you haven’t read it,’ j’ai reprit. ‘I expect it says what you say it says,’ il m’a expliqué. Hélas.
Dans l’article finale du Accidental Mentor, je raconte mes souvenirs de George Miller, un avocat hors pair qui m’a appris de ne jamais interpréter un document sans le lire. Ce n’est pas toujours si facile de suivre ce règle. Lisez ou cliquez sur le code QR ci-dessus pour accéder à l’article.
Want a break from reading the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 88-page Appeal Decision in Groia?
Consider it a replay of that old Hume v. Kant debate: To what extent can the passions inform ethical behaviour? Or, to extrapolate Sontag’s famous 1963 NYRB book review contrasting Camus with Sartre, the Groia appeal panel confirms that trial lawyers ought to be good ‘spouses’ and not try to be good ‘lovers.’ The Ideal Husband stands as one of the great essays of the 20th Century, and proves that great thought can be a light read.
Malheureusement, l’arrêt Groia n’est pas encore disponible en français. Même le grand débat entre Camus et Sartre, réduit à un contraste entre un époux et un amant par Susan Sontag, doit être capturé en anglais – mais The Ideal Husband est une bonne lecture même après 50 ans.
As shoppers file past the packaged meat counter at a Korean Tesco’s built into a subway platform, brings the groceries to commuters, then delivers them to their homes. The virtual grocery, sort of like iTunes for those who want the record store browsing experience, might give us a glimpse of the law firm of the future.
Never has the market for legal services been so mismatched. The courts, especially in family law, are bursting at the seams with pro se litigants. Firms, on the other hand, resist cutting back on essentials like supper club memberships for partners. The reality is that there are not enough lawyers to go round, and not enough blue chip clients to keep some lawyers in the lifestyle to which they were once accustomed.
In my penultimate Accidental Mentor column for the Canadian Lawyer, I suggest the chasm in access to justice will cause us to develop a fundamentally new model for delivery of legal services. What does this old world need? Nothing less than a supermarket of law.
~ ~ ~
Dans un supermarché coréen Tesco, les baladeurs dans la station de métro peuvent choisir leur produits parmi les stockages qui ne videra jamais: car les achats vont être versés à partir d’un entrepôt central. Est-ce que cela peut inspirer le cabinet d’avocats du futur?
Le marché des services juridiques n’a jamais été si basculé. Devant les tribunaux, surtout en droit de la famille, les auto-représentants sont nombreux. Chez les grands cabinets, pourtant, l’espoir de la recherche des clients payants revendique le renouvellement des adhésions aux clubs exclusifs. À dire la vérité, il n’y a pas assez d’avocats, et pas assez de clients qui peuvent payer des bons frais.
Dans ma pénultième article du Accidental Mentor pour le Canadian Lawyer, je propose que le problème de l’accès à la justice va nous forcer the contempler une façon entièrement radicale pour l’offre des services juridiques. Ce dont on a besoin? Rien de plus remarquable qu’un supermarché de droit.