Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m A p r i l 2 0 1 4 7 RegIonal wRap-up AtlAntic letters to the editor M cInnes Cooper is now the largest law firm in New- foundland. The regional firm, with six offices across Atlantic Canada, recently added 20 more lawyers in St. John's, the result of a merger with Ottenheimer Baker, the largest independent law firm in Newfoundland and Labrador. McInnes Cooper now has a total of 48 lawyers in the province, which puts it in top spot among the region's three biggest firms. Demand drove the merger, says Ray Adlington, McInnes Cooper's manag- ing partner and chief executive officer. "Revenue from Newfoundland and Lab- rador has climbed dramatically over the past few years. . . . Our goal was to expand our ability to serve our clients. We had reached capacity." The firm anticipates the need for capacity will only grow as the province is planning $18 billion in capital proj- ects. "We want to be positioned to take advantage of that," says Adlington. Bringing Ottenheimer Baker into the fold will give McInnes Cooper more than increased numbers. "We have complementary expertise," Adlington says. "There were very, very few con- flicts." The firms were also known to one another on a face-to-face basis; they shared space in the same St. John's office building. "The lawyers knew each other well," says Adlington. For McInnes Cooper, which now has more than 200 lawyers in four provinc- es, the merger marks the first in New- foundland and Labrador in more than a decade. In 2000, the firm acquired Chalker Green & Rowe, an established St. John's firm. Further mergers within the province are not anticipated, says Adlington. "I can see further expansion but it will be more organic. We are open to discussing options." McInnes Cooper's numbers may have gone up in Newfoundland and Labrador, but have declined in Prince Edward Island. It has officially ended its five-year agreement with Key McKnight & Maynard, effectively closing its Sum- merside office. While not a merger, the two firms were working together. "We mutually concluded we were not meet- ing strategic directives," says Adlington. "We recognized we don't need to have a Summerside office, and the Summerside partners didn't need McInnes Cooper to achieve their objectives." — DoNALee MouLtoN donalee@quantumcommunications.ca McInnes cooper grows and shrInks Demand drove the merger with Ottenheimer Baker, says Ray Adlington. Alive and well in response to the column of Dera Nevin ["Filling a gap," January 2014, Canadian lawyer], the undersigned advise that Working Group 7 of the Sedona Conference (Sedona Canada), which is composed entirely of busy volunteers and with a membership open to all who are interested, is alive and well. While somewhat delayed, Sedona Canada expects to have a revision to the "Commentary on proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery" available for public comment later this year. A more detailed description of the activities of Working Group 7, together with its publications, past and proposed, can be found on the online version of Canadian lawyer, together with a more detailed response to Ms. Nevin's comments. — THE HONOURABLE COLIN L. CAMPBELL and JIM T. SWANSON, CO-CHAIRS, WORKING GROUP 7 18 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 4 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m T he somewhat confus- ingly named Sedona Conference may matter more to most litigators than they realize. The Sedona Conference is not actually a conference in Sedona, Ariz., but a U.S.- based charitable research and education- al institute dedicated to the advancement of law and policy arising largely (though not exclusively) from e-discovery. The Sedona Conference has a Canadian chapter, the Sedona Conference Working Group 7 (also called Sedona Canada). Full disclosure: I have been a member of the Sedona Conference Working Group 7 since 2010. Its mission is to "create forward- looking principles and best practice recommendations for lawyers, courts, businesses, and others who regularly confront e-discovery issues in Canada." Membership in the Sedona Conference Working Group 7 is available to anyone eligible to join the Sedona Conference, and who pays the annual fees and joins the working group, which convenes peri- odic meetings by phone and, less fre- quently, in-person meetings, or confer- ences. The Sedona Canada Principles is per- haps the best-known work of Working Group 7, and arguably one of the most important e-discovery documents pub- lished in Canada. It was released in early 2008 (in both English and French) and is considered the authoritative source of guidance for Canadian practitioners. It is explicitly referenced in the amendments to the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and practice directives that went into effect in January 2010. In many ways, the Sedona Canada Principles articulate procedural e-discovery law in Ontario. Sedona Canada has also published several documents for public com- ment, including: The Sedona Canada Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Disclosure and Discovery, Pub. Cmt. Version (Oct. 2010); The Sedona Canada Commentary on Practical Approaches for Cost Containment, Pub. Cmt. Version (April 2011); and The Sedona Canada Commentary on Enforcing Letters Rogatory, Pub. Cmt. Version (June 2011). All materials published by Working Group 7 are available on CanLII. Notwithstanding these accomplish- ments, the activities of Sedona Canada and the working group itself have been criticized. Two of these criticisms, that Sedona Canada is irrelevant and insular, are related. I speculate both arise from the inconsistent distribution of Sedona Canada materials to litigators. Consider the criticism that the work of Working Group 7 is irrelevant. Although the Sedona Canada Principles are widely cited, and sometimes individual princi- ples themselves are quoted (including in decisions and endorsements), the extent to which they are read and understood is not known. Few people can identify all the principles, and many practitioners do not even know how many there are (there are 12). I also question the extent to which the principles, recommenda- tions, and best practices articulated in these documents are actually followed in practice. The irrelevance label may be more formal than substantive. While some litigators may not be able to recite the Sedona Canada Principles chapter and verse, there is anecdotal evidence their publication has had important effects on practice. Most notably, the principle of proportionality runs through all docu- ments prepared by Working Group 7 and proportionality is now a watchword for discovery efforts and decisive in the disposition of many discovery motions. Improving communication and educa- tion about the principles and the group's other publications would probably resolve much criticism about irrelevance. The criticism that Sedona Canada is insular may arise from the perception it is an "invitation only" group, or there procedural e-discovery law in Ontario. ples themselves are quoted (including in BY DERA J. NEVIN TECH SUPPORT Filling a gap What is the Sedona Conference Working Group 7, and why does it matter? The Sedona Canada Principles are available at: tinyurl.com/sedonacanada. CL_Jan_14.indd 18 13-12-16 3:38 PM

• Cover