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 M A R C H 2 0 1 8 11 However, earlier this year, the LSA officially re-thought its opposition to Tradebank bartering. It says it has "had the opportunity to conduct additional research [and] our position on this matter has changed." Now, bartering legal services through reputable online sources is OK with Alberta's law society. The LSA, however, does add a brisk reminder that such income must be reported to Canada Revenue Agency. Alberta may well be a leader in offi- cially sanctioning limited online bar- tering. In Manitoba, the law society has not issued any public position on the practice. But the society's director of regulation, Leah Kosokowsky, says they have cautioned Manitoba practitioners who have made inquiries. She says lawyers "still have to comply with all professional guidelines." These include, of course, proper accounting and scru- pulously protecting client confidenti- ality. "Sometimes," says Kosokowsky, "with online bartering, a lawyer risks disclosing a client's identity through naming their company." Last fall, the Law Society of Sas- katchewan prohibited the use of Trade- bank or like systems. The basic prob- lem, says the LSS's executive director, Tim Brown, is that these online systems "do not meet the requirements of a sav- ings institution" as set out in the Law Society Rules. However, Saskatchewan's law society is not closing the door to online bartering completely. Brown says the LSS has "scheduled a meeting with Law Society of Alberta staff to learn more about the research and the rea- soning that has led them to this change in position. We may discover that this is something we want to revisit." As for the Law Society of the North- west Territories, it remains opposed to Tradebank or similar arrangements and has explicitly banned such conduct. Canada's largest law society, the Law Society of Ontario, makes no specific reference to bartering, online or other- wise, in its Rules of Professional Con- duct. There have been several cases before the Ontario courts in which bartering of legal services has been a factor, but there has never been any indication that bartering in itself is ille- gal or improper. Most recently, a 2005 Ontario Court of Appeal case grew out of an exchange of services arrangement between a lawyer and dentist that went very wrong. But, in that case, the act of bartering professional services was not at issue and the court made no obser- vations about the actual act of barter- ing legal services. However, bartering — or, at least, an attempted barter — of legal ser- vices did play a central role in a 2012 LSO disciplinary hearing into a sexual harassment complaint against a Toron- to lawyer. In its judgment, the panel explicitly stated — perhaps stating the obvious — that legal "services are not to be bartered for sexual favours." — GEOFF ELLWAND \ AT L A N T I C \ C E N T R A L \ W E S T REGIONAL WRAP-UP YOUR COMPETITIVE EDGE. DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX. The Lawyer's Daily only from LexisNexis lexisnexis.ca/thelawyersdaily-cl Breaking news In-depth analysis Customized content mvb]_Ѵ1oll;m|-u $_;-;uĽv -bѴķ|_;bmmo-ঞ;m;vvou1;=uol;bv;bv-m-7-bv|_; ]oŊ|ou;vou1;=ouѴ;]-Ѵruo=;vvbom-ѴvѴoohbm]=ou|_;lov|1uu;m|-m7u;Ѵ;-m| bm7v|ubm=oul-ঞomĺ $_;0;v|r-u|ĵ$_;-;uĽv -bѴ7o;vmĽ|fv||;ѴѴo|_;m;vĸ;ruob7;Ĺ Ŏm-Ѵvbv-m7bmvb]_|om;;7|om7;uv|-m7|_;blr-1|b|bѴѴ_-;omoŋ -m7ou1Ѵb;m|v Ŏ$_;1olr;ঞঞ;;7];|_-|bѴѴ;m-0Ѵ;o|o];|-_;-7ķ-m7v|--_;-7 Ŏ$-bѴou;71om|;m|-m77;Ѵb;uorঞomvŋ0-u;-o=ru-1ঞ1;ķ-m7b-;0vb|;ņ m;vѴ;;uņ-Ѵ;u|vou-m1ol0bm-ঞom|_;u;o= "0v1ub0;|o$_;-;uĽv -bѴ|o7-Ĵ ntitled-3 1 2018-02-13 4:14 PM

• Cover