On November 30, 2011, the Vancouver Police Department announced that 25 people face a total of 61 charges for allegedly taking part in the June 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. Crown Counsel approved the charges against the suspected rioters who came from all areas of the lower mainland of British Columbia and Seattle.

Vancouver Police told local media that charges were recommended after new technology created a searchable database of 30,000 YouTube videos and Facebook images. This database enabled police to find matching evidence of suspects and crimes.

In October of 2011, a similar situation occurred in England, where a Facebook user who posted a message urging people of Manchester to “start riotin’ ” and “put Manchester on the map” was jailed for three years.

The Stanley Cup riot was remarkable for the role that social media played in the event: many rioters paused and posed for photographs; some even posted these photos on their own social media sites, incriminating themselves. Onlookers intent on documenting the riot took photos and videos which appeared on Facebook accounts and on YouTube. Online shaming campaigns resulted in some riot participants being fired from their jobs or removed from athletic teams. The morning after the riot, hundreds of volunteers suddenly appeared, to clean up the mess that had been left by the rioters the night before. These volunteers, also, had been arranged through a social media networking site.

These events reveal that online social networking has become a very powerful tool of communication. However, one of the consequences of the new technology is that people who use social media now leave “cyberspace fingerprints”. In fact, almost anything a litigant posts on line can be tracked by highly trained forensic experts using sophisticated tools through a surprising array of venues, including Facebook, Twitter, or the internet. Twitter, Facebook and internet communications of the litigant and his or her “friends”, can form a virtual “map” of the activities of the litigant, to be obtained by an opposing litigant.

In addition to leaving a cyberspace fingerprint, many unforeseen outcomes can happen to a litigant in cyberspace. For example, a particular communication can “go viral”; that is, can be sent in minutes through numerous text, email or Facebook accounts; so that what was thought to be confidential ends up in thousands of computers around the country and the world. If the laptop, tablet, or smart phone of a litigant is stolen or lost, the litigant is at the mercy of the thief or finder of the device. This could be a potential disaster in many respects. Finally, even if a litigant imposes privacy settings on his or her social media account, social media fingerprints can be obtained about the litigant from Facebook “friends” who have not imposed privacy settings on their data.

The lawyers at Harris & Brun are aware of all of these issues. As a result we are well able to advise our clients about the cyberspace pitfalls of litigation in the 21st century.

Civility may be defined as each person’s entitlement to be treated with dignity, respect and common sense. It is the glue that holds a democratic society together.

Civility is a hallmark of the Bar in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Even during the most contested battles, most lawyers on either side of a case refer to each other as “my friend” or “my learned friend”. I believe this is a reflection of the lines from Shakespeare where Tranio advises the fellow suitors for Bianca to “do as adversaries do in law. Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends”.

Yet, I was saddened when I recently read in the Law Society Benchers’ bulletin that uncivil behaviour is the main reason why lawyers and clients make complaints to the Law Society.

There is a perception among some members of the public that the more aggressive (and sometimes rude) a lawyer is, the more likely he or she is to obtain just results for a client. At Harris & Brun, we believe that nothing could be further from the truth. The best way to persuade an opposing lawyer or the Court is to lay out all of the facts of the case and all of the arguments that may be raised by those facts, with decency, courtesy and respect. In other words, not only is civility the right thing to do, it is the most effective way of communicating on behalf of a client.

Clients who wish to have a consultation with one of the lawyers of Harris & Brun may contact the office directly at 604-683-2466, or by fax at 604-683-4541. If you have looked at our website, you will see that under the name of each lawyer is the heading “paralegals and assistants”. Frequently a call or an e-mail to a paralegal or assistant will direct the client to the lawyer that is most suited to handle a particular issue.

The firm welcomes Keoni Norgren, who started at Harris & Brun on November 15, 2010 after articling at a large Vancouver law firm. Keoni graduated from UBC Law School in April of 2009, where he had received awards and prizes for his academic achievements. He was also a contributing editor to the Canadian Journal of Family Law and participated in the UBC Law Students’ Legal Advice Program. Keoni enjoys gym-based workouts and gourmet cooking.

Simrat (Sim) Harry articled with Harris & Brun after graduating from the University of Alberta Law School in April 2009. Sim was called to the Bar of the Province of British Columbia on November 22, 2010. While articling, she successfully advocated for the worker in a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) hearing, which resulted in a successful appeal in favour of the injured worker. Sim enjoys reading, writing and jogging.

With Sim and Keoni, the number of lawyers at Harris & Brun rises from six to eight. For complete biographies of our two new lawyers, click on the “Our Team” link on the home page of the Harris & Brun website.

In Ontario, a client has sued her former lawyer for the costs awarded against the client in a suit the former lawyer launched against three judges, accusing the judges of conspiracy and fraud.  According to a release from Canadian Legal Newswire May 31, 2010, the action against the three judges was dismissed,  As a consequence of the dismissal, the client and her lawyer were ordered to pay $100,000 in assessed costs:  half to be paid by the client, and half by the lawyer.

 In our own province, the Court of Appeal recently upheld a trial judge’s ruling that a lawyer was personally liable to pay costs for two failed applications when the costs were incurred “without reasonable cause” or where the lawyer had “caused costs to be wasted through delay, neglect or some other fault”.

 In each of these cases, there was no doubt that the lawyers in question believed they were representing their clients zealously, as all lawyers are obliged to do.  However, for most of us, the duty of zealous representation has some reasonable bounds.  At some point “zealous” becomes “extreme” and the lawyers who continually take “extreme” positions become known as “difficult”.

 Counsel who are have the reputation of being “difficult”  fail to make concessions which, according to civility and the prevailing case law ought to be made; and they make ordinary litigation a costly business.  At Harris & Brun, we have difficult opposing counsel in many of our files.  How should we deal with them? 

 A good start is to examine the Canons of Legal Ethics, found as Chapter 1 of the Law Society’s Professional Conduct Handbook.  Canon 4(1) reads:

 “A lawyer’s conduct toward other lawyers should be characterized by courtesy and good faith. Any ill feeling that may exist between clients or lawyers, particularly during litigation, should never be allowed to influence lawyers in their conduct and demeanour toward each other or the parties. Personal remarks or references between lawyers should be scrupulously avoided, as should quarrels between lawyers which cause delay and promote unseemly wrangling.”

 Canon 4(3) reads in part:

 “A lawyer should avoid all sharp practice and should take no paltry advantage when an opponent has made a slip or overlooked some technical matter.” 

 These are high standards for all of us, and should form the basis of how we deal with difficult counsel.  Courtesy, patience and self-control ought to be the hall-marks of any attempt to deal with difficult counsel.

 Lina Giustra of Harris & Brun has been dealing with difficult counsel for over 23 years.  She says, “patience and persistence are the keys to dealing with difficult counsel.  I find that difficult counsel tend to attack counsel rather than attacking the issues.  The human reaction is to want to respond in kind but that is counter-productive and merely escalates the conflict.” 

 At Harris & Brun we have evolved specific strategies that work well in dealing with difficult counsel.  If you wish a consultation with Lina Giustra or any of the other lawyers at Harris & Brun in a matter that has a difficult opposing counsel, click here.

We are pleased to welcome Ildiko Grizer, legal assistant, working with Susan Rowed’s practice.

Also, we are pleased to welcome Erica Baroux, paralegal, working with  Narv Gill’s practice.