Canadian Lawyer - sample

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 Y 2 0 1 8 35 "We're obviously a young firm with lawyers that come from a large firm envi- ronment," says Gilliland, whose practice spans commercial litigation, defamation and privacy law. Gilliland says he also does a lot of litiga- tion for clients in the auto-manufacturing business and transportation, including class actions. Having a three-person boutique spawned out of a large firm like Blakes, Gilliland says, is a collaboration that's new to him and an asset to his firm. "It's not like, in a large firm, I'd be a few steps removed in many cases from working with younger associates. Here, of course, we're working together directly," he says. "That's an important distinction for younger associates. I think it's com- mon not to boutiques generally but to smaller boutiques like ours." Gilliland has a wide commercial liti- gation practice, is the former president of the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society and has experience advising clients in privacy and cybersecurity. But he is most recognizable to the public for his representation of media companies, including the Toronto Star during the Rob Ford crack scandal. More recently, Gilliland represented Metroland Durham Media Group in its successful opposition of a sweeping pub- lication ban on the trial for the Pickering murder of Carmela Knight. The lawyers for one of the two men charged in the murder sought a publication ban on his client's co-accused so as to prevent those proceedings from affecting his client's case, arguing that it might create bias and harm the accused's right to a fair trial. Gilliland argued that blacking out the whole trial was extreme and juror vetting and the standard instructions to disregard media reports and focus on the evidence would suffice, according to Metroland Durham Region. Recent highlights for top civil litiga- tion firm Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP both involve civility. One is the professional misconduct proceedings against prominent securities litigator Joseph Groia; the other is the uncivil use of Chief Wahoo, the red-faced, wide- eyed mascot of the Cleveland Indians baseball team. Lenczner Slaght litigates a broad range of areas, with commercial litiga- tion, health law and intellectual property being its three biggest areas of practice. "We're mostly a group of generalists," says managing partner Tom Curry. "We have some specific practice areas, but we like to maintain a generalist's approach. That's a big advantage, I think. I would also say that, within the civil litigation bar, we like to be in court. So, we have that actual experience — courtroom experience — to draw on." Lenczner Slaght litigators are serv- ing as counsel to Douglas Cardinal, the Ontario architect who has filed human rights complaints in Ontario and feder- ally against Major League Baseball, the Cleveland Indians and Rogers Commu- nications. Cardinal argued that subjecting Indigenous Canadians to the image of the grinning, feather-donned Chief Wahoo and the name "Indians" is racial discrimination and counter to human rights codes, which prohibit discrimina- tion in the delivery of a service. Cardinal also unsuccessfully sought an injunction during the 2016 ALCS between the Jays and Indians, to prevent any broadcast of the mascot and team name in Canada. Curry took over the role of managing Lenczner Slaght in January. He says the case will continue through 2018, but the Cleveland Indians have recently added to the drama, announcing they will no lon- ger use Chief Wahoo. Lenczner Slaght is also involved in the 17-years-and-counting civility battle between Groia and the Law Society of Ontario. In 2011, the law society found he engaged in incivility while defending John Felderhof of Bre-X Minerals and the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. Civil or not, Groia's defence of Felderhof was successful, as he was acquitted of insider trading and autho- rizing misleading news releases. The case highlights the balance between courtroom civility and the right of those accused of crimes to have fear- less and zealous advocates, as well as between law societies and trial judges, when it comes to regulating the court- room. Part of the controversy is born from the fact that the trial judge didn't make a complaint; the law society took it on itself to get involved. "That appeal has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of civility, the responsibility of a lawyer to behave in accordance with the rules of professional misconduct and the issue is whether those duties are inconsis- tent with the responsibility of a lawyer to be a zealous advocate," Curry says. Citing an arbitration that has lasted almost as long as Groia's, Irwin Nathanson of Vancouver's Nathanson Schachter & Thompson LLP says that, although more clients seek arbitration these days, its benefits are not always what they seem. "The benefit of arbitration is you get to pick your judge, you get to have a much earlier hearing, we have the theory that it will be quicker, but it isn't necessarily so for complex matters," Nathanson says. He points to JEL Investments Ltd. v. Boxer Capital Corporation, Yanco Man- agement Ltd. and Chung Properties Ltd. as an example, the case taking 13 years to resolve. But, he says, the case is a testa- ment to the service his firm provides. "Most litigants can't manage a 13-year battle," Nathanson says. He says that the volume of documents involved in cases now is a "marked depar- ture" from 20 years ago and technologies such as e-discovery are increasingly nec- essary. "It's very important and big cases, you know, one can get overwhelmed with Canadian Lawyer asked lawyers, in-house counsel and clients from across Canada to vote on the top civil litigation and criminal law boutiques. They were asked to rank their top firms from a preliminary list, with a chance to nominate a firm that was not included on the list. To be considered in the vote, firms were required to have at least 80 per cent of their business come from civil litigation or criminal law. The final rankings were determined through a points system, in which firms were rewarded on a sliding scale for the number of first to 10th-place votes received. HOW WE DID IT

• Cover