David Zax at Fast Company reports on “How Alan Dershowitz And Two Entrepreneurs Will Disrupt Billable Hours: Viewabill brings radical transparency to the attorney-client relationship”: (more…)
Archive for the ‘confidentiality’ Category
Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario in Martin v. ConCreate USL Limited Partnership, 2013 ONCA 72 (“ConCreate”) confirms that restrictive covenants in commercial agreements without a fixed term are unenforceable.
The tl;dr version: Restrictive covenants of indefinite duration and subject to consent of indeterminate third parties are unenforceable. (more…)
In “Where’s the Proof?” , Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice addresses the disturbing trend among U.S. law schools in no longer making Evidence courses a compulsory part of the law school curriculum. Greenfield posits,
Is this really the limited understanding that new lawyers have of their profession? Can they possible think so small and grasp so little?
The teaching of evidence in law school is not in anticipation of someone being a litigator. Granted, it is absolutely required for a litigator, and especially for a trial lawyer, but that’s not where it ends. Knowledge and understanding of evidence is a core competency for every niche (read that clearly, every niche) in the practice of law. Yes, M&A. Even real estate closings and wills. Multinational contracts. You name it, you still need to know evidence. Why? Because every aspect of law entails a potential of dispute leading to litigation. Any lawyer who doesn’t comprehend evidence cannot competently perform his function.
If nothing else, the concepts of relevance and materiality are basic to thinking like a lawyer. If you don’t get them, you can’t think. You can’t reason. You can’t understand things the way a lawyer must.
The Canadian law school experience is disturbingly similar. (more…)
Today’s Court of Appeal for Ontario judgment in Citi Cards Canada Inc. v. Pleasance, 2011 ONCA 3 (Ont. C.A.) is an important victory for judgment debtors and upholds debtor privacy rights under Ontario’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, (“PIPEDA”). The appeal dealt with the issue of whether a judgment creditor is entitled to obtain a mortgage statement, unrelated to the judgment debt, from a third-party creditor of the debtor so that the judgment creditor is able to pursue a legal remedy to enforce its judgment.
The appellant, Citi Cards, held a credit card-related judgment in the amount of $11,039.77 against the respondent, Pleasance , which it sought to enforce via a sheriff’s sale of the Pleasance home. The Sheriff refused to enforce the writ of execution unless provided with mortgage discharge statements from the mortgagees of the property, The Canada Trust Company and The Toronto-Dominion Bank; neither of whom were willing to disclose without prior written consent of the mortgagors.
The application judge dismissed Citi Cards’ application for an order requiring the mortgagees to produce the statements on the basis that they contained “personal information” of the judgment debtor, which was prohibited under section 7 of PIPEDA. Price, J. further ruled that Citi Cards had an alternative remedy under Rule 60.18(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine the debtor’s wife, who was also joint owner of the home. The application was adjourned to allow her to be be served with notice of the proceeding, since her privacy interests were potentially affected as well. (more…)