BUSINESS
CAREERS
Compensation
Continued From Page 25
ners introduced in December
2000 would result in him being
paid significantly less. “This
contention rests on the theory
that had he been warned that
his compensation would be significantly reduced, he would
have withdrawn from the partnership earlier and received a
higher payout based on his 2001
allocation of partnership units,”
the court said.
However, it agreed with the
trial judge’s finding that under
the terms of the partnership
agreement Aird & Berlis did not
owe Springer a fiduciary duty in
relation to decisions made by
the firm’s executive committee
concerning compensation.
In Springer v. Aird & Berlis
LLP Justice Newbould held
that, in addition to the firm not
owing Springer the fiduciary
duty, even if it did, the plaintiff
had failed to prove that the duty
had been breached and, in any
event, Springer was well aware
of the likelihood that his share
of the partnership units and,
hence, his income, would be sig-
nificantly lower in 2002.
“Aird & Berlis is very
pleased with the
decision of the Court
of Appeal for Ontario.
The firm’s position
was vindicated at
trial and on appeal.
ners were “well-publicized and
well-known to the appellant
well in advance of the actual
allocation made for 2002. The
trial judge found that on a plain
reading of the documents relat-
ing to the new compensation
system, it would have been
apparent, given the nature of
the appellant’s practice and his
contribution to the firm, that
his income would be substan-
tially reduced under the new
system.”
The court said evidence of
statements Springer had made
to other partners in 2001 “was
capable of supporting the trial
judge’s inference that the appel-
lant likely knew that his level of
remuneration would be signifi-
cantly reduced in 2002.”
It followed that even if there
was the alleged fiduciary duty,
and even if it was breached by
Aird & Berlis, “it did not cause
any loss to the appellant.”
Springer, who was called to
the Ontario Bar in April 1986
and is no longer practising law,
worked with the Outerbridge
law firm as a junior litigation
lawyer until November 1988
when he joined Aird & Berlis to
practise with four other lawyers
in insolvency litigation and
restructuring. He became a
partner in January 1990 and
remained a partner until his
withdrawal in 2002.
In dismissing the appeal, the
court awarded costs to the
respondent of $30,000, which
will be in addition to an award
of nearly $500,000 by the trial
judge.
Aird & Berlis was represented by Linda Rothstein and
Robert Centa of Toronto’s
Paliare Roland Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP, while Thomas
Dunne and Benjamin Na of
Gowling Lafleur Henderson
LLP acted for Springer.
In an e-mail statement Centa
has this to say regarding the
decision: “Aird & Berlis is very
pleased with the decision of the
Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The firm’s position was vindicated at trial and on appeal. The
firm is looking forward to putting this matter behind it,” he
continued, ”The decision of the
Court of Appeal is a common
sense application of well-established principles of law.” ;
Reasons: Springer v. Aird & Berlis LLP,
[2010] O.J. No. 1578.
We want to hear from you!
E-mail us at: tlw@lexisnexis.ca ;
Looking for a cost-effective
way to recruit legal staff …
• Easily post, track, and edit jobs
with our simple online Recruitment Manager
system.
• Search our candidate database —
Quick and easy to use, our candidate search
tool gives you a constantly refreshed database
of qualified legal professionals to shortlist.
• Track job applications online.
• Flexible pricing options to fit
your budget.
• Build your brand among job seekers —
Add your company logo, or advertise in the
Featured Employer or Featured Jobs section.
Practice Management
Advertise all of your legal jobs on totallegaljobs.ca
Netbooks, iPads usefull tool for
lawyers constantly on the go
Netbooks
Continued From Page 25
And Misthal challenges the
common view of netbooks as limited. “The standard configuration
should have enough power for
most everyday functions performed by lawyers,” he says.
“It’s a question of managing
your expectations.”
“As long as we just use e-mail,
word processing, Google and, say,
PowerPoint or Excel, the machines
are fine,” says James Roberts,
managing partner with Global
Capital Law Group P.C., who uses
his netbook as a secondary
machine when at the office.
“Our IT guy tweaked their performance, which helped,” he adds.
“We even standardize on net-
books for our home-based staff
and floating offices,” says Garton-
Jones, “because they are just as
good as desktop PCs, when
attached to an external monitor
and keyboard, for access to our
hosted desktop infrastructure.”
Mobile-phone companies have
jumped on the bandwagon by
offering discounted netbooks to
wireless internet service subscrib-
ers, albeit with one inconvenience.
“Having a USB modem (or a flash
drive) sticking out the side of the
netbook while traveling can be
annoying,” Misthal says.
Some of the factors that have
spurred netbook sales in recent
years seem set to propel “slates”
(also known as “tablets,” keyboard-
less touch-screen devices like
Apple’s newly minted iPad) into
netbook sales turf.
We want to hear from you!
E-mail us at: tlw@lexisnexis.ca ;
