Canadian Lawyer InHouse

MAY/JUNE 2018 8 INHOUSE News Roundup you're small, don't think you don't have a role to play; focus on your niche. I think this was fantastic," he said. Some in-house counsel suggested the pri- vate practice lawyers should consider pre- senting other ways they could differentiate themselves. Asha Daniere, executive vice president of business and legal and business affairs at Blue Ant Media, said she wanted to know what the firms are doing to put more women and minorities in partner positions. "And not just talking about it — what ex- actly are you doing?" she said. "I also want to know about any truly alter- native ways of looking at fee arrangements. What's happening in in-house departments around the country and internationally is we are hiring more senior and more high-priced in-house counsel and we're doing that be- cause we don't want to rely on outside coun- sel, so it's incumbent on law firms to come up with a way to provide services to us at rates that don't make it prohibitive," she said. Leola Pon of the Toronto District School board was pitched by Stockwoods LLP and, although the firm is already doing some work for the TDSB, she said she discovered through the pitch much more about them. Gerald Chan, partner with Stockwoods, said he found it "encouraging" to see the commitment from the large number of com- panies that participated in the event, which he hopes will spur the law firms to become more progressive when it comes to diversity. Andrea Cotroneo, vice president and gen- eral counsel of Capital One, reiterated what many said, which was that the lawyers should pitch themselves first, then their law firms. "I want to hear about you first, then your firm. My philosophy for using external counsel is that it's all about relationships. It's all about how we are going to work to- gether and what kind of value you're going to bring, certainly, to the bank. I do want to hear about you and your practice area be- fore I hear about every great thing your firm does across the country," Cotroneo said. IH Bitter anniversary for Quebec lawyers I t was just over one year ago that the Quebec government passed a law that forced the province's 1,100 civil law- yers and notaries back to work after a four- month general strike, the longest in Can- adian public service history. But the head of the lawyers' union says time hasn't taken the sting out of the collective slap his members received when the law was passed following a marathon 24-hour debate in the National Assembly on Feb. 28, 2017. Marc Dion says they are still hoping for retribution in two ongoing legal actions against the Quebec government, as well as a chance to voice their displeasure anew in this fall's provincial election. "Being treated the way we were leaves marks," says Dion, a Quebec civil lawyer since 1989 — the last 20 in the attorney general's office at the Montreal courthouse — and president of Les avocats et notaires de l'État Québécois. "Our members are liv- ing in a state of profound moroseness." Dion pointed to the results of a recent poll that found nearly three-quarters of LANEQ's members have "perplexed feel- ings" with regards to their employer. More than half of respondents said they would take a job elsewhere if the opportun- ity arose. Only one third considered the govern- ment an "employer of choice." A similarly low 39 per cent expressed pride working for government, and only 43 per cent said they were "motivated in their work." One bright note, says Dion, was that nearly half of respondents said they felt closer to their colleagues as a result of pick- eting together outdoors during the cold fall and winter months. He also believes morale among his mem- bers will greatly improve if and when they win either or both of the two legal cases the LANEQ launched against the Quebec government following the strike. One is a complaint for negotiating in bad faith that was filed with Quebec's labour relations board, the Tribunal administratif du travail. In its 40-page submission in that case, which has already had eight days of hearings, including an appearance earlier this month by former Quebec Treasury Board minister Pierre Moreau, the LANEQ contends that both the Quebec government and the prov- ince's revenue ministry, which is a separate legal entity, acted in bad faith during negotia- tions before, during and after the strike. The LANEQ is asking for repayment of both the $4 million it spent from its strike fund and an $8-million loan it took out during the strike, as well as a $15,000 puni- tive payment to each of its members. In the other case, which is an applica- tion in appeal judicial review — Demande de Pourvoi en Controle Judiciaire — being heard before the Superior Court of Quebec in Montreal, the LANEQ is challenging the legality of the back-to-work legislation that came into effect on March 1, 2017. A preliminary hearing was held in the case this past March. The union contends the law contravenes article 2d of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. "We are arguing that the law is illegal because it imposes conditions and does not allow discussions over the mechanisms of negotiations, which for us is the heart of the whole issue," says Dion. Though money was the main public focus of the lawyers' contract demands (a pay in- crease of 10 per cent over four years, the same conditions an arbitrator awarded Quebec's 450 Crown counsel), Dion says the real driver that triggered the civil lawyers' strike on Oct. 24, 2016 — and fuelled their desire to stay out even after the LANEQ's war chest was depleted and many members were in dire per- sonal financial straits — was their indignation over the government's refusal to grant them the same right to a binding arbitration pro- cess in exchange for the right to strike as they did to the province's 450-member Crown attorneys' union (the Association des procur- eurs aux poursuites criminelles et pénales). Moreau only added salt to the civil law- yers' wounds when he argued publicly in 2015 as treasury board president that they don't require the same level of independ- ence in the determination of their working conditions as Crown attorneys. The desire to change their negotiation I also want to know about any truly alternative ways of looking at fee arrangements

• Cover