Murphy
Continued From Page 1
objectionable conduct inside the
courtroom are extremely rare.
In a joint submission on pen-
alty, Paul Stern of Stern
Landesman Clark LLP, acting as
counsel for the law society, and
Norman Boxall of
Ottawa’s Bayne, Sellar, Boxall,
representing Murphy, drew the
panel’s attention to one recent
example, the law society’s Nov.
25, 2009, decision involving
Toronto defence counsel Reid
Rusonik, who was suspended
for one week between Christmas
and New Year’s for challenging a
biker witness he was cross-
examining at Brampton murder
trial in 2006 to step outside for
a fight. The outburst led to a
mistrial.
Research Solutions
Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant – The Law
of Evidence in Canada, 3rd Edition
New Edition!
$295 + GS T
1,525 Pages • Hardcover
June 2009 • ISBN: 9780433456780
Introducing the New Edition of
Canada’s Leading Work on Evidence
Stay up-to-date on evidentiary issues with Sopinka, Lederman
& Bryant – The Law of Evidence in Canada, 3rd Edition. Cited as
authoritative by appellate courts throughout Canada, it is the only
major Canadian treatise with in-depth coverage of both civil and
criminal evidence. This new edition includes all significant changes to
the law of evidence over the past decade.
Anticipate and Respond to Evidentiary Issues at Trial and
On Appeals
This book will assist you to:
• Understand and deal with such issues as illegally obtained
evidence, confessions, and corroboration
• Identify when witnesses will be competent and compellable
to testify
• Examine and cross-examine witnesses within the appropriate
scope
• Determine whether the burden and standard of proof have
been met
• Recognize the existence of privilege
• Rule on the admissibility of evidence in many different categories,
including character evidence, similar fact evidence, opinion
evidence, and documentary evidence
Order Today!
Take advantage of the 30-Day Risk-Free; Examination!
www.lexisnexis.ca/bookstore 1-800-668-6481
(Price & other details are subject to change without notice.
We pay shipping & handling if payment accompanies order.)
;Pre-payment required for first-time purchasers.
Please quote Reservation Code 3306 when ordering.
All other cases the panel was
referred to involved lawyers suspended for a combination of
incivility and other problems
including general instances of
ungovernability. Significantly,
the conduct complained of did
not occur in court. In one, Julia
Ranieri, who ran a general practice in Toronto, chased a client
out the street and punched her
in the nose.
What also sets Murphy’s case
apart is that it is the first time
anywhere in the Commonwealth
a lawyer has been disciplined for
conduct that was supported and
encouraged by a Superior Court
judge, Boxall told the panel.
Murphy also won his case. In
1999, Cosgrove set Elliott free
after ruling police and prosecutors committed more than 150
violations of her Charter rights.
Four years later, the Ontario
Court of Appeal overturned that
decision, saying the findings
were baseless. Then-Attorney
General Michael Bryant later
filed a misconduct complaint
against Cosgrove with the
Canadian Judicial Council,
which recommended last April
that he be removed from the
bench. Cosgrove stepped down
soon after. The attorney general’s ministry also filed a complaint about Murphy with the
law society.
“It really is a unique case,”
said Boxall. “There’s a movie
here — but it’s a tragedy.”
Targets of Murphy’s attacks
maintained that Cosgrove was
to blame for the courtroom vit-
riol. In a victim impact state-
ment, Harvey Strosberg of Sutts
Strosberg LLP, one of two law-
yers retained by Ontario’s
Ministry of the Attorney General
to take over the Elliott prosecu-
tion, said Cosgrove was “hell
bent” on acquitting Elliott and it
was he who “manipulated”
Murphy, not vice-versa.
Ontario likely has more restrictions on MDPs
MDPs
Continued From Page 3
yer could only form a MDP with
a realtor “if the realtor supports
the practice of law but not for the
purposes of fronting a real estate
practice,” explained Hume.
“Lawyers are subject to regulation from the Law Society and
lawyers supervise non-lawyers to
ensure they have the right skills,”
said Andreone, “so if we elevate a
paralegal to partnership in the
firm, that is OK. But my problem is bringing in someone from
another profession, such as an
architect, and that scares me.
“Under the MDP model the
Benchers have now adopted, a
B.C. lawyer who works with a
[non-lawyer] partner, who pro-
vides non-legal professional ser-
vices to support the provision of
legal services, such as a char-
tered accountant, architect or
engineer, is now professionally
responsible for that other pro-
fessional’s skill, abilities and
standard of performance,” added
Andreone. “As a lawyer, I am
competent to and fully willing to
take on that supervisory role for
a paralegal and for accounting
staff that perform accounting for
my firm. In my view, the effect of
the new rules is to add a profes-
sional responsibility on the law-
yer that would not exist if the
lawyer did not practise in a MDP
and the lawyer simply retained
or had the client retain the char-
tered accountant, architect,
engineer or other professional.”
Despite her concerns,
Andreone agrees with the
restrictions set forth by the eth-
ics committee — which may be
more restrictive than Ontario.
