AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I HATE LONG SPEECHES AND WILL TRY MY BEST TO AVOID GETTING LUMPED IN WITH THAT GROUP.

I WANT TO THANK OTLA, AND THE SELECTION COMMITTEE, FOR THIS HONOUR IN ALLOWING ME TO JOIN THE RANKS OF SO MANY FINE LITIGATORS PREVIOUSLY HONORED. 

I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, CLASSMATES, COLLEAGUES, AND SOME PLAYERS FROM MY WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS, FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

I AM NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH WAR STORIES.

SOME OF YOU MAY BE AWARE THAT I SPENT THE FIRST 33 YEARS OF MY PRACTICE AS A DEFENCE LAWYER, ACTING ON BEHALF OF INSURERS, AND THE LAST 12 AS PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL.

I AM OFTEN ASKED WHICH I PREFERRED, AND I FIND THAT TO BE AN EASY QUESTION TO ANSWER.  ASIDE FROM PERSONAL SATISFACTION IN WINNING TRIALS, THERE ISN’T MUCH MORE GRATIFICATION FLOWING TO DEFENCE COUNSEL, MONETARILY OR OTHERWISE.  IN FACT, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THEIR COUNSEL, AS OF THE EARLY 1990’S, HAS BECOME SO IMPERSONAL, AND IN MANY CASES DEGRADING, THAT IT WAS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I DECIDED TO SWITCH OVER TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ SIDE.  I HAVE HEARD THINGS HAVE GOTTEN WORSE.

WHEN I WAS A DEFENCE COUNSEL, I OFTEN ASKED MYSELF - HOW AM I SERVING SOCIETY BY DOING THIS WORK?  I AM STILL TRYING TO THINK OF AN ANSWER.

I OFTEN WOULD SUGGEST TO MYSELF THAT MAYBE I AM HELPING TO KEEP PREMIUMS DOWN, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS WITH THIS INDUSTRY.  INDEED, IN MR. HALPERN’S PAPER, IN 2009, HE POINTS OUT THAT DESPITE AN INCREASE IN REVENUE OF ALMOST DOUBLE, THAT IS, OF TWO BILLION DOLLARS, BETWEEN 2003 TO 2004, MORE THAN THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE, NEVERTHELESS THE PREMIUMS REMAINED VIRTUALLY THE SAME IN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

I HAVE FOUND GREAT SATISFACTION IN REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS.  PEOPLE COME TO US WITH THEIR LIVES IN RUINS;  THEY DON’T KNOW HOW THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES.  IF WE DO OUR JOBS, WE ARE ABLE TO PUT THEIR LIVES BACK ON TRACK FINANCIALLY, ALBEIT A POOR, BUT NECESSARY, SUBSTITUTE FOR WHAT THEIR LIVES WERE BEFOREHAND.  THE PLAINTIFFS’ BAR RENDERS AN ENORMOUS SERVICE TO SOCIETY AND WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF IT.

I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IN A SOCIAL SETTING, OR OTHERWISE, WE SIT SILENTLY BY WHEN OUR PROFESSION IS DEGRADED.  WE ARE REFERRED TO AS “AMBULANCE CHASERS” OR WORSE, COMMENTS MOSTLY INSPIRED BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN THEIR COMMERCIALS AND BY THEIR POLITICAL LACKEYS, AS BOTTOM FEEDERS.

IF ANY GROUP SHOULD BE EMBARRASED BY THEIR CHOSEN PROFESSION, IT IS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.  THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SHOT AT OUR DEFENCE COLLEAGUES.  DEFENCE WORK PROVIDES A GOOD TRAINING GROUND FOR YOUNG AND ASPIRING TRIAL LAWYERS, AND FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I CAN TELL YOU IT PROVIDES A STEPPING-STONE TO BECOMING A PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYER FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO DO SO.

I URGE ALL OF YOU REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS TO BE OPENLY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT YOU DO.  DON’T SIT THERE AND TAKE THE ABUSIVE COMMENTS;  ANSWER BACK;  EDUCATE THESE CRITICS ONE BY ONE, IF NECESSARY, AND LET THEM KNOW THE TREMENDOUS VALUE WE ADD TO THE LIVES OF SOME OF THE MOST UNFORTUNATE AMONG US.  I CERTAINLY WAS GUILTY AS A DEFENCE LAWYER OF REPEATING SOME OF THESE JOKES.  (PROFESSIONAL COURTESY/CHEQUE/JOKE).

I RECENTLY SPOKE TO THE OTLA YOUNG LAWYERS’ GROUP, WE CAN’T HOPE TO OUT SPEND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, BUT WE CAN OUT WORK THEM.  WE ALL KNOW THAT EVER SINCE NO-FAULT BEGAN WITH OMPP IN 1990, THAT WITH EVERY CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATION SINCE THEN, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND THE RECENT FIVE YEAR REVIEW, CLOSE TO 99% OF THE CHANGES, IF NOT MORE, HAVE FAVORED THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.  I CAN ONLY THINK OF TWO PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY CHANGES:  THE REMOVAL OF THE DEDUCTIBLE FOR GENERAL DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $100,000.00, AND THE ADDITION OF SINGLE AMPUTEES TO THE LIST OF THOSE DEEMED AUTOMATICALLY CATASTROPHIC.  EVERY OTHER CHANGE WAS ALLEGEDLY TO HOLD THE LINE ON, OR REDUCE PREMIUMS.  IT HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING OF THE SORT, BUT HAS MADE LIFE MORE MISERABLE FOR ACCIDENT VICTIMS.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVATION OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, WHO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS AND TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE.  BUT WHY HAVE OUR LEGISLATORS SO TOTALLY ABANDONED THOSE IN OUR SOCIETY WHO MOST NEED FAIR TREATMENT?

I DOUBT THEY ARE ALL MEAN-SPIRITED PEOPLE;  BUT THEIR SELF-INTEREST IN FINANCING THEIR RE-ELECTION SEEMS TO BE PARAMOUNT IN GUIDING THEIR DECISIONS.  IN SHORT, WE CAN’T COMPETE WITH THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES BY THE INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA AND THEIR MEMBER COMPANIES.

WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY AS AN ORGANIZATION ON TRYING TO COMPETE POLITICALLY WITH THE IBC.  AT SOME POINT, WE SHOULD CONSIDER ENSURING THAT THERE ARE COMMERCIALS THAT ARE RUN TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE GREAT SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE PLAINTIFFS’ BAR.

AS A GROUP, THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN COMBAT THE ONE-SIDED NATURE OF THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE INSURANCE ACT IS TO BECOME INVOLVED INDIVIDUALLY IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.  WORK WITH YOUR LOCAL CANADIDATES;  ORGANIZE FUNDRAISING FOR THEM;   BUT DON’T DO A THING UNTIL THEY SIGN A “GROVER NORQUIST” TYPE OF PLEDGE THAT IF ELECTED, THEY WILL NEVER VOTE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE INJURED POPULATION.

MY SECOND AREA OF CONCERN IS THE POSSIBLE DISAPPEARANCE OF SKILLED TRIAL LAWYERS, ESPECIALLY WITH JURIES, WHO OFTEN INJECT SANITY INTO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.

THE WORLD WE WORK IN HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS.  WHEN I BEGAN PRACTICING THERE WERE LOTS OF SKILLED TRIAL LAWYERS IN THE CIVIL ARENA. 

AS A STUDENT, I RECALL DOING TWO TO THREE TRIALS A DAY, IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT, FIVE DAYS A WEEK.  BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE HAD JURY TRIALS IN CASES INVOLVING $400.00 OR LESS, BUT ONLY IN THE MONTH OF JUNE. 

AS GRADUATE LAWYERS, WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO TRY PROPERTY DAMAGE CASES, SMALL INJURY CASES IN FRONT OF JURIES THAT WOULD LAST PERHAPS A DAY OR TWO.  IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL TO GET IN FRONT OF A JURY SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH. 

TWO THINGS HAVE CHANGED ALL THIS;  THE TRILOGY IN 1978 LED TO A LARGE INCREASE IN THE EXPOSURE FACED BY INSURERS AND, IN TURN, LED TO AN UNWILLINGNESS ON THEIR PART TO OFFER OPPORTUNITIES TO “YOUNG LAWYERS” TO DO THOSE TRIALS. 

THEN SOMEWHERE AROUND 1990, MEDIATIONS STARTED TO GAIN WIDE ACCEPTANCE.  I AM BY NO MEANS CRITICAL OF THIS PROCESS, ALTHOUGH I DON’T THINK ANY MORE CASES ARE BEING SETTLED THAN USED TO BE THE CASE BEFOREHAND, AT LEAST AS OF TODAY.

I CAN TELL YOU IT WAS VERY UNUSUAL IN THE PRECEDING DECADES TO GO TO A DISCOVERY AND NOT TAKE THE TIME TO GO WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL TO LUNCH, OR AT LEAST SET ASIDE SOME PERIOD OF TIME FOR SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO OUR CLIENTS.

THIS SIMPLY DOESN’T HAPPEN ANY MORE. 

NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OUR IMAGE IS IMPORTANT.  I FIND THE FAILURE OF COLLEAGUES TO DRESS PROPERLY AT DISCOVERIES AND AT MEDIATION DISTRESSING.  IS IT TOO MUCH TO EXPECT THAT MALE LAWYERS WILL WEAR A TIE?  IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT WE DON’T WALK THE STREETS WEARING OUR ROBES?  DO YOU THINK THERE MAY BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE COMPLAINTS AND THE FACT THAT SO MANY OF OUR RECENT TREASURERS HAVE PLACED CIVILITY AT, OR NEAR, THE TOP OF THEIR AGENDA?

I HAVE TAKEN HEAT FROM MY STAFF, AS AN EXAMPLE, FOR MY REFUSAL TO ALLOW “CASUAL FRIDAYS” IN MY OFFICE.  HOWEVER, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED TO MY STAFF, THE CLIENT WHO WE MEET ON FRIDAY HAS NO LESS A NEED TO FEEL CONFIDENT IN THEIR LAWYER, WHO THEY HOPE WILL GET THEIR LIVES BACK ON TRACK, WHETHER THEY COME IN MONDAY, TUESDAY OR FRIDAY.  WE ARE PROFESSIONALS AND MUST LIVE UP TO THE IMAGE THAT WE WISH TO MAINTAIN.

AS WELL, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT.  THIS NOT ONLY MEANS THAT WE DON’T SPILL COFFEE ON OUR OPPONENTS’ NOTES AT DISCOVERIES WHEN WE GET IRRITATED WITH THEM (THIS IS A TRUE STORY), OR MAKE INSULTING COMMENTS.  ALL OF THIS I HOPE GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT WE MUST BE COOPERATIVE AND POLITE WITH EACH OTHER. 

ANSWER YOUR EMAILS, LETTERS, FAXES AND PHONE CALLS IN A TIMELY FASHION.  WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

IF YOU ARE AS FORTUNATE AS I HAVE BEEN TO ENJOY A LENGTHY CAREER, SOONER OR LATER THOSE LAWYERS YOU TREATED RESPECTFULLY WILL BE SITTING ON A BENCH JUDGING YOUR CASES.

WE ARE ALL BLESSED TO HAVE BECOME LAWYERS AND BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE SOCIETY AND TO BE WELL COMPENSATED FOR DOING SO. 

IN TURN, I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE BACK TO OUR PROFESSION AND THIS CAN BE DONE IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING LECTURES AT SEMINARS;  SERVING ON THE EXECUTIVE OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS;  MOST IMPORTANTLY, MENTORING AND TEACHING THOSE WHO NEED OUR HELP;  AND SPEAKING AT COLLEGES AND HIGH SCHOOLS ABOUT OUR PROFESSION.

I RECALL WHEN I WAS A STUDENT AT OSGOODE HALL, ON QUEEN STREET, IN 1961 THROUGH 1964, MYSELF AND MY CLASSMATES, SOME OF WHO HONORED ME WITH THEIR PRESENCE HERE TONIGHT, WOULD WANDER OVER TO THE OLD CITY HALL TO WATCH SOME OF THE GREAT CRIMINAL LAWYERS OF THE DAY.  I RECALL ONE IN PARTICULAR, ARTHUR MALONEY, WHO ALWAYS TOOK THE TIME DURING A RECESS TO ASK US WHAT WE THOUGHT OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED DURING HIS TRIAL.  HE WAS NEVER CONDESCENDING, ALWAYS HELPFUL AND POLITE, AND GENUINELY INTERESTED IN OUR DEVELOPMENT.  HE SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE TO EACH OF US. 

OFTEN I FIND THAT SOME LAWYERS WHO HAVE TREATED ME WITH GREAT RESPECT ON OUR MEETINGS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, TREAT YOUNGER LAWYERS WITH GREAT DISRESPECT.  THIS HAS TO STOP.  A LAWYER IS A LAWYER REGARDLESS OF THEIR SENIORITY.

A FEW FINAL PERSONAL COMMENTS. 

FIRSTLY I WANT TO THANK MY INVITED GUESTS FOR ATTENDING HERE.  SOME ARE FAMILY, SOME ARE FRIENDS, AND SOME ARE COLLEAGUES. 

IF I CAN BE SO BOLD AS TO OFFER SOME ADVICE – DEVELOP A HOBBY.  IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WILL TAKE YOUR MIND OFF OUR WORK.  IN MY CASE I CHOSE THE SPORT OF FAST PITCH SOFTBALL AND WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE TEAMS THAT COMPETED AND WON AT WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP LEVELS AND ALSO TEAMS THAT WON GOLD MEDALS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION, AT PAN AMERICAN GAMES, AND AT MACCABIAN GAMES.

IF I ALSO MAY BE SO BOLD AS TO OFFER A LITTLE BIT OF ADVICE TO THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO PRACTICE WITH JURIES.  SPEND TIME WITH THE PEOPLE.  LISTEN TO HOW THEY SPEAK.  LISTEN TO THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES, AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT THEY WILL IDENTIFY WITH.

TRY TO AVOID FILLING THE STEREOTYPE OF A LAWYER.  DON’T USE TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR WORDS WHEN MORE COMMON LANGUAGE WILL SUFFICE. 

THE GALLOP POLL CONSISTENTLY INDICATES A VERY LOW RATING, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR LAWYERS, SOMEWHERE IN THE HIGH TEENS OR LOW TWENTY’S, WHEREAS POLICE OFFICERS ARE SEEN AS A POPULAR GROUP AMONGST ABOUT 88 TO 90% OF THE POPULATION.  THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TRIED TO IMPART TO THOSE WHO WORK WITH ME - TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN THEY ARE CROSS-EXAMINING POLICE OFFICERS.  IT IS ALSO SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND AS TO HOW WE OVERCOME THE ANTIPATHY OF A GREAT DEAL OF THE PUBLIC TOWARDS LAWYERS. 

ALSO, PERHAPS TAKE SOME OF THE MYSTERY OUT OF THE COURTROOM BY NOT REFERRING TO YOUR OPPONENT AS “MY LEARNED FRIEND” AND PERHAPS JUST REFER TO HIM BY HIS OR HER NAME.

ABOVE ALL, DON’T RESTRICT YOURSELF TO YOUR OWN SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP BECAUSE I DON’T THINK YOU WILL FIND THEM SITTING ON A JURY.

HOWEVER, THE PRIMARY MESSAGE I WISH TO IMPART IS TO BE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO.  I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO THINK OF ANY OTHER GROUP OF LAWYERS, OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF’S, WHO CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY.  ANSWER BACK WHEN YOU HEAR DERISIVE REMARKS.  WE MUST GAIN THE RESPECT OF SOCIETY BY CONTINUOUSLY LETTING THEM KNOW OF THE SERVICE WE PERFORM.

IN OUR ORIENTATION WEEK, IN 1961, WE WERE ADDRESSED BY THE LATE JOHN D. ARNUP, A FORMER BENCHER AND JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.  ASIDE FROM LETTING US KNOW THAT TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE OF US WOULD FAIL TO GRADUATE (HE WAS BANG ON AS WE GRADUATED 92 OUT OF 250), I HOPE HIS OTHER COMMENT ISN’T CONFIRMED.

HE SAID, “FOR A YOUNG LAWYER LIFE IS ALL BED AND NO ROSES.  FOR AN OLD LAWYER LIFE IS ALL ROSES AND NO BED.”

I CAN ONLY TELL YOU THAT I CERTAINLY HAVEN’T AVOIDED THE BED, EVEN THOUGH AS IN TONIGHT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ROSES COMING MY WAY.

WHEN MY COLLEAGUE GRAHAM DUTTON WAS SIMILARLY HONOURED A FEW YEARS AGO, HE ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT.

I AM CERTAINLY NOT ANNOUNCING MINE.  I PLAN TO BE AROUND FOR AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME, BUT I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY IN ADDRESSING YOU, TO THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES AT THE BAR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BENCH WHO HAVE, OVER THE COURSE OF MY LENGTHY CAREER, BEEN SO KIND AND COURTEOUS TO ME VIRTIALLY AT ALL TIMES.