Uncategorized

On Loyalty

by

Our beleaguered Mayor of Toronto has been in a heap of trouble lately, much of it his own doing, but an equal amount due to the deliberate attempt by his foes on council and in the media to continually portray him in the worst possible light, thus distracting him from governing effectively. While Ford’s troubles at his own hands, be they drink, food, drugs, or a refusal to take advice, his travails at the hands of his adversaries are sadly par for the course in the modern political era. Yet there is an additional source of Ford’s troubles that are neither his own doing nor politics as normal. I refer to the appalling lack of loyalty amongst his inner circle. The very people who pledged their loyalty to Ford during the election and the first couple of years of his term have almost all suddenly abandoned ship when it appeared the ship was in the midst of capsizing. Now, one cannot fault many of those people, who have their own families to support and futures to worry about, for leaving his employ to seek greener, and possibly calmer, pastures. Such self-preservation is not itself an act of betrayal. However, the willingness to speak to the media, in particular the Toronto Star, the powerful media outlet that has made the decimation of the Ford administration its raison d’etre, is the ultimate act of disloyalty. These individuals certainly had no interest in publicly badmouthing the mayor when times were good and when they felt their own resumes would be enhanced by their association with Mayor Ford. These individuals are a symptom of the larger problem in business, politics, and even day to day friendships, specifically a lack of loyalty in favour of one’s immediate gratification.

One of my favourite questions to ask of individuals when I am getting to know them and one of my favourite dinner party questions is: What is the characteristic you most value in your friends? My answer is always the same and has been since I was a teenager…loyalty.

Loyalty is  the principled notion that you can and will stand by your friend, spouse, business partner, or colleague through thick and thin, through good times and bad. Sadly, in a post-consumerist society marked by the narcissism of Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and reality TV, loyalty now seems as quaint as family picnics on Sunday or virginity until marriage. This is truly a sad fact. Looking out for one’s best interests needn’t necessarily mean throwing someone else overboard. And when taking care of one’s own interests conflicts with loyalty, loyalty ought to win out.

This idea of loyalty as an absolute virtue raises some ethical dilemmas from time to time, but even these quandaries can be disposed of in a manner that rises above the conflict in competing values. For example, take the all too common scenario of your best friend admitting to a crime, stepping out on her spouse or of cheating their boss or on a test. Your friend has run afoul of a value or values that you hold at least a dear as loyalty. How to resolve this seeming value system showdown? Which value triumphs? I have always felt the answer is actually quite simple, and need not involve the sacrifice of either of the conflicting virtues. I would approach that person, explain my concerns with their transgressions, and encourage them to come clean, turn themselves in, get treatment etc. You have thus not only not been disloyal, but doubly demonstrated your loyalty- first by not giving them up, and secondly by encouraging them to do what is right, you may have forced them to confront their demons and start a fresh path.

I am fortunate to have many friends I have accumulated over the years, most of whom have been around for 25 or 30 years, since high school or university. Over the years, the strength of many of these friendships has waned as we become busy with careers, kids, families, mortgages, and the often inevitable distance that now separates us as a result of career or marriage related relocation. In some cases the passage of time and our different directions have left us with nothing in common except the past. Yet the friendships survive because of a sense of loyalty to one another. In simple terms, this means I may not see you for years, speak to you for months, yet when you call me for help, if it is within my power to do so, I will do my utmost even at great sacrifice of time and often money. The only reciprocity is my knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you would do the same for me.

In the course of my career I have represented many criminal law clients, and my dealings with the constabulary have developed in me a tremendous disrespect for the institution of policing. I think the way officers will lie to back one another up is an affront to our justice system and to the very Charter on which it is balanced. Yet I must confess a grudging admiration for the loyalty these officers show to their colleagues.

It is often said that there is no honour among thieves, except as most professionals involved in the criminal justice system will attest, organized crime specifically, and lesser criminals generally, have a heightened sense of loyalty. I have seen many clients plea out and accept the consequences rather than rat out their friends. It is also worthy of note that next to pedophiles, the most hated inmates in jail (and those next in need of solitary confinement for protection) are those perceived to have been disloyal. The snitches.

When the criminal underworld employs a greater familiarity with loyalty than the political and business world upon which we rely to run our country, we ought to all be concerned. And perhaps take stock of our own lives and what, if any, sacrifices we would make for loyalty to those who have earned it from us.

“Dear Blockhead”: Handling Difficult Opponents

by

Making snide comments. Opposing reasonable requests. Filing rapid-fire unnecessary motions. Ignoring phone calls and emails. Condescending letters copied to clients. Interrupting during submissions. Accusations of unprofessional behaviour. Suggestions that a licensee is not competent.

Chances are, each paralegal has either faced such an opponent already, or soon will. Inside the courtroom and out, these opponents make the smallest tasks more difficult, add to stress and drive up costs.

Difficult people cannot be changed, but our response to them can be.

“I’ve had my share” of difficult opponents, says Elaine Page, recipient of the 2013 Law Society of Upper Canada Distinguished Paralegal Award.

“Keep it in perspective,” Page advises. “Just because they are acting that way, doesn’t mean you have to get down in the mud with them. Often, they are baiting you. If you behave in the exact opposite way, you can’t lose.”

Over the course of 20-plus years advocating for clients, Page encountered condescending tones and behaviour more often in the years before paralegal licensing. She has noticed that over the past five years, lawyers have become familiar with the skills and competency paralegals bring to the legal system.

Unfailingly professional conduct, including being fully prepared, is Page’s best strategy for handling the odd combative licensee. “Things have changed substantially. Being prepared and acting like a professional the whole time, occasionally took them by surprise. There’s a different level of respect now.”

Know Your Opponent

Wendy Matheson, a lawyer at Torys LLP, wrote a Law Society Gazette article about the types of difficult opponents one may encounter.

Matheson identifies 10 types of difficult opponents, including: warriors, escalators, showboats, novices, bad-behaviour mimics, stressed-out litigators, pawns, yes-men, bullies and bad losers.

George Brown, a senior paralegal, has met a few of those types over 20 years of litigating. One licensee comes to mind when the topic of civility is raised. “He has an extremely aggressive style. He will tell opposing counsel what a dismal chance they have of success, that there are weaknesses in their arguments. He blind-sides his opponents. I’m not entirely sure it is a disservice to his clients, because they know they really have a warrior on their side.”

C’est la guerre!

For some people, all it takes is one “govern yourself accordingly,” and the letter war is on, according to Matheson. Breaking the pattern can calm things down. “Choose not to escalate. There is a good chance the other side will not escalate either.”

Some counsel deploy a “showman” style, Matheson says, behaving civilly when dealing on the telephone or in person, then later copying clients on “zinger” letters that bear little or no relationship to the discussions.

“One of my colleagues got a letter from opposing counsel that read: ‘Your arrogant and block-headed attempt to bludgeon opposing counsel into submission with Rule 57.07 provided my client with a nice bit of entertainment,’” Matheson recounts in the Gazette article.

A fellow licensee has sent condescending correspondence to Page, including suggestions that she does not understand various rules of the court. Page responds politely, but firmly. “This particular licensee is simply exceptionally aggressive. That is her style. I finally wrote back and asked her whether she realized I had been on the Rules Committee (of the Superior Court of Justice).”

Some opponents view their cases as all-or-nothing wars, Matheson says. Putting the zeal into “zealous advocate,” these litigators seem to view rudeness as a strength. Interruptions, interjections and objections are examples.

Do As I Say — And As I Do

Criminal and Constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby, CM, has simple advice for handling interrupting counsel: “Don’t give them the opportunity.” He suggests licensees “Be conservative in your submissions, to minimize the opportunity to interrupt. After two or three interruptions, I sit down and say, ‘Your Honour, I cannot continue.’ Let the judge be responsible for directing counsel. Judges generally hate interruptions, and anyone watching will think, this does not look appropriate to me.”

Ruby says responding in kind to a difficult opponent is “what not to do” in these rare cases. “You don’t want to scare the judge, to have the judge worry that he or she is about to lose control of the courtroom and the proceeding.”

Page agrees. “Do not bicker back and forth with opposing counsel. Speak to the justice, not to counsel. I’ve said to judges, ‘Please ask opposing counsel not to interrupt me during my submissions.’ They’ve embarrassed themselves. I’ve just pointed it out.”

Egregious behaviour that is on the record, or has negatively affected a client, should be reported to the Law Society, senior licensees say.

Ruby notes that the Law Society may ask licensees to “come in for a chat” to explain their words and actions. “If you’re smart, you say, ‘Oh, my goodness, I was having a bad day. I apologize and will write a letter of apology if necessary.’”

Let the Law Society deal with things like unresponsive replies to requests, Ruby says. “That’s what they’re there for.”

Fight Fire With Fire – Get Burned

Fighting “fire with fire” is a slippery slope that ought to be avoided. Page says it’s easy to get sucked in, “When opposing counsel is saying you did this, and failed to do that, especially if it is inflammatory, like saying they were not served. It’s tempting. But let them finish, even if what they are saying is outrageous. It’s about staying professional, even when they’re trying to push your buttons. The court will appreciate your professionalism.”

Darryl Singer, a senior litigator, agrees. He says that uncivil litigators “remind me of how I do not wish to behave.” The key is to recognize that you can’t change others, but you can control how you respond to them, Singer says. “It takes inner strength at times, not to respond in the same manner. You must consciously decide to be civil. Careers and lives are affected” by inappropriate behaviour. “Be calm, rational and clear-thinking. That will win the day.”

Bad behaviour can affect clients and drive up costs. “Civility makes the difference between a four or five-day trial and being able to settle without a trial,” Brown says. “I have colleagues who, if they are on the other side, I know we will be able to settle the matter in the best interests of the clients.”

Page says that licensees who are arrogant in an attempt to impress a client take the risk of having the strategy backfire. “The court can and will chastise a licensee who acts that way, and there may be cost consequences,” she says. “I’ve seen that happen hundreds of times in court.”

Brown has seen courtroom arrogance play out to the detriment of opposing counsel. “Being prepared is a greater advantage.” Early in his career, Brown opposed counsel with greater experience and confidence. “I knew I had won because I had hardly slept for days. I worked 18, 20 hours a day, preparing factums and reviewing the Rules. He was over-confident and I was the opposite.”

Manage Expectations – Yours And Theirs

Handling clients who expect nothing less than animosity toward “the other side” can lead good representatives into temptation.

“A client can become entrenched in their foxhole, to the point where no agreement on issues is available,” Brown says. “The case must go to trial. There is nothing at all wrong with reaching out to opposing counsel with reasonable requests, especially if you still want to have a relationship with them, or if your client will have a relationship with the other party. You never want that to happen. As paralegals, we are problem-solvers.”

Sometimes, a legal professional is civil — until their case starts to go awry. “At that point,” Matheson writes, “They begin to lash out at everyone, including counsel and even the court, making often extreme and totally unwarranted allegations of misconduct. Ultimately, like all uncivil conduct, this type of behaviour reflects badly on that litigator’s case, not yours.”

Guidance, Mentoring Necessary

Experience plays a role in civility. Matheson says a lack of practical training and mentoring can create litigators who “flail about in their practice and in court,” as they learn how to behave.

Brown recalls his early career, when he was “young and aggressive,” anxious to push the boundaries. Eager to please his client, Brown drafted an aggressively worded motion, chock-a-block with rules, citations, case law and hyperbole.

When he walked into court and met his opponent — Elaine Page — he immediately felt embarrassed. “I met this nice woman, and realized I had behaved so unprofessionally. You have to be careful, how far you go. You can be destroyed. I learned from that, and from my peers, that my words and arguments have a profound effect.”

As he enters his 21st year in practice, Singer finds civility on a down-turn. Lack of appropriate mentoring is one reason. Mentors can combat the combination of lack of experience and fear that result in poor behaviour. “When I started out, it was easy for a young litigator to go to court every day” and receive guidance, formally and informally.

One reason for the change is a large influx of new licensees, Singer suggests. Where once, 1,000 annual graduates competed for mentors, placements and articling positions, upwards of 3,000 now seek those opportunities.

Why It’s Called A ‘Profession’

Singer advises reaching out, and points to such resources as the Law Society’s Practice Mentoring Initiative for lawyers and paralegals.

“It can be short-term or long-term mentoring,” Singer says. “It’s a good program. Reach out to the different organizations. You will find mentors. I don’t know anybody who would refuse a request for advice. Just call someone and say, ‘Can I bounce something off you? I have this issue, here is what’s going on.’ I take mentoring very seriously and I think most senior counsel do. Ultimately, this is the future of the profession.”

At the same time, new licensees who feel pushed around in court, spoken down to, or told they are not following procedures, may feel intimidated. Senior licensees can put matters in context, and offer advice.

“New licensees are less able to know what to do” when opposing counsel appears to be unco-operative or uncivil, Ruby says. “Ask for an adjournment — with consent of opposing counsel, if they’re smart. Take that half hour and think about how to respond. Call someone more senior and they will advise you. That’s why it’s called a profession.”

But I Saw It On TV!

Some legal professionals seem to adopt a persona usually seen only in fiction. Matheson says these licensees have “learned bad habits by bad example, in court, on TV, or in their dealings with other lawyers,” she writes. “These litigators assume that if it is OK for someone else to behave in a certain way, it is an acceptable way to behave.”

Personal attacks are not only “out of bounds,” Brown cautions — they can backfire.

“If you attack the messenger, you’re showing that you don’t have a good case, because if you did, you would speak to the issues.” Referring to Paralegal Rule of Conduct 4.01, Brown notes that paralegals are to “raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question” when advocating for a client. “That leaves room for a tough litigator to go too far.”

Bullies exist in the legal profession, as in other fields. Matheson writes that some litigators “treat people miserably until someone makes them stop.” Email and social media make it easier than ever for legal bullies to misbehave and accuse other licensees of unprofessional conduct.

Bad Day, Or Warning Sign?

One issue that can’t be overlooked is that mental health and substance abuse affect behaviour. “Opposing counsel may be going through a divorce, having financial issues, addiction issues, or other problems they carry with them throughout the day,” Singer says.

One sign that mental health or substance abuse issues — or both — are affecting a licensee is a marked change in behaviour, says Singer, who volunteers as a peer counsellor through the Ontario Lawyers’ Assistance Program.

“Some people are just difficult,” Singer acknowledges. “But if you have been dealing with the same licensee for years, and there has never been a problem, and suddenly they are not returning phone calls, not responding to requests, or if they have always been unfailingly polite and now they are not interested in civility — that is a sign that there is a problem.”

Ruby has also seen professionals affected by mental health and substance-abuse problems over his long career. Whatever the cause, uncivil litigators are “an embarrassment for the profession,” that ought to be viewed in context.

“We’re Canadians,” Ruby says. “We tend to be polite and listen to the other side. Have you ever seen an American courtroom? They’re brutal. There are more important issues for the Advocates Society and the Law Society, such as increasing access to justice and facing the problems experienced by women and racialized practitioners.”

Brown keeps the long-game in mind, his “eyes on the prize.”

“When the time comes for me to sit down and reflect on my life and my career, on how I carried myself,” Brown says, “I want to be able to say that I’m proud of my representation, and of my profession.”

by Elizabeth Published on Paralegal Scope Magazine

Oh, Where Have All the Mentors Gone?

by

Darryl Singer, a lawyer and popular Continuing Professional Development presenter, laments the under-use of mentoring in the legal profession. He shares more than 20 years’ experience with the “dying art” of mentoring, with Paralegal SCOPE Magazine readers.

In the legal profession, as in many other professions, mentorship, where a senior member of the profession takes on a protégé, is a dying art.

Sadly, the focus on newly minted professionals is their ability to generate billings, as opposed to instilling in them the foundations for long-term success. Even articling, historically an integral part of legal training in Ontario, may go the way of the dodo bird in the next few years. And no such articling-equivalent program is mandated for paralegals.

For those who do article in a law firm or intern in a paralegal practice, the experience is more often an exercise in clerical tasks than a continuation of one’s legal education.

I know of very few firms anymore that are prepared to allow a student or junior the privilege of sitting and observing a day or two of a serious trial or complicated motion, preferring instead to keep her in the office cranking out piecework on files for which she has no context. This is a short-term, profit-driven decision on the part of the employer at the sacrifice of longer-term benefits to both the student and the firm.

Learning by Doing

The value of allowing your young charges a certain number of free days to just follow you around and observe cannot be overstated. And I do mean observe. Not take notes or chase down some last-minute research, but just sit and take it all in. You learn by doing. But before you can try to do, you must learn by watching. Law school and paralegal diploma programs, while giving graduates of such degrees a basic grounding in the law, do not teach one how to be an effective advocate, how to generate and manage clients, or any of the other skill sets required to be successful in the legal profession.

During my articles, more than 20 years ago, I dare say I learned more in two days in the gallery of a courtroom at the old 145 Queen Street West family court observing an acrimonious divorce trial (are there any other kind?) than I did in three years of law school.

The wealthy but estranged spouses were represented on one side by my mentor, the late (all too soon, sadly) H. Douglas Stewart, Q.C. and the esteemed Malcolm Kronby. I was afforded the opportunity to witness up close and personal: the style and substance of oral advocacy at its finest; the art of simple but effective cross-examination; the obvious and not-so-obvious benefits of knowing your case inside-out and backward; as well as a perfect interplay of fearless advocacy and courtroom decorum; not to mention the civility with which each litigator treated his adversary and his adversary’s client.

If what I see of young legal professionals in court and at discoveries lately is any indication, I can infer that all too often this sort of mentoring is not part of most firms’ articling programs.

Benefits Outweigh Costs

True, being an effective mentor comes at a short-term financial cost. It takes you away from otherwise billable hours. It means there are times where you could have your inexperienced employee at her desk cranking out routine but billable work but instead you take them to court with you. However, in the long run this will pay high dividends to your firm, your clients, and you personally, not to mention the profession at large.

The importance of mentoring should not be lost on the paralegal profession. Since the licensing process elevated your profession to Law Society licensee status, the standards expected by the public who retain you, of the lawyers who refer you work, and of yourselves, is and should be greater than ever.

To those of you who have some senior level of experience I implore you to find the time to mentor.

Take on a co-op student or intern from one of the paralegal diploma programs and actually invest some of your time to ensure they gain some real value from their time under your wing. Hire a junior if you can afford to. Join the Law Society mentoring panel.

Some of these options will not cost you in terms of a salary, but if you wish to make the internship effective it will cost you significantly in terms of time. I assure you it will be worth it. Remember that your mentee will observe not only your advocacy skills and client management skills but also your general demeanor.

Professional Obligations

In fact, having an articling student monitoring my every move makes me more conscious about my conduct. For that matter, we influence all those we come into contact throughout our business day, for better or worse.

Ensuring that we uphold the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, civility, and competence and passing those attributes on to the younger generation ought to be a personal and professional obligation of all licencees.

At a minimum, we all owe that to each other and the public who place their trust in our hands. After all, good mentoring, not unlike good parenting, is more about leading by example.

Darryl Singer is a Toronto litigator who currently mentors two articling students.

by Elizabeth Published on Paralegal Scope Magazine

Time For the Profession to Talk About Depression

by

Darryl Singer is a lawyer well-known to paralegals for his effective CPD presentations. He shares his knowledge of assistance available to legal professionals who are coping with issues such as depression.

In any given year, according to Statistics Canada, approximately 5% of the population will experience a major episode of depression. Almost 15% of us will suffer from such an illness at some point in our lives.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, depression is the fastest rising medical diagnosis in Canada and accounts for over 11 million doctor visits a year. Add to this burden on our system the lost work productivity and it is clear depression is an issue that needs to be addressed as a society at the macro level.

However, on a micro level, the legal profession is even worse off. It is estimated by some studies that lawyers will suffer depression at three times the rate of the population at large, yet are far less likely to seek treatment for it.

Although the studies deal specifically with lawyers, there is every reason to assume the statistics either do or eventually will apply to paralegals. Since paralegals are now Law Society licensees, they face the same professional, business, and personal pressures attributed to lawyers. So for the balance of this article I will refer to lawyers and paralegals simply as legal professionals or licensees.

High Expectations, Competing Demands

I suspect the reason for increased incidences of depression amongst legal professionals is because we are entrusted with our clients’ most significant personal and business problems, sometimes including their very liberty or financial well being. Their problems become our problems.

Then there are the expectations we have of a particular lifestyle, having invested much time, money and effort to attain our Law Society licence; the tangential expectations of our financial success by others in our lives based on some perceived “status”; the very real pressures generating business; doing the work generated in a timely manner; billing and collecting on that work; long hours away from family and friends; the increasing expectation with technological advances that we must always be available and that everything needs to be done yesterday.

And this is for those of us who are for the most part successful in our career. For others, particularly at either end of the experience spectrum, there are more basic issues, like even finding work in the first place or phasing out of the only work you have ever known (often not by choice).

Then there are the challenges unique to those who litigate, as opposed to those members of the profession whose work does not require them to attend court or tribunals.

Litigators of all experience levels and specialties must navigate the course of a file with greater burdens than ever — in addition to the problems enumerated above, they must also struggle with systemic delays (which clients do not understand and for which the client will inevitably blame the legal professional); an economy that makes the cost of running a practice more expensive than at any other time while at the same time making it more difficult to get paid; clients more aware about their ability to report you to the LSUC or file a claim with your negligence insurer; and a constantly increasingly lack of civility amongst members of the profession.

The most surprising thing about the recent statistics is that the numbers are not higher.

Far-reaching Consequences

I regularly defend lawyers and paralegals at Law Society discipline hearings through the Advocates’ Society’s excellent and much needed volunteer duty counsel program. It has been my experience, and that of many of my colleagues on the duty counsel roster, that a disproportionate number of licensee defendants in these disciplinary proceedings suffered from some form of mental health issue, such as depression or anxiety. Most did not seek any treatment or assistance of any kind until after they had run sufficiently afoul of the Rules of Professional Conduct (or worse).

Note: While I use the word depression in this article because it references the particular statistics set out herein, depression is intended as an all encompassing term that also includes anxiety and panic attacks, debilitating stress headaches, other psychosomatic illnesses as well as other types of mental health issues.

It is also worth noting that mental health issues often go hand in hand with some sort of addiction or substance abuse. Often the effects of the addiction on one’s life and psyche lead to depression, while at other times the depression results in some form of self-medication which in turn leads to addiction. In many instances the depression and the self-destructive behavior run hand-in-hand, and it is virtually indistinguishable where one stops and the other begins.

The potential to cause costly and often irreparable harm, when our own mental health issues prevent us from dealing with both our clients’ matters and our law practices timely and appropriately, cannot be overstated. Yet the fear of “coming out” as someone suffering from depression is terrifying to most of us.

I remember thinking when I was suffering some years ago, “These people trust me to solve their problems and I can’t even handle my own life! What will everyone think of me? My clients, my colleagues, my sources of referral? Will they all turn against me, blacklist me, be afraid to deal with me? Will the Law Society get involved?” This is what is going through the minds of thousands of legal professionals at this very moment.

Paradigm Changes Needed

As a profession, we need to recognize this problem and deal with it in terms of education, compassion, and a change in mindset about how we view ourselves as members of the Law Society.

This has to start with the schools, the Law Society, the large firms, and the most senior and successful members of the profession We need to pay more than lip service to the concept of work/life balance, must accept a new economic paradigm, and learn to see our jobs as an integral part of our lives but not as the be all and end all.

Most importantly, the stigma of depression needs to be lifted. It is time for all those of us who have suffered, overcome our difficulties and thrived, to “come out” for the benefit of those still suffering in silence. One person going without help will result in deleterious effects for many others beyond just that practitioner, and ultimately our profession’s failure to address the issue will in the long run hurt both our public image and our ability to self-govern.

So what exactly needs to be done? We need to educate the profession, starting during school, that depression is not a barrier to a successful career if it is treated or managed. The message must be disseminated to the furthest reaches of the profession that those who seek help will not automatically face disciplinary action either by their employer or the Law Society. Programs like OLAP and the LSUC’s current Member Assistance Program through Homewood must continue to be funded, have a peer counseling component, and guarantee confidentiality. And such programs must ensure that members who seek help receive the best available care in a timely fashion.

Most importantly, the message from on high needs to be that asking for help demonstrates strength of character rather than weakness of will.

Darryl Singer is a Toronto litigator and peer counsellor with the Ontario Lawyers’ Assistance Program (OLAP).

by Elizabeth Published on Paralegal Scope Magazine

Anatomy of a Case

by

A pink monkey, a mock trial gone sideways, and plain talk from a retired deputy judge were among the surprises during a CPD event at North York Central library, May 17.

Presented by CPD On-time and sponsored in part by Tripemco Insurance, Anatomy of a Case brought together just over 60 participants, both in-person and online, via webinar.

Recently retired Deputy Judge Allan Mintz began the evening with provocative advice for paralegals. Mintz prefaced his effective advocacy talk with a warning that anyone who is easily offended may not be receptive to his comments.

Drawing on some 50 years of legal experience, Mintz said not all lawyers, or paralegals, have achieved the status of “advocate.”

“Advocacy has nothing to do with smiling and being compliant. Advocates must passionately, forcefully and authoritatively present submissions,” he said, and held forth on his opinion of the way paralegals introduce themselves in court.

“I cannot understand why paralegals indicate that they are licensed by the law society,” he said.

“There are no unlicensed paralegals. The suggestion that, because you are licensed by the Law Society, creates a new privileged category is offensive to every lawyer, including deputies who have struggled to gain some recognition through hard work, particularly if there is a deficiency in your knowledge of the law. Personally, I find the practise offensive and so do many other deputies.”
Understand the Case Law

Mintz implores paralegals to make better use of their fellow licensees and law students, who have had the benefit of more formal legal education and training than paralegals.

“Asking another paralegal with the same absence of fundamental knowledge of the law is a useless exercise,” Mintz said. Paralegals failing to use legal decisions adequately is a source of great frustration to many deputy judges. “The deputy sitting on your case is a legally trained individual who may not be receptive to anyone who either does not know the relevant law or states it incorrectly. Do not enrich yourself with legal knowledge and you will never reach the level of a persuasive advocate. I know this is a harsh reality, but it is reality.”

Mintz suggests paralegals pool their resources to obtain legal opinions from lawyers or articling students.

To “beat the other side” or “win at any cost” is not the proper role of an effective advocate, he noted; it is to assist the judge. Mintz said this is another area in which paralegals can improve.

“You’d be surprised how often I indicated that a paralegal had proved liability on the required standard, but failed to prove any damages,” for example. “If at the beginning you are aware of all the issues you must prove, including damages and referred to it, you won’t fall into this trap. The essential tools you have as an advocate are common sense, rational thinking and judicial decisions that support your submissions.”

Effective Advocacy

Mintz suggests creating a “persuasive, rational road map” when advocating, with attention to detail and a deep understanding of all relevant case law. He provided specific advocacy tips, including how to speak effectively on a matter by being prepared, brief, respectful and receptive to the justice, while focusing on only the relevant issues and evidence required for a “rational axis” of persuasion.

Another straightforward speaker at the event, Darryl Singer, interviewed a potential client — his daughter, looking to recover stolen allowance funds from her brother, and then attending on behalf of a friend, Pink Monkey.

Does Pink Monkey Present a Conflict?

Singer, a lawyer with more than 20 years’ experience, used the engaging exchange to effectively demonstrate the professional and ethical obligations paralegals face when interviewing potential clients. He touched on practical business elements of client intake, advising against such things as negotiating retainer fees and “doing a favour for a friend.”

Besides potential liability problems, “It sets you up to devalue what you do,” Singer said. “You’re providing a professional service. They have to respect your skills and knowledge. If you start off with negotiating, you will be negotiating for the whole relationship. It’s not short gain you’re going for. Think about the long game.”

Singer doubled as Deputy Judge for the mock trial which topped-off the evening. Senior paralegals George Brown and Susan Koprich demonstrated advocacy skills in a small claims matter. Relying on legal principles, legislative interpretation and case law, the pair demonstrated that quick thinking and paying close attention to the judge can turn a case around. While the plan was for the Defendant to win, Singer found in favour of the Plaintiff, who was awarded compensation for his Lamborghini repair work.

All-important Pleadings

Brown had spoken about pleadings, which are “the most important documents you will write on behalf of your clients.” He advised writing pleadings as if they will be reviewed by “the toughest judge you know.”

Brown took questions about amending pleadings, from both the attendees and webinar participants. He pointed out that paralegals are held to a higher standard than people who self-represent in court, so it is important to refer to the Rules of the Small Claims Court when crafting pleadings.

Stanley Razenberg, a paralegal at Bergel, Magence LLP, discussed legal research and provided pointers on such tricks as having case law updates sent via email. Maximizing research resources not only boosts one’s knowledge and ability, he said — it is also a great tool for networking.

Don’t Be That Person

Gail Mahadeo, a litigation lawyer specializing in professional liability, spoke about settlement conferences. She said these are “the most important element” of cases and should not be given short-shrift. “It is the first chance all the participants have to be honest,” Mahadeo said, adding that settlement conferences offer the opportunity to get a frank assessment of the case from the “fresh eyes” of a judge, deputy judge or referee.

Co-operation, preparation and asking effective questions at the best time, can propel a case forward and affect cost assessments, Mahadeo said. Ensuring the client has been briefed on courtroom etiquette goes a long way, too. “Don’t be “that person,” she advised. “If you put your cellphone on a chair and it goes off — I hear you.”

The archived webinar and supporting materials will be available at CPD On-Time.

by Elizabeth Published on Paralegal Scope Magazine

Time for Compulsory National Service

by

A year and a half ago my oldest son and I were in Israel. I noticed something about the teens and 20-somethings there, in contrast to those in their early to mid-20s that I encounter here, I cannot seem to get out of my mind. My son picked up on it too. The young Israelis seemed older, more mature, more sophisticated, more worldly than Canadian kids the same age. Maybe they travelled more. Maybe it was living a country that was constantly under attack. Maybe it was that every one of them knew someone or had themselves been to the front lines of a war zone. Yet while those things may have been part of the reason why Israeli youth grow up quickly comparative to their North American peers, I suspect the real reason lay in the State of Israel’s two to three year mandatory national service requirement which for most commenced upon the completion of high school.  
 

Logically, this would seem to make sense. By the time most Israelis start college or university, or join the workforce if higher education is not in the offing, they already have at least 2 years of real world experience under their belts. While this experience is often gained in a war zone, just as often it is gained in the military environment sans combat, but with military training, structure and command. For many, the national service requirement is not served in the military at all, but in a hospital, a school or government office. In any event, it is a 2 year stint at the age of 18 in which the teenagers can’t help but develop life skills, navigate work force politics, and obtain a sense of adult responsibility. They are forced to learn self-discipline, respect for authority, as well as to work under often severe conditions. Contrast that with the average middle class Canadian teen who enters university or college at the age of 18 straight from high school and Mommy and Daddy’s house, with no real world experience. After two years, most of them remain cocooned in the amniotic sac of higher education (or the post-high school work force where they are still buffeted from real world concerns as they still live at home). Thus, at 20, most Canadian kids are still just that, kids. Israelis by contrast are already adults who understand the concepts of self-starting, hard work, goal setting and responsibility. They develop the drive and focus to succeed, or at a minimum to get the job done on time and to exacting standards. Young Israelis have, ironically given the constant state of high alert of their nation, an ability to see the long game.
In his book Start Up Nation, Dan Senor (http://www.startupnationbook.com/) wrote that Israel was at the forefront of technological innovation and entrepreneurship, noting specifically that Israel had the most new businesses per year of any first world nation. This was attributed to in large measure to the military service required of young Israelis. Specifically, he writes:
                
 “No college experience disciplines you to think like [the military does], with high stakes and intense pressure,” one veteran notes, explaining how state service preps Israelis to communicate, to forge teams, and to improvise at work. 
Fortunately in Canada it is unlikely that our children, if they were required to enter the military, would ever see action in conflict. But the mere aspect of being in an environment where your parents’ money or contacts mean nothing, where you are taken out of the creature comforts of home, out of your tightly knit cabal of friends, and put in a position where you must follow strict rules and obey a chain of command will toughen up our children. For economically disadvantaged children who might not otherwise be given the opportunities afforded to those of the middle class, or teenagers who are not academically inclined, military training will provide them a much needed avenue out of poverty as it will ensure the most marginalized of our society will be guaranteed skills training and development that will make them viable members of the workforce. In some of my earlier articles on this blog I have referred to the problems created by the cycle of poverty. Compulsory national service may mitigate some of that by reducing the numbers of uneducated and unemployable.
National service, here as in Israel, does not need to mean the military. I would propose options such as teaching, hospital work, and not for profit outreach programs, where we could harness the energy and idealism of our youth in the farthest reaches of our country. In other words, if you chose to teach for your national service, it wouldn’t be at the Montessori in an upper middle class suburb, but rather perhaps an underfunded school in an under-served northern community or disadvantaged inner city neighbourhood. We could use national service programs to assist with the very social safety net of which we are so proud but which the government can ill afford to continue funding at the same levels as we have historically. This would be a much needed supplement to the social safety net while at the same time preparing our teenagers for the challenges of adulthood.
I strongly believe Canada is the greatest nation in the world. I also believe that no matter how much every generation of parents worries about the younger generation, those kids usually turn out okay, just as we did. But comfort should not mean apathy. There is much to be done and Canada can be even better. Let us not rest on our laurels. Let us strive to make every future generation the absolute best it can be, and in the process improve the social services of our country via national service, and ultimately the economy and politics by sending forth from their national service the best prepared, most informed, most mature, compassionate and responsible generation than we have ever sent before.

Truly Great

by
I read this morning in the Toronto Star that Garth Drabinsky was stripped of his Order of Canada.This followed an article in the same paper less than two months ago announcing the recipients of the 2012 Order of Canada, which will be handed out in the coming months.Yet all the discussion at my office, and even the lawyers’ lounges and professional offices I have attended this week centers around last Sunday’s Oscars. As anyone who knows me is well aware, perhaps my biggest pet peeve is our obsession with celebrity for celebrity’s sake.

 

My thoughts on this subject go back at least to 2004, when my Rabbi, Lawrence Englander, was awarded the Order of Canada for his 30 years of community service. His investiture into the Order of Canada recognized that over the course of more than three decades, his leadership and vision at Solel Congregation in Mississauga helped to create, among other things, a food bank which feeds over 5000 people a month, a housing project for the poor, and breakfast programs for financially disadvantaged children. In addition, he has galvanized his congregants to action in the social, cultural, charitable and political fabric of our society. I often cite him as an example of a true greatness and exactly the type of person who ought to receive these awards and the accolades of our community. The vast majority of those granted such an honour as the Order of Canada or the recent Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medals fit the same mold as Rabbi Englander.

 

I have over the years watched these Order of Canada ceremonies on local cable when the Governor General hands out the highest award this country can bestow upon a citizen. I have studied the details of the recipients each year when the announcements are made. These men and women, from all parts of the country, of all races and religions, have little in common with one another except for their remarkable achievements. Throughout their careers and their lives, they have made their communities, and the country, better places. They have impacted their respective professions, discovered and created, been shepherds, teachers, and beacons.

 

But what is truly remarkable about this year’s group of recipients (and of all years in fact) is their very ordinariness. They are not glamorous, many are not wealthy, and none of them are particularly famous by contemporary standards. They are ordinary people doing ordinary things in an extraordinary fashion. If it were up to me, the study of the lives of these individuals or at least viewing the video of the ceremonies each year would be mandatory in all schools. Why? Because in our celebrity-obsessed culture, where fame is based not on merit, but merely on wealth, glamour, or simply being famous, our children should be required to study real greatness- not in some historical context during a course but in a real life way that they can understand. It would be ideal if the one obligation that was attached to being awarded the Order of Canada would be to speak to at least one group of school children. Our children need to understand that real greatness is not found in  people who play sports for a living, or act or sing or appear in gossip pages or worse, reality tv shows. Which is not to say that none of those famous actors/musicians/athletes use their positions to make society a better place (the concept of what in Hebrew we call Tikun Olam) but even when they do, I would argue their exalted wealth and fame demands it from them and they do not necessarily deserve special praise for doing what they ought to be doing anyway. So many of these athletes and entertainers never miss an opportunity to quote the Bible or praise their God yet simultaneously forget the biblical commandment “from each according to his means to each according to his need”. My comments are not meant to detract from the very real physical gifts which bless our athletes and entertainers. Some are indeed very talented at what they do (although more are merely mediocre despite their overwhelming fame). But even the best are not great. We tend too often to confuse fame with greatness. We ascribe great personal characteristics and imbue people with a humanity and intelligence undeserved merely because they stare back at us from our media on a daily basis. All the while we ignore the real greats because they’re not part of the celebrity-industrial complex.

 

I find it distressing that the average child will, if asked, choose as a role model a Tom Brady, or a Justin Bieber, or a Kardashian of one sort or another. It reminds me of the comedian Robin Williams’ comment about some of the first FOX TV reality shows of the 90s: “it’s not the end of the world, but you can see it from there”. While our professional sports role models are clearly the best at what they do, and while most of our other acting or singing celebrities have at least a modicum of talent, they have in most instances done nothing to deserve this hero worship we foist upon them.

 

Yet we have become so enamored with the rich and famous that we forget all those who are really changing the world. Our collective apathy for the world around us has made election turnouts lower than ever before, made it more difficult than at any other time for charitable organizations to raise funds or attract volunteers, and has even made us less civilized (ruder and more impatient) in our day to day interactions with strangers. This selfishness has allowed us to forget that if we spent a little less time worshipping celebrities and a little more time improving ourselves in our own small ways, as spouses, parents, children, friends and citizens, we could make a real impact on those around us, and just maybe in the process leave a mark other than the indentation on our sofa.

 

I am reminded as I write this that the former Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson concluded the Order of Canada ceremonies some years ago with a particularly poignant quote from Aristotle on this exact topic: “Dignity is not in possessing honors, but in deserving them”.

The Decline of the English Language

by

Forgive me if you will the fact that I will start this article with words that would have caused me to roll my eyes had they been uttered when I was a young student-at-law a 22 years ago by my boss or my father (which may explain the eye rolling of my children and my current student-at-law when I begin conversations this way), but “back when I was your age..”. The older I get the more I catch myself beginning my rants with these words. One recent such diatribe was caused by a week of being frustrated at people around me continually using incorrect grammar and not understanding what I meant because of my choice of words- words which are obvious to me, that I knew when I was in high school, that my teenager uses in regular conversation, so I’m not just referring to some arcane legal terminology. Words most educated adults should know but too many don’t. Usually this is an issue when I am dealing with younger lawyers and staff, those in their 20s and early 30s. These are for the most part highly educated individuals, all born and educated in Canada. The fault lies with the decline of standards in our educational system; our lowest common denominator infotainment culture; and one of the few downsides to modern technological advances, namely tweet and text-based conversational shorthand.

While I concede some of the issue may be my own prickliness when it comes to language, grammar and vocabulary, the cold, hard fact is that the English language is devolving at a pace faster than reality television if that is possible. And yes, television and popular culture are certainly to blame. As is the educational philosophy I have seen in my kids’ schools over the years where they were not penalized with reduced marks for spelling or grammar (in courses other than English) as long as the substantive thoughts and answers underlying the poor writing were understandable. This decline is also a result of the lazy, abbreviated writing of text messages, tweets, Facebook posts, and email. And don’t get me started on the cocoon of self-entitlement in which that generation was raised, always being told they were great and never being dealt with honestly when they were wrong. But it is no longer, as it was just several years ago just Generation Y. The abuse of the language has now fanned upward to affect all ages. I regularly receive emails from another lawyer in their 40s or 50s (a letter which in the prehistoric days before email would have been typed and sent by regular mail on firm letterhead) that is written so flippantly that it avoids any pretense of properly using capitalization, punctuation, spelling, grammar and formality.

We now live in an age where intelligence is considered a liability, erudition is considered a vice, and the president of the United States is mocked by his critics for being an intellectual snob who can’t relate to the common folk. We live in an age where the Honey Boo Boos are lionized and celebrated, where for a politician to achieve popularity she has to dumb herself down to be “one of us”, where a book which sells 10,000 units is now considered a best seller, and where the summer’s most widely read fiction was most notable not for its erotic nature but for its semiliterate writing.

The one station in society where I would expect that language standards would be upheld is in my profession. As lawyers, we are generally paid not just for our knowledge (which anyone with the inclination can obtain) but for our ability to communicate our clients’ ideas, thoughts, positions, stories and legal arguments, better than they can, whether orally or in writing. What sets a great litigator apart from a good litigator is the ability to persuade, and persuasion is at its core about mastering the art of communication.

I still recall the days on the metaphorical knee of my mentor, the late Doug Stewart, listening to him dictate a letter, reading briefs of law he so meticulously drafted, or watching him deliver an oral argument in court. He exercised the English language as a sword to advance his clients’ interests, while simultaneously using it as a shield to protect those same clients. To him, as to the other fine lawyers of his generation, the language was a tool not just to communicate, but to communicate more effectively than others.

The greatest writers use the art of the wordsmith not just to tell a story but to have that story move us emotionally to laugh and/or cry, or to develop pictures in our heads more vivid than any celluloid screen can possibly illustrate. Language is the reason a great many voracious readers are almost always disappointed by the movie version of a book they loved.

So to end this article where I started, forgive me for sounding like some old, retired English teacher or crotchety old man, but those of my generation who teach children in our schools, mentor the younger generations in our respective professions, and all of us as parents, have an obligation to understand that the new ways are not examples of language evolving but rather devolving, and we must band together to protect our language before all of our children talk like the illiterate morons on reality television. Sadly, like it or not, our thoughts and ultimately our actions, are put in place only by the words in our heads. If the verbiage of our society is at an elementary school level, how can the thoughts and actions that follow possibly be any loftier?

Christmas Blues

by

This time of year always gets me down. Not really sure why since as a Jew it’s not my holiday. Perhaps it’s the endless pressure to make nice at a series of cocktail parties and holiday dinners; the fake niceness from people who are rude or dismissive all year; the overly attentive and cheerful retail workers who at any other time of year forget that they work in a customer service business. Maybe it’s that I value authenticity and abhor hypocrisy. And this time of year is full of it. People who don’t give a damn about their neighbours all year suddenly spending hundreds of dollars on gifts for their already pampered children and then as an afterthought buying some dollar store game to donate to a toy drive. People spending hundreds on a single family dinner kicking in several dollars worth of canned goods to a food drive. Or coming out of the mall, having spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gifts and then dropping a measly few bucks in the Salvation Army kettle only because they feel guilty if they don’t.

Don’t get me wrong. Donating toys, clothing, food and money to assist those most in need is just plain good citizenry. My sadness stems not from the fact that we do it at this time of year but rather the juxtaposition with what we don’t do all year long. When I lived and practised law in Mississauga about ten years ago, I sat for a number of years on the board of Foodpath (now the Mississauga Food Bank) the largest food bank in Peel Region, serving thousands of clients a month. At Christmas and Easter, the haul was bountiful. But there were months during the year where we were literally scraping the bottom of the barrel to make sure all those in need could be serviced, and meeting the annual operating budget was and always a concern. People who require the assistance of food banks and other front line charitable organizations require those services all year long. All the holiday talk about peace, love, and generosity of spirit, giving-better-than-receiving fades away as quickly after Christmas as the old year fades away into the new.

And what of the unnecessary token gifts and not so veiled business promotional items handed out willy nilly as if from some drunken Santa at this time of year. Not a day has gone by in the last two weeks where I didn’t receive at my office some chotchka from another law firm, court reporting service, mediation company, process serving company or other service provider to whom I pay thousands of dollars a year in fees or refer work. Little paper calendars with no room to actually write anything, date books that can’t record a scintilla of what I can put in my iphone, cheap pens, fridge magnets, mouse pads and two dollar clocks- all embossed with the logo of that particular business. If you really want to send me a logo-embossed gift, have the decency to send me something with MY firm’s name on it. Your so-called gift is nothing more than a cheap shill for your firm, a firm with which I already happily do business. And as for holiday cards, don’t need them. Get dozens every year, all cold and impersonal, recycled as fast as they arrive. The cost to your company in printing, postage and person-hours is money that could be better spent elsewhere, such as charity or community service. I don’t know the total economic cost just within in the legal profession in Toronto to all these holiday cards and gifts but it’s not hard to imagine millions of dollars. Do any of these people seriously think I would punish them by taking away my business if they neglected to send me a holiday greeting card or useless bauble with their name on it if in fact they have provided me or my clients good service over the last twelve months?

All of this money would better serve our community, and uphold the best tenets of our once highly regarded profession, were it donated to food banks, breakfast programs, social service not-for-profits, senior care programs, toy drives and the like.

And that is why none of my clients or business contacts receive holiday cards and gifts. Enough is enough. After 20 years of being sucked in, this year and in the future, if I have an extra few thousand in my promotional budget for Christmas gifts and cards, I’m divvying it up amongst some of those organizations whose need far outweighs those of me and the professionals with whom I do business.

Law Society's Misguided Decision

by
THE LAW SOCIETY’S MISGUIDED DECISION
by Darryl Singer

 

On September 28th 2012, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) terminated funding of the Ontario Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP), effective December 31, 2012.  For 35 years OLAP has been an arm’s length/Chinese-walled service provider to LSUC members suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, financial stresses, marital breakdown, stress, burn-out and a myriad of other personal and professional issues that impact a lawyer’s ability to properly practise law and serve one’s clients. The LSUC is trying to replace all of OLAP’s services and programs with Homewood Human Solutions (Homewood), a commercial for profit EAP provider, – a move that should be discomforting to all members of our profession and the public. Why?

·    OLAP is a not-for-profit charitable organization staffed by a lean complement of highly trained and qualified professionals supported by a group of lawyer volunteers. OLAP’s dozens of volunteers are themselves for the most part former clients of OLAP, who, having suffered and overcome their own demons, now choose to give back to our profession by acting as peer counsellors, speakers, authors, and ambassadors for OLAP. OLAP has contracted with a commercial EAP service provider, Shepell fgi who provide therapists and counsellors to supplement the work of OLAP’s staff and volunteers. Homewood is a commercial for profit, generic EAP service provider with no experienced peer (lawyer) staff or volunteers.

With OLAP, there has been no direct relationship between the service providers (OLAP staff, Shepell or OLAP volunteers) and the LSUC. This ensures complete confidentiality between lawyer-clients and the treatment providers, with the lawyer-clients being able to focus on themselves without fear of intrusion by the professional regulator. Not only must the lawyer-clients be protected by confidentiality, there must be the unequivocal perception of such confidentiality lest members be fearful of reaching out for the help they need.

Today, except for serious misconduct or criminal activity, anything disclosed to the OLAP case worker or any OLAP volunteer by the lawyer-client is not sent to LSUC. This ensures that lawyer-clients in trouble can openly talk about their problems to obtain the best treatment regimen possible for their particular dilemmas. OLAP assists its clients to get back on track both personally and professionally. It has significant experience helping distressed lawyers transition out of practice in a way that takes into account professional obligations to LSUC and clients, thus upholding the highest standards of professionalism and the protection of the public.

While Homewood may adequately provide services of similar nature and quality to Shepell, the demolition of the wall between the LSUC and the EAP provider is very unwise. 

Homewood will not just replace Shepell with professional services, but in fact replace the OLAP infrastructure in its entirety. No longer will distressed members of the Law Society be able to seek assistance from OLAP case workers who know the unique pressures of the legal profession and the sensitivities of members in trouble. And what of the peer volunteers? The psychic and emotional benefits to a distressed lawyer being able to be counselled and mentored through the process of recovery by a fellow lawyer who has “been there” cannot be overstated. 
An informal survey conducted amongst OLAP’s volunteer base recently indicated that many of the existing volunteers are not interested in giving of their time to benefit the bottom line of Homewood. It is likely many of them will drop out and be difficult to replace, given that the volunteer relationship is directly with the EAP and no longer with a safe not-for-profit intermediary like OLAP.

The expectations of our peers, our families, our clients, and society at large serve to put additional unnecessary pressures upon lawyers that can lead to financial difficulties. The situation is even more acute for those lawyers practising outside the confines of large Bay Street firms, particularly sole practitioners, whose presence as defendants at LSUC discipline hearings is over-represented, perhaps due to their vulnerability to the pressures of the profession.

Also, no significant transitional period has been arranged to move the existing hundreds of clients from OLAP- Shepell to Homewood. What is the emotional and health related costs to those individuals? OLAP has provided services on a continuous basis for over 35 years and it is important that these services remain in place. The integrity of our profession demands it.                                                                                                      

      I know of what I speak. After fifteen years of professional and financial success, I ended up in a three year spiral of addiction and depression which cost me my health, my savings, much of my professional reputation, and scared (and scarred) my children. I shudder to think of where the bottom would have been had I kept falling down into the abyss. OLAP was the life raft that saved me when I was near drowning. From my first meeting with an OLAP case worker who made me feel safe, secure, let me know I wasn’t alone, that lots of members of our profession go through this, to the contact with volunteer lawyer peer counselors, to the excellent services provided through Shepell, I was able to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the first time in several years. An action plan was developed with the OLAP case worker which involved divesting myself of my practice and taking concerted steps daily to ensure I would recover and get back to the person and professional I had always been.

Today, I am happier and healthier than at any time in my 45 years. My children are happier as I am a more attentive parent. My professional reputation is restored; my law practice is busier and more lucrative than ever. I am a better father, son, friend, and boss than I ever was, and the next woman to marry me will get a version of me that neither of my ex-wives would believe possible. I owe it all to the initial visit with OLAP one winter day in 2009. My story is not unique.

In the last year, I personally know of two lawyers who attempted suicide, several with degenerative genetic illnesses that have hindered their ability to properly service their clients, many who have gone through divorce, a scarily large number who show the signs of depression, and many more who used to be able to pay their bills but cannot seem to find their footing in this new economic reality. There are tens of thousands of lawyers in Ontario. That means thousands in need of OLAP’s services.

LSUC’s decision to essentially abolish OLAP is myopic. It is not just lawyers in distress who will suffer, but the very public LSUC claims to protect, and the very image of the profession it governs. Perhaps the Attorney General as the guardian of the public interest should look into LSUC’s decision.