Canadian Lawyer

10 O C T O B E R 2 0 1 5 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m \ AT L A N T I C \ C E N T R A L \ W E S T REGIONAL WRAP-UP disorders. I suspect they greatly over diag- nose this and at the same time underes- timate the impact of situational stress on those going through the litigation process." Huffer says the stresses are there for lawyers as well and many have told her about struggling to do their work. "I had an attorney write to me and say: 'Until I read your book, I didn't know why I'd get all ready for court but when I walked through the door, a dark cloud came over me and I didn't know what to do,'" she says. Huffer trains people to coach those who are going through high-pressure liti- gation and negotiations to "help keep them going and help them not succumb. Most accommodations for invisible disabilities cost nothing. It amounts to simple kind- ness and common consideration," she says, noting it's sometimes just a matter of giv- ing somebody a break. While the trauma of litigation can have a "real and potentially profound" impact on people, therapist Doron Gold says he'd distinguish between clients and counsel when talking about the consequences of high-stress litigation. "One signed up for this and one didn't," says Gold, who assists lawyers in his practice. "I'm not saying legal professionals deserve to suffer, but cli- ents are just trying to get their lives straight and the legal system is forced upon them." Lawyers are in a different situation. "Legal professionals went to law school and submitted themselves to the process," he says. "If it turns out that the process is harmful to them and they have to back out or get help, that seems to me a fundamen- tally different experience than the clients who are dealing with a sacred public trust, which is the justice system." — YAMRI TADDESE yamri.taddese@thomsonreuters.com A Law Society of Upper Canada appeal panel last month reduced a Toronto real estate lawyer's disbarment to a two-year suspen- sion in a split decision that centred on how much weight lengthy delays should be given in penalty considerations. The law society first contacted lawyer John Abbott about a mortgage fraud com- plaint in 2007, but more than six years had passed before the regulator commenced a discipline hearing in the matter. In the years between 2007 and 2013, LSUC investigators made "requests that were needlessly repeated, apparently due to the succession of investigators who handled the file," according to the majority's finding on appeal. In the 2-3 decision, the majority found the hearing panel, in deciding to disbar Abbott for knowingly assist- ing in mortgage fraud based on willful blindness, failed to put sufficient weight on the "extraordinary delay that took place here." On behalf of the majority, Raj Anand wrote: "While the hearing division took the law society's delay into account, the panel did not give proper consideration to the multi-faceted impact of this delay on the public interest. Together with other aspects of its reasons in support of revocation of the applicant's licence, the hearing division erred in law by failing to give proper significance to the delay factor." The hearing panel had found Abbott did not demonstrate "exceptional circum- stances" that would mitigate his penalty. In its 30-page ruling, the majority suggests the exceptional circumstances requirement should be considered more broadly. The panel should have considered prejudice not just to the lawyer but the administra- tion of self-regulation, the majority said. The decision is "remarkable," says Abbott's counsel James Morton. "I think the thing that was most striking was that they took delay standing alone and they raised it to a major consideration in terms of penalty. There have been cases where delay has been taken into account, but to move from revocation — which we said was not appropriate — to a sus- pension is a very major step." Morton adds if the majority's decision stands, it will be significant "to more than just the law society. I think it has implica- tions in other self-regulated bodies." — YT T imes are tough in Fort McMurray, Alta., a city familiar with boom and with bust. Not only the big oil companies are hurting but so are all Fort McMurray businesses that depend on those companies to keep the city's economy turning. And, no surprise, its law firms are feeling the pinch along with everyone else. Take the case of Colwin Lemieux LLP, a criminal law firm that operates in Fort McMurray and Edmon- ton. Leon Colwin, a former Crown prosecutor, and Jonathan Lemieux, a criminal lawyer originally from New Brunswick, formed a partnership and opened their doors in May 2014. At the time, the price of oil was more than US$105 a barrel. But by June 2014, what would become a precipitous price slide had begun. The business of law takes a hit in Fort McMurray Leon Colwin and Jonathan Lemieux APPEAL PANEL REDUCES DISBARMENT TO SUSPENSION DUE TO LENGTHY DELAYS Court process traumatizing lawyers and litigants Continued from page 9 W E S T

• Cover