The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50818
is only for cases "where there has been reprehensible, scandalous, or outra- geous conduct." But the judge decided, "the allegations in the pleadings in this case do not support an award of sub- stantial indemnity costs." Springer was called to the Ontario bar in April 1986 and worked at the Outerbridge firm until November 1998. He moved on to Aird & Berlis, where he specialized in insolvency litigation and restructuring. He became a partner in January 1990, which he remained until leaving in 2002 to run a start-up private equity restructuring company. Springer argued he should have received more money through the firm's compensa- tion scheme based on his performance. In January 1999, he received 185 part- nership units and 65 bonus units for "extraordinary results." The value of those units was not included in the decision. In January 2000, he received 225 normal units and 200 bonus units, each worth $2,600. In January 2001, he got 400 normal units, each worth $2,895, and a cash bonus of $560,000. In January 2002, he was given 175 normal units, and on the same day advised the firm he was leaving. Springer felt he deserved 100 more units in 2001 and 325 more in 2002. Springer had previously urged the executive committee to award him more partnership units to make him on par with partner Jack Bernstein, an international tax expert recognized as the firm's top rainmaker who received the most partnership units. The costs award is on hold pending Springer's application for leave from the Ontario Court of Appeal. — ROBERT TODD rtodd@clbmedia.ca Ontario lawyers, paralegals to swear the same oath L awyers and paralegals in Ontario will now swear virtually identical oaths of office after a majority of Law Society of Upper Canada bench- ers turned down oaths with separate preambles. Bencher Susan McGrath said she felt a proposed oath for paralegals was "some- what demeaning." Paralegal Bencher Paul Dray, chairman of the paralegal standing committee, told Convocation his committee was against different language used in the preambles. "What they were proposing was that for barristers and solicitors it's an 'honour and a privilege,' but for paralegals it isn't an honour and a privilege," he said. "Our committee felt very strongly that it was an honour and a privilege to be a member of this society, to have the responsibility to the public, and the same responsi- bility. We understand the difference between lawyers and paralegals — that's very clear. But not our duties and responsibilities to the public." The LSUC's professional devel- opment and competence committee created a pair of oaths — one for bar- risters and solicitors, one for parale- gals — that its report to Convocation mittee were identical, with the excep- tion of their preambles. The barristers and solicitors oath started off with, "I accept the honour and privilege, duty and responsibility of practising law as Susan McGrath Alan Silverstein said "reflects the professional and legal distinction between lawyers and paralegals, while the remaining para- graphs reflect the common duties and responsibilities owed to clients, the judiciary, the public, and the profes- sion." The oaths proposed by the com- Paul Dray a barrister and solicitor in Ontario." The paralegals oath, however, began with, "I undertake to perform all of the duties and fulfil all of the obliga- tions required of a paralegal in the province of Ontario." Bencher Alan Silverstein, chair- man of the oath working group, told www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JULY 2009 11