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 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.

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 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.

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

This edition of the firm blog features another one of our lawyers, Lina Giustra. In an era where “tradition” can be taken to mean anything that exists for over five years, it is important for our clients to know that Lina Giustra articled with the firm in 1987, and has practiced with our firm exclusively since 1988 – almost twenty-three years!

During that time, her reputation has continued to grow through word of mouth, and she is held in very high esteem by her colleagues at the firm, by her clients, and by counsel who are her adversaries.

Lina has done a wide variety of civil litigation practice throughout the years: personal injury, insurance defence, workers’ compensation, and tort claims involving the worker-worker bar.

One of Lina’s present areas of practice is dealing with the jurisdictional and conflict of law issues that arise when motorists insured by American insurance companies get into motor vehicle accidents in British Columbia.

As those of us who practice law in British Columbia well know, the monopoly created by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has resulted in a lot of “made in B.C.” issues of law and practice.

Claims representatives of insurers stationed in (for example) New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota or Washington are often amazed to find out that the insurer has signed an undertaking with the British Columbia government that alters (usually raises) the insurance limits that were paid for by the insurance premium, to the (usually much higher) British Columbia limits. Lina takes her clients through these steps, which usually involve a learning process, and advises them of the risks and pitfalls of defending claims in British Columbia.

Lina has proven very adept over the years at advising her clients about our mandatory no-fault system which provides greater benefits than do many American states, our mandatory Under-insured Motorist Provisions (UMP) with its many deductibles, and the recently enacted Health Care Costs Recovery Act which now requires insurers to reimburse the government for expenses incurred in British Columbia’s universal health care scheme, administered to accident victims.

During her spare time (what there is of it!) Lina, along with husband Glen, enjoys skate-skiing, roller-skiing, snowshoeing, cycling, hiking and rollerblading. She and Glen have travelled extensively in Hawaii and the Rockies, and have done cycling vacations in Austria, Germany and Great Britain.

A law firm is only as good as its members, and as you can see from the above, Lina Giustra is one of the major assets of the firm.

LGH

The building is a small, older highrise with elegant fixtures in the classical westcoast Art Deco architectural tradition. The building was purchased in the mid 1980’s and extensively renovated by current owners Toni and Franz Cavelti. Toni was a well-known jeweller and goldsmith for decades in Vancouver, and the building is instantly recognizable by the mosaic of a goldsmith on its prominent east wall.

With the move to larger premises and with articling student Sim Harry joining the firm after her anticipated call and admission in September, 2010, the firm is now well positioned for further expansion so as to better serve its clients.

Robert Brun, Q.C. will become Second Vice President at the Canadian Legal Conference in Niagara Falls this August—the first step on the way to the presidency of the CBA in 2012, when the conference will be held in Vancouver. Click here to see Robert’s successful speech to the National Council of the CBA: http://www.cba.org/cba/video/2010-02_election_robertbrun.wmv

View Sim’s Bio