Canadian Lawyer

Regional wrap-up Law group v. law firm L egal grouping is growing in B.C. as a business model providing benefits over the traditional law firm structure and also giving new definition to what "group" means. The Access Law Group in Vancouver, now 12 lawyers strong, has had its model in place for years and shows no sign of slowing down. "It's a group of lawyers but not a traditional partnership — although we try to function like a partnership," says Access Law's Phil Dougan. All the lawyers have separate professional companies but share expenses and office space, which is spread over two half-floors of a downtown Vancouver office building where Access' 30 staff are housed. "But, we function as a united front," said Dougan, with the various lawyers having specific expertise. The benefits are many — including financial. "In a traditional law firm, the yelling and screaming comes when they start to decide how the profits are shared," he says. That doesn't happen at Access; each group lawyer simply pays a share of the overhead and costs and then takes home what he or she has earned. "Some lawyers work incredibly long hours and others do not. We have one who is a single dad, so he wants to spend time with his little guy," says Dougan, who himself is a father of eight and likes the work-life balance the group structure provides. "No one gets upset here if you say you are going to take a mental health day tomorrow, as long as you don't have a court date." Valkyrie Law Group LLP advertises itself as having "adopted the innovative approach of being entirely virtual, such that we have no central office nor the associated overhead with a central office." Instead, the five female partners are situated throughout the Lower Mainland. Partner Sonia Sahota says the group in the firm's name refers to the "law firm of five lawyer partners." More firms are using it to describe a variety of services, many of which focus in-house rather than traditional meanings such as a multi-branch firm or associated firms that have banded together such as the MacIsaac Group of Law Firms, founded in 1990, with B.C. and Alberta offices. 12 august 2013 www.CANADIAN Magellan Law Group LLP partner Don Burrell says "group" for his firm conveys the message this is a group of lawyers providing a group of services. "We emphasize a holistic approach and try to deal with the whole problem," he notes, adding the firm is known for its business expertise. "When someone comes to us to incorporate a business, we try to provide full service," he says, adding this may involve also drafting a shareholders' agreement and ensuring the client is apprised of downstream problems. Dougan, who graduated law school at 42, says he watched younger law students scrambling to gain a partnership at a large traditional firm and accept limited wages until that goal is reached. "They are working 18-hour days and in on weekends. It becomes a culture. But, it is not sustainable," he says, adding it leads to lawyers who burn out, leave the profession, or who make "a pile of money but have no one to share it with." Access appeals to younger lawyers, as the profits earned are not creaming off to be divvied up by senior members. The newer lawyers still have the support of others in the group, but also the opportunity to develop their own areas of expertise as lawyers within the group share files. Access doesn't compete with larger traditional firms. There is, instead, a symbiotic relationship, says Dougan, including Meaning of 'government activity' at heart of RCMP class action W hile it seems a no-brainer, the question the B.C. Supreme Court will have to decide during certification arguments for Canada's first gender-based class action brought against the RCMP is whether the country's national police force is bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an employer. The question of the RCMP's duty was brought forward in an early June hearing where the defendants, the attorney general of Canada and the minister of Justice of B.C., tried unsuccessfully to get their objections heard at a July court date that would strike down portions of the statement of claim filed by former RCMP constable Janet Merlo. The defendant's July hearing pre-dated the certification hearing. The defendants' position, as summarized in the June reasons, is that "no Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms claim is possible because the activity alleged is not a government activity." The governments also argue there is no possible claim for breach of con- L a w ye r m a g . c o m tract because no contract of employment exists between the RCMP and the federal Crown. They state no direct claim of negligence is possible in law against the federal or provincial government. A final argument is Merlo has waited too long to file her statement of claim, filing more than two years after leaving the force. Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper ruled there would not be a separate hearing to argue the defendants' points as it could delay proceedings with appeals, add costs to the process, and not promote a settlement. "I do not see any advantage in hearing the defendants' motion before the certification hearing. The motion must be considered in the context of a class proceeding, and the most efficient means of hearing it is in the certification application," Gropper wrote. The decision was seen as a success for the plaintiff's co-counsel from Klein Lyons of Vancouver and Watkins Law in Thunder Bay, Ont. "It is what we wanted and what we asked the courts for and that the certification hearing should not

• Cover