Archive for the ‘legal profession’ Category

« Older Entries

CONTENT! CONTENT! CONTENT!

April 8, 2013

Content-is-King.jpg

CONTENT!

Here are some random tweets from the Law Marketing Association 2013 conference using the #LMA13 hashtag:

@SatikZekian: Use relevant keywords in image filenames, separated by dashes not underscores.

@BradNeese: Put together a content editorial calendar.

@Heather_Morse: Search Yahoo Answers for content ideas. Cross check Google to see if anyone is blogging on that.

@BradNeese: Search results: Blue link is title tag; Meta description is description in link.

All thought-leading ideas to optimize your SEO social media law marketing strategy and an effective way to monetize your brand in order to generate leads, drive traffic and improve your Google ranking for your website or blog.

Oh, did I forget to mention CONTENT!?!

CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT. CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT 

Any questions? Are you content or malcontent with the contents?

Not to worry, new clients should be calling you on your iPhone to retain you in 3-2-1….

Posted in #LMA13, blawging, blawgs, blog, Flawg, Flawging, Flawgosphere, law, Law Tech, lawyer, lawyers, legal education, Legal Ethics, legal marketing, legal practice, legal profession, legal publishing, Legal Technology, LinkedIn, social knowledge, social media, technology | 3 Comments »

Alan Dershowitz aims for a Reversal of Fortune for Lawyers with Viewabill

March 12, 2013

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…)

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in attorney client privilege, client, confidentiality, law, Law Tech, lawyer, lawyers, legal practice, legal profession, Privileges, Viewabill | 5 Comments »

20 Years of Practice and All I Got What This Stupid Plaque

February 5, 2013

This Saturday (February 9th, 2013) mark my 20th year of practice since my call to the Ontario Bar in 1993.

I could take up this post talking about my experiences—my noble victories and my ignoble defeats— and what I have learned over two decades of having the privilege of membership in what I still consider a noble profession.

I could do that, but I won’t. (more…)

Tags:, ,
Posted in client, ethics, Law Society of Upper Canada, lawyer, lawyers, learning, Legal Ethics, legal practice, legal profession, professional, professionalism | 8 Comments »

Former Client Pursues Class Action Against Law Firm’s Contingency Fee Bonanza

January 24, 2013

Yamri Tadesse for Law Times reports on a proposed class action targeting a  law firm’s fees:

Cassie Hodge of Brooklin, Ont., is taking Gary Neinstein and his firm, Neinstein & Associates LLP, to court with a claim that the lawyer unlawfully included costs in a contingency agreement and charged her fees she didn’t understand. She’s seeking $1 million in punitive damages. None of the allegations have been proven in court and Neinstein has yet to file a statement of defence. His lawyer, however, argues the matter is an inappropriate one for a class action.

According to her notice of application, Hodge, a mother of two, was in a car accident in 2002 that left her with serious physical injuries. She retained Neinstein as a lawyer and signed an agreement that said she’d pay him 25 per cent of the damages recovered in addition to partial indemnity costs and disbursements.

But she didn’t receive a copy of the agreement, her counsel Peter Waldmann says.

Here’s the math:

Settlement amount: $150,000.00
Law Firm’s Cut: (Legal fees and party and party costs) $ 60,000.00 (-)
Disbursements: $ 50,000.00 (-)
Third Party Litigation Loan:

-Principal of $19,500 @ 26% per annum interest

 $ 32,000.00 (-)
Plaintiff’s Recovery: $ 8,000.00

Still, Neinstein’s counsel, Chris Palaire has a point:

The complainants may pursue other remedies for their claims, but they don’t include a class action, says Paliare.

“That’s the position we’ve had since the outset. That’s not to say that [Waldmann’s] client or clients, if they have more, don’t have an alternative remedy.”

This lawyer-client dispute puts into contrast two access to justice paradigms: Contingency fee retainer agreements regulated under the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c S.15,  and class actions governed by the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c 6 and Rule 12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194.

Whether this dispute is certified as a class action will depend on a number of factors, most notably, whether the class is identifiable.  However, the Solicitor’s Act is unequivocal that any additional recovery of costs from the proceeding may not be paid to the lawyer unless section 28(8) of the Solicitor’s Act is complied with:

Agreement not to include costs except with leave

(8)  A contingency fee agreement shall not include in the fee payable to the solicitor, in addition to the fee payable under the agreement, any amount arising as a result of an award of costs or costs obtained as part of a settlement, unless,

(a) the solicitor and client jointly apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for approval to include the costs or a proportion of the costs in the contingency fee agreement because of exceptional circumstances; and

(b) the judge is satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply and approves the inclusion of the costs or a proportion of them. 2002, c. 24, Sched. A, s. 4.

Enforceability of greater maximum amount of contingency fee

(9)  A contingency fee agreement that is subject to approval under subsection (6) or (8) is not enforceable unless it is so approved. 2002, c. 24, Sched. A, s. 4.

Stay tuned.

Posted in access to justice, Access-to-Justice theory, class action, class actions, client, law, Law Times, lawyer, lawyers, legal education, legal practice, legal profession, Procedural Justice, procedural rights, Solicitors Act | Leave a Comment »

Does a lawyer’s duty of care extend to reviewing applicable limitation periods with a client?

January 22, 2013

Lawyer and Client - Cartoon

Does a lawyer’s duty of care extend to reviewing applicable limitation periods with a client?

The Court of Appeal for Ontario says: “No”:

[1] The appellant raises two issues on this appeal.

[2] First, she says the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent was not obliged to reduce to writing that he was not retained to act on the tort and accident benefit claims. We do not agree.

[3] Given the basis on which this appeal proceeded it is clear that the trial judge found as a fact that the appellant, despite her health challenges, understood what she had and had not retained the respondent for. There was no basis in the evidence, given these facts, to extend the respondent’s duty of care to putting in writing what the appellant already understood, namely that she had not retained him for the tort and accident benefit claims.

[4] Second, the appellant says that the trial judge erred in failing to decide whether the respondent’s duty of care extended to reviewing the applicable limitation periods with her.

[5] Again, we do not agree. The trail judge found that the appellant had not established that the respondent’s duty to her extended to this and had called no expert evidence that would suggest otherwise. There is no basis for us to interfere with that finding. Moreover, the trial judge clearly found as a fact that the respondent had reviewed the limitation periods with her thereby satisfying any duty had one been found to exist.

[6] In all the circumstances the appeal must be dismissed, with costs fixed at $6,000 in total in favour of the respondent.

Broesky v. Lüst, 2012 ONCA 701 (Ont. C.A.) per Goudge, Simmons and Juriansz JJ.A.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in client, duty of care, law of limitations, LawPRO, lawyer, lawyers, legal practice, legal profession | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,587 other followers

%d bloggers like this: