Legal Feeds Blog

Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:51

Multilaw’s mission pro bono

Instead of sightseeing around the cities they go to for their professional development conferences, young lawyers from international law firm network Multilaw are pitching in to help in local communities around the world.

Manly Parks, Duane Morris, Philadelphia, (Chancellor of Multilaw Academy); Bryce Chandler, Shibley Righton, Windsor, Ont.; Christiane Schuman Campbell, Duane Morris, Philadelphia; Flavio Spaccaquerche Barbosa, Mattos Filho, Viega Filho, Marrey Jr. E Quiroga Advogados, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil sorted food at a Philly foodbank.

At its training conference in Philadelphia this month, Multilaw lawyers stepped up to help at a local food bank — all part of the network’s goal to give back to the communities they work in around the world through its Multilaw Pro Bono Mission.

Multilaw, the Multinational Association of Independent Law Firms, has existed for 20 years and consists of 73 member firms with 6,000 lawyers in more than 150 commercial centres throughout the world including two Canadian firms — Shibley Righton LLP and Miller Thomson in Toronto.

“Multilaw now has an official pro-bono mission and our primary goal is to make a difference in the cities we visit,” says Hope Krebs, a partner at Duane Morris LLP in Philadelphia.

The pro-bono initiative includes both monetary donations and hours of service.

“We ask member firms to make a contribution of one billable hour per firm or individual. The billable hour struck a chord with us — every lawyer can relate to what it represents. That’s really the way we fund the mission,” says Krebs.

From the billable hours project, a donation of €6,865 was made to the Smile of the Child children’s charity based in Athens during Multilaw’s 2012 European Regional Conference this past May in Greece.

The association also identifies local charities to provide hours of service to during the its weeklong Multilaw Academy for young lawyers, such as the one held recently in Philadelphia.

“Instead of having a sightseeing component to the conference, we helped out at a large local food bank called Philabundance,” says Krebs.

All 16 of the academy delegates from 11 countries along with the course organizers took an afternoon out of their study time to take part in service work.

“The reality is our younger generation cares a lot about the welfare of the places they go to,” says Krebs. “In the case of Philabundance they didn’t want our legal services, they wanted our time to go through the food at the food bank.”

The Multilaw Academy serves three functions, says Bill Northcote, a partner with Shibley Righton LLP in Toronto.

“One is the pro-bono effort, and it does cross-cultural and international law training for senior associates. It also builds relationships among the younger lawyers.”

About 11 years ago, the network realized most of the lawyers attending its professional development conferences tended to be more senior.

“There was a feeling that in order to ensure Multilaw continued to develop indefinitely we needed to bring a younger generation through and form the leadership base of the association in the future,” says Adam Cooke, head of development at Multilaw.

Eric van Emden, a former senior partner from Bosselaar & Strengers in the Netherlands, also saw it as a way to enhance the retention of his associates. The conferences, which move to various cities around the world, became a way for young lawyers to gain some international experience.

“In our firm it’s viewed as a sign of appreciation, and the associates who go are on the partnership track and we want to retain them,” says Northcote, noting Shibley Righton has sent five associates over the last 11 years.

Bryce Chandler, a senior associate from Shibley Righton based in Windsor, Ont. attended the 2012 Academy in Philadelphia.

“I found the academy to be an excellent opportunity. It addressed cross-border legal, social and cultural issues but also, you’re put in a room with 18 to 20 other people with whom you have very little in common and it becomes a lesson in networking and socializing. It also provides excellent insight into business development and getting to know member firms,” says Chandler.

Douglas panel won’t step down over bias allegations

The inquiry committee investigating a sexual harassment and discrimination complaint against Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas said it will not step down after Douglas’ counsel tried to disqualify the committee over an alleged apprehension of bias. It notes the panel is doing a "public duty" and will continue the hearings.

The Canadian Judicial Council panel’s ruling released Aug. 20, states that questioning by the committee’s counsel, George Macintosh, of witnesses Michael Sinclair, former managing partner of Douglas’ former law firm, and of her husband Jack King, “created a reasonable apprehension of bias on part of members of the committee.”

Douglas’ counsel Sheila Block claimed in late July that the committee, led by Alberta Chief Justice Catherine Fraser, had prejudged the matter before it was concluded and sought to have its members disqualified.

At the time, independent counsel Guy Pratte said he agreed with Block and threatened to resign if the inquiry committee continued to use Macintosh to aggressively cross-examine witnesses.

The inquiry will decide if Douglas should be removed from the bench. In September 2010, Alex Chapman, a client of the judge’s husband, launched a complaint that claimed King showed him nude web photos of Douglas performing sexual acts and pressured him to have sex with her. Douglas has been on leave from the court since the complaint was sent to the CJC.

On July 27, the committee dismissed Block’s motion for a number of reasons, including:

When conducting an inquiry, the inquiry committee is searching for the truth.
An inquiry is different from a trial; fairness can’t be determined by what’s normally allowed in a trial as the degree of intervention in an inquiry is greater.
An inquiry committee has the right and duty to question witnesses through its counsel, and that questioning should take place at the end of questioning by all counsel. If the inquiry committee asks questions through its counsel, other counsel should be given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions.
The inquiry committee has the authority to question witnesses, including asking “obvious, probing, difficult or challenging questions.”
What is inherent in the inquiry process or allowed by legislation can’t be biased or create bias in the mind of a reasonable observer.
In determining what is fair in an intervention, you must consider the context of the inquiry.

In conclusion, the committee stated: “[W]e are satisfied that a reasonable person properly informed and considering the matter carefully would not conclude from the questioning by committee counsel that this committee is in some way predisposed to a particular result or that our minds are closed with regard to particular issues.

“We have not prejudged any issues in this inquiry or any person’s credibility. Our minds remain open to persuasion.

“Accordingly, we are not satisfied that we are disqualified from sitting on this inquiry, and we decline to recuse ourselves. We might add that we regard the completion of our mandate to be a matter of public duty. It is crucially important that a matter of such social significance and public interest be carried out fairly to its conclusion according to law, and be seen to do so.”