Regional law firms in Quebec are hoping to prove the home field advantage is just as much a factor in legal services as it is in sports.

Canadian Lawyer returns to Quebec this year for our latest regional firm survey, to find the province’s full-service outfits jockeying with local and national rivals alike for a position on Plan Nord, the multibillion-dollar project for the development of Quebec’s north. “In Quebec, everybody talks about Plan Nord, which I think is simply applying what you already do in a new conjuncture. There’s a lot of opportunity there,” says Chantal Chatelain, managing partner of the Montreal office at Langlois Kronström Desjardins LLP. “The fact of being a regional firm I think is a great advantage because we’re already spread out across the province, we already have the business relationships with entrepreneurs in the construction industry in the north, and we have experience in dealings with government regulations and authority.”

Top-ranked Lavery de Billy LLP and its predecessors have spent the better part of a century cultivating roots in the province, and Richard Dolan, the chairman of the firm’s board, says that continues to give them an edge over larger newcomers to Quebec’s legal market. “Our deep understanding of the Quebec business market has positioned us really well. It allows us to quickly understand the opportunities and challenges that the Quebec market presents to not only our Quebec clients, but also national clients,” he says.

At Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP, another firm with more than 50 years of history, co-managing partner Bruno Floriani says the recent economic downturn has increased demand for regional firms like his, even from international businesses looking to expand in North America. “We got looked at a lot more seriously by some in-house counsel who were looking to retain the same quality of service, but perhaps without the infrastructure that goes along with the national firms,” he says. “There is a growing realization among some of the larger international companies that there are very good lawyers in these regional firms that are as good as any of the national firms.”

At the other end of the scale, Delegatus Services Juridiques Inc. makes its first appearance on our list in just its seventh year of business. The firm has established itself with a unique business model that offers senior lawyers flexible work arrangements and pricing options. The strategy has paid off, attracting lawyers from larger, more traditional firms and an impressive roster of clients. “We allow our lawyers to self-determine the amount of time they put in in billable hours yearly, so our work environment is much healthier. They don’t take as many clients maybe, but the ones they have they are extremely well looked after,” says vice president Paul St-Pierre Plamondon. “We’ve tripled our revenues in only a year and a half, because our lawyers are anything but laid back. They care about an excellent life, but they’re also very proactive and entrepreneurial.”

At LKD, Chatelain has also made headway attracting talent from national firms. “What lawyers see as a big advantage is they have more flexibility. They could be a very small fish in a very big pond, or a big fish in a smaller pond. Financially speaking, there’s not that much difference between the two. In fact, sometimes they get a better cut in a firm like ours than one with a very large business structure to support,” she says. “We’re living proof that not only is there space for regional firms, but there’s a vibrant space for us and a need.”

Read on to find the full list of Quebec’s Top 10 Regional Firms. The 2010 positions are noted in parentheses.

Few experiences in a lawyer’s work are as infuriating as having your time wasted by a lay adversary. But it is easy to allow frustration to steer you off the path to a desired outcome, or to a good result in litigation. The sooner you realize the futility of convincing someone incapable of understanding why you are right, the faster you will reach the best result for your client. Below you will find stories about interacting with non-lawyers in legal situations. They share a common thread — figure out what it is, and you’ll have a hard time letting self-reps waste your time ever again.

The fishmonger’s story

One of my first files in litigation involved a court action by the owner of a seafood boutique with a doctorate in marine biology. The construction contractor working next door had inadvertently cut off the electricity to the fish shop’s fridges for a few hours during a Toronto heat wave. On the day of the incident, there ensued the predictable exchange of words between the professor and the guy in the hard hat. Later that week, the contractor, who self-insured at that level of exposure, apologized in writing, and asked the shopkeeper to sell what could be sold. The contractor then offered to pay for the rest of the ruined stock. He had honoured the principle of restitutio ad integrum, making the victim of a tort whole, without having to consult a lawyer.

The learned fishmonger replied with a long epistle purporting to educate the contractor about the “intangible economic effects on his reputation as selling the freshest fish in town.” The contractor handed the letter over to his lawyers. A battle of epic proportions was in full swing.

The boutique owner had decided to sue for much more than the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, and handed the dossier over to my law office. Some poor corporate-commercial lawyer had to read my client’s letters, each signed with “[his name], PhD” The art of using a thousand words, to say what could be said in 50, never knew a better exemplar. Fish was not the only stuff bearing a warm-weather smell.

Highly educated lay people, finding themselves in a legal dispute, often bear an overwrought preconception of law. Bringing a knife to a gunfight never made much sense, but some will insist on carrying a tin opener and a can of worms. In theory, my client was correct, in that he may have suffered intangible economic losses resulting from actual physical damages. But the law is not kind to the overly sensitive.

My job as a lawyer was not to give voice to his commercial insecurity, but rather to bring him back from the brink of a lawsuit that could bury him in lawyers’ bills. It was unfortunate my client’s insurance, like many property policies, excluded damages resulting from electricity failures. The “fish story” ended with replacement of ruined stock, paid for by the adversary. In the bargain, I ended up being paid in part with boxes of vacuum-packed smoked salmon.

The fishmonger’s story could easily have gone completely awry. Within the stack of letters from the condescending professor were a series of frustrated, inconsiderate responses from the contractor’s lawyer. It’s hard to remain professional when one’s pen pal spews verbal rubbish, but no one said being a lawyer would always be easy. The contractor’s lawyer tried to win the intellectual argument instead of avoiding litigation.

Let them show low regard for your profession. You then know how much they fear you.

Lawyers of all vintages often get upset when dealing with self-reps, after spending a long time trying to persuade or educate them. I must confess still falling into that trap from time to time. We are, after all, a teaching profession. Having made the mistake of engaging the president of a condominium corporation in a principled argument, the tone of his e-mails went south. I realized he was just picking a fight to get what he was after, and to spar with a lawyer. After expressing my concerns, the following ensued:

1) He provided a half-baked statement of the applicable law, and then added, in faint praise, “but then you know that already.”

2) He pointed out I was raising frivolous points (as legal arguments tend to be) and demanded that if I was not interested in co-operating, that I “just say so.”

3) After I directed him to specific places in a statute to show the basis of my concern, he withdrew his request and simply replied, “I’m sorry you wasted your time.”

Part of me was, of course, furious. He could have convinced me to agree, provided he addressed my concerns. He was not prepared to do so, because he prejudged my concerns as ones only a lawyer could express. In his own frustration out of contempt for me as a lawyer, he lost his opportunity to get what he wanted. Once I appreciated how he had lost the moment, it was not for me to hand it back to him by engaging him in a further retort. His request, de facto, had been withdrawn.

Of course, it was not really a waste of time on my part at all. As lawyers, part of our job is to say “no” unless we are persuaded otherwise. With apologies to Roger Fisher and William Ury, authors of Getting to Yes, when dealing with a belligerent lay counterpart, getting to no in a purposeful and professional way is an art.

Be correct, rely on evidence, avoid emotional responses, and eventually they will go away and stop bothering you and your client. Resolving a conflict in peace does not mean you have to make your adversary your friend. Sometimes it means drawing a defensible line, and making sure parties do not cross it.

Cognitive loggerheads: don’t try it with deluded litigants

The first two examples illustrate non-litigious dealings with non-lawyers, and how our professionalism guides us not only to the high road, but also to the desired result.

Litigating with self-reps cannot be so easily reduced to verbal etiquette. Once a lawsuit has been launched, procedural barriers and costs consequences can bar the way to a face-saving exit.

Whether we are solicitors across a negotiating table or barristers duking it out in court, our respect for our common profession goes a long way. Even when our faces turn beet red, we find ways to listen to each other. Clever self-reps are rarely so ethical or open-minded. The law society does not govern them. You, as a lawyer, are an obstacle to what they want, and nothing more. They distrust you and observe you intently for weaknesses.

At some point, hopefully early on, the futility of reasoning with some people will reveal itself in clues:

a) excessive familiarity with the rules of court — it means they’ve done it before, and often;

b) banter with court staff or interpreters — similar to a) above, but they believe the administration of the courts exists solely for them;

c) lawyers withdrawing for lack of payment — people who respect lawyers pay their bills;

d) calling you by your first name — a sign of respect and endearment from a client, but from an adversary it is an attempt to erode your professional status; and/or

e) tangential outbursts or religious invocations, signalling mental illness.

In the Alice in Wonderland legal world of pro se litigants, negotiation is often futile — resistance is the only option. Once, after I had secured a dismissal of an insurance claim, I had a litigant tell me his children would visit me in my dreams. Until I live out my life, I will never know whether they will.

On another occasion, a fellow with a master’s in engineering asked me how I expected to win, when all I had was a lowly bachelor’s degree. I would later have my LLB degree re-issued as a JD, for other reasons; but the memory of that conversation did come back to me as I hung my new diploma on the wall. In that engineer’s world, those with lower academic degrees were in the category of those who should not speak unless spoken to.

Litigation is a form of dispute resolution through appealing to logical and emotional norms. Settling out of court can be achieved as part of this process. Where one side of a dispute does not have a grasp of such norms, you can either shelter in the institution that upholds the norms, or you can negotiate with an unpredictable opponent. That means, before you waste more time and client’s money, you must keep a clear path between you and the court.

Every time you want something, send them a letter, and give them a grace period to agree. Chances are, they won’t agree. Wait for them either to say “no” or not to respond, then take out a court appointment. Just think: your chances of succeeding in court are high, but the likelihood of persuading your pro se adversary that you are right and he is wrong is low. Seen in this light, which way better serves the interests of your client?

Canada’s litigation boutiques are looking to the future. Finding a firm with the right mix of experienced and emerging talent was a recurring theme in this year’s top boutiques search, and some of our winners have been the most successful at striking that balance, proving that succession planning works at firms of all sizes.

“A number of boutiques in Canadian legal history have started with great strength, but have been unable, or simply unwilling, to carry it on. Sometimes people don’t want to and it lasts as long as the careers of founders,” says Tom Curry, a partner at Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP — a firm he says has shown a commitment to outlasting the five name partners who departed McCarthy Tétrault LLP in 1992 to go it alone and start the firm. “From the beginning, people have been attracted here by the reputations of the lawyers, and it remains true, because we’ve been able to duplicate that strength in the younger generations. I’m fascinated by the challenge of maintaining the strength over the long term, and I find one of the things that really adds to my law practice is the opportunity to develop other people and pass along things,” says Curry.

And while litigation boutiques have been able to thrive in the shadows of their full-service counterparts, sweeping up referrals on the largely conflict-free sidelines, they aren’t afraid to go up against Bay Street in the market for the hottest new litigators.

Randy Kaardal, a senior partner at Hunter Litigation Chambers in Vancouver, says his firm has no problem recruiting the top candidates out of law school, including those who’ve had clerkships at the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate courts across the country. “They get to see our people before those courts and get a sense of the type of files that we are on, which tend to be interesting and exciting to be a part of,” he says.

At the same time, Kaardal says the big-firm history of Hunters’ senior litigators has been crucial, allowing the firm to develop a style that some of their larger corporate clients will recognize. “Clients that are involved in sophisticated litigation expect the work product to look a certain way. We have that capacity, so it’s relatively seamless when we’re referred by one of the large commercial law firms,” he says.

And ex-Big Law partners aren’t confined to the litigation field. Barbara Jo Caruso left Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP in 2006 to form Corporate Immigration Law Firm with Gowlings immigration consultant Harry Goslett, although the pair didn’t move physically too far from their old digs. “When we branched out, having a Bay Street address was important, because it provided us with a certain amount of credibility with existing clients that were prepared to deal with us outside of the national law firm. Some were concerned that we didn’t just set up in our basements, and do the work there,” she says.

Caruso says lawyer referrals have helped the firm flourish since its founding. “I think other firms feel comfortable referring to a boutique knowing we’re not going to take their employment or their real estate work, or forget where the file came from,” she says.

Few large law firms place an emphasis on business immigration, which has left plenty of room for boutiques in the marketplace. One of the largest players in the market is Egan LLP, an affiliate of accounting giant Ernst & Young, which also made our list. Another EY affiliate, Couzin Taylor LLP, is on our tax law boutique list, where accounting firm affiliates are a growing player in the market.

But Brent Perry, a partner at Alberta-based tax firm Felesky Flynn LLP, says there will always be a place for boutiques like his, with no professional services firm affiliation, because of the certainty they can offer over solicitor-client privilege, especially in an era of heightened scrutiny from the Canada Revenue Agency. “We’re seeing an increased level of appetite for challenge by CRA, even for transactions that may have been previously blessed by them. That in turn leads to a higher degree of sensitivity of solicitor-client privilege,” he says.

Matthew Williams, a partner at Thorsteinssons LLP in Toronto, says tax law is particularly well suited to a boutique environment because the area’s reputation for being extremely complicated is well earned. He says the concentration of expertise benefits practitioners as well as clients. “We think size matters. It’s a very specialized area and if you’ve got lots of people with decades of experience, you’ll have a lot of it covered. I would be terrified to work in a place with just two or three people doing tax,” he says.

Canadian Lawyer’s editorial team began the process of selecting Canada’s top five tax and business immigration (both areas for the first time) firms and top 10 litigation boutiques by creating a short list of the most notable firms in their respective fields. We ran a short online survey and from there, we drew on the experience of in-house counsel and large-firm lawyers who refer work to these boutiques, conducting a series of confidential interviews to identify the cream of the crop. That input was used to compile the following results, listed in alphabetical order.

Photo: Cineflix

Among the things you’ll find in the offices of Cozens Wiens LLP are a framed photo of 1960s British music icon Eric Burdon, a couple of vintage guitars, and a copy of Mad magazine to make you chuckle while you wait. Behind the desk of partner Scott Cozens, under an original work by esteemed Alberta painter John Snow, is an intact Rock ’Em Sock ’Em Robots, the children’s boxing game that was popular in the ’70s.

The firm is comprised of a receptionist, two paralegals, and the husband and wife team of Cozens and Lana Wiens. The office is located in the hip Calgary neighbourhood of Kensington and is itself hip and super casual. On this day Cozens has worn a black T-shirt and jeans to work. He describes himself as not being a typical lawyer.

To a growing number of Canadians, Cozens is most recognizable when he’s dressed in his cowboy hat, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. He and Calgary auctioneer Sheldon Smithens, a friend for many years, are the stars of History Television’s Canadian Pickers. They drive themselves around the country looking for treasures to buy from amateur collectors. “We attract a certain demographic,” Cozens says. “I can go into a Starbucks and no one will recognize me. But if I walk into a Tim Hortons, even looking like this, everyone will know who I am.”

Cozens Wiens — the firm, not the couple — started three years ago when the pair left Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. They met about 10 years ago while both were at Code Hunter Whitman Barristers, which merged with Gowlings in 2000, and specialize in civil litigation and insurance defence. Cozens is in his 21st year practising law and he and Wiens have two out-of-province insurance companies as their main clients.

Canadian Pickers is now filming its third season while the second season airs. It will shut down production for two months this summer while Cozens is involved in a civil suit that stemmed from a traffic accident in nearby Okotoks, Alta., that rendered a female passenger quadriplegic.

Cozens and Smithens became household names after Smithens was approached by History Television, which was looking for a pair of seasoned treasure hunters for a northern version of American Pickers. Needing a partner, he called Cozens. Their chemistry shone through during an audition and they got the gig.

Now in his early 50s, Cozens caught the picking bug as a child from both his late grandmother and mother, with whom he still attends sales in the Calgary area on weekends when he’s not away. They sometimes engage in friendly competition for finds. “My mom likes to tell the story about the time we went to a garage sale and I accidently put her up against a fence so she couldn’t get out of the car,” he says. “I typically get out of the car very quickly. I got in there and found a beautiful Steiff lion — a really nice toy — while she was still stuck in the car.”

Cozens and Smithens fly and drive to various locations that have been already been scouted by production staff and are often off the beaten path. They spend their own money to buy collectibles from regular Canadian folks and are planning a huge auction in Calgary this spring, where they will attempt to sell the best items for profit. “There’s three equal parts that I love about doing this — the people, the country, and the stuff. You’ve got to have all three or it’s not as satisfying.

“I’m ecstatic that we went to Newfoundland for the show, for example. I’d never been there and I loved it. I wouldn’t never have gone there had it not been for the show. We’ve met some [jerks] along the way but we’ve also met some great people along the way, too.” Newfoundland was where Cozens and Smithens met a fellow named Gary, a medic in Vietnam, and bought from him some ivory pieces and a flask that was designed to hold morphine. That trip became the Feb. 13, 2012 show.

Cozens has a soft spot for anything native-related. Among his favourite possessions is an antique handmade fountain pen from the 1920s with a native headdress on the top that his grandmother bought “for a dime” and gave him when he was a boy.

He was hoping that a trip to La Ronge, Sask., which borders the 2,000-member Lac La Ronge First Nation, would be one of his most memorable trips. But a visit to a trading post there yielded nothing but a headache. “There was nothing to buy. [The collector] wouldn’t sell anything,” Cozens recalled of a trip that was shown in the first season. “People want to be on TV so they say they have stuff to sell. But when you get up there they don’t want to sell or want 10 times what it’s worth. It was a very frustrating trip for me.”

Somehow, says Wiens, who also is an avid collector, they have managed to keep their home becoming overrun with stuff and a suitable location for another popular TV show, Hoarders. “It’s a bit like this office,” she says, sitting in the boardroom of their tidy space. “It’s a real mix. He loves a wide range of things, so do I. He leans towards the pop culture, modern line of things. . . . At home we’ll have an 1850s hutch next to a really funky ’50s chair.”

Cozens admits the show is both a benefit and negative for his practice. “The people that I work for who are in the trenches like the fact that I’m on TV,” he says. “Whether people on the top of the heap care is an entirely different thing. They see a side of you that they don’t see when you are practising law. The negative is sometimes people don’t take you as seriously when they see you with long hair and a cowboy hat. I’ve never been this way, but there are people out there who judge you based on how you dress and what you look like.

“If you don’t have short hair and wear a suit, they don’t think you’re a heavy hitter. I love it when people misjudge me.”

Do you know someone who deserves to be Cross Examined? Tell us about the interesting people you know in the legal profession by e-mailing the editor at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .