Solicitors need a strong voice in convocation!

As you know, solicitors have historically been underrepresented in convocation. With this year’s LSO bencher election, I strongly urge you to: a) vote and b) make a conscious decision to vote for strong solicitor representation.

Many lawyers campaigning for STOP. It’s obvious what they are against, but do you know what they are for?

Convocation deals with more than one issue.

I have the experience and good standing among my peers to be a voice for all lawyers across the province. I am endorsed by the following lawyers, inside and outside of Toronto.

Reuben Rosenblatt
Sid Troister
Jeff Lem
Maurizio Romanin
Bob Aaron
Larry Banack
Alan Silverstein
Bram Potechin
Eldon Horner
Harvey Strosberg
Jonathon Rosenthal
Andrew Dilkens
Don Thompson

How can you help?

  • Let your colleagues know of my bid for re-election by forwarding a link to this blog, http://www.bencherblog.ca/; and
  • Use the social media Share buttons below to spread the word to your networks.

Thank you for your support.


I Need Your Votes and Your Help!

I have had the privilege of representing you since 2015 as Bencher. I believe my experience both as a lawyer and a Bencher, will allow me to continue to be a voice for all lawyers in the province.

As only one of three Solicitors elected to Convocation, I have co-chaired the Committee for Real Estate Issues, and continue to be a staunch advocate and “voice” for Solicitors. Also, as a member of the OBA Real Estate Executive, I will to continue to bring a Solicitor’s perspective to Convocation.

I believe that I can continue to use the knowledge and experience I have gained over 43 years of practice. Having managed a practice as both a partner in small firm, and in a large firm, I am now Senior Counsel in the Windsor office of a large multinational firm. I believe I understand the challenges that lawyers from a variety of practice areas and backgrounds continue to face.

Once reelected, I will continue to focus on:

  1. More aggressive consultation with the profession before changes are implemented;
  2. Having Convocation deal with “real’ issues facing practitioners; and
  3. Creating a more positive perception of lawyers;

I will focus on the unique challenges facing Solicitors today.

The LSO must do a better job in surveying and consulting the Profession before taking action, e.g. changing our Society’s name and the inclusion of mandatory statements /requirements in annual reports.

Throughout my career, I have mentored countless Articling Students and associates. I have also taught at the CBA, LSO, OBA and Windsor Law. The proposed changes to the Articling program, demand a mentorship program beyond articling so that high practice standards will be maintained. I pledge to focus on ensuring that we implement a program to assist new lawyers and benefit the profession and the public.

The negative public perception of our profession (mainly due to lawyers who have misbehaved) must be addressed. I have, and will continue to advocate, for a more public, transparent discipline process so as to ensure that all complaints and issues are fair to all parties, including lawyers.

How can you help?

We need to ensure a strong Solicitor’s voice in Convocation. You can help by letting your colleagues know of my bid for re-election.

  1. If you aren’t already doing so, follow this blog by entering your email address and hitting the Follow button to the right;
  2. Copy this link: http://www.bencherblog.ca/2019/02/19/lsobencher2019 and paste it into your email program to forward to your colleagues; and
  3. Use the social media Share buttons below to spread the word to your networks.

Thank you for your support.


When I first got elected as a Bencher many, many of you congratulated me and thanked me for being “the voice of the non-GTA Solicitor” in Convocation. I was flattered and honoured to accept your comments and words of encouragement. I continue to do my best to bring the perspective of a “non- GTA”, experienced, solicitor to the work of the Law Society.

When I first started this Blog it was my intention to post something weekly or monthly updating the profession on what was happening in Convocation. I have always felt that there is a real and perceived “disconnect” between this of us who are “slugging it out” on a daily basis outside of the GTA and those who practice on Bay Street and/or have no idea of what it takes to make a living outside of Toronto.

I have learned the dynamics in both places are unique.

I haven’t posted in a while as others such as Larry Banack have a much more extensive email list and are better at getting the message regarding the general events that happen in Convocation or at the LSO out there than I.

In recent weeks, notices have been posted in many places about a request from the Law Society regarding input from the profession regarding Title Insurance.

On other occasions, I have received complaints from the profession that there hasn’t been sufficient consultation. On Title Insurance, this is your chance to speak up.

Don’t wait until it’s too late to voice your opinion.

While the issue is relatively simple – the solution may not be so simple.

Should a lawyer be allowed to received examining counsel fees and/or incentives from Title Insurers? Some people feel there should be a total ban on both. Other feel fees are acceptable provided a genuine service is provided by the lawyer to the title insurer and there is full client disclosure and consent.

But what happens if the premium would be less to the client if those payments weren’t paid by the Title Insurer to the lawyer? A payment for services rendered that actually reduces the costs incurred by a Title Insurer is one thing – but an incentive to refer work to a Title Insurer is another.

If the cost to the Tile Insurer is more because of incentive payments or excessive fee payments, the insurer’s cost will:

A) be passed on to the client; or

B) swallowed by the insurer.

Most of us are not naive to think B will happen.

Let’s be clear.

The LSO does not permit lawyers to receive incentives for recommending a specific title insurance product or to receive commissions or fees with respect to any title insurance coverage.

The LSO has rules in place that require lawyers to disclose and obtain consent where they are retained to provide services to multiple parties. But, a recent survey revealed at least 30% don’t disclose to their clients that payments are being received from title insurers.

If you do residential purchases (like I do), the client just wants to know the bottom line and when they can get the keys. They want to spend as little time in your office as possible and usually will sign almost anything without taking the time to read it (even when you insist they do so). I am concerned whether genuine disclosure and consent is realistic and I’m also concerned whether the true cost and price of title insurance is being inflated because of payments by title insurers.

A lot of emails have been sent out from various stakeholders/advocates promoting different propositions.

My position on this issue has been clear from the beginning.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a ban on providing paid services.
But, how to we implement a system that is fair to everyone, including both lawyers and clients?

Yes, I’m a fan of TitlePlus Title Insurance BUT
, I don’t use TitlePlus exclusively. Under various circumstances I have used Stewart title, Chicago Title and other Insurers.

Yes, other Title Insurers may be easier to use and get policies from.

Yes, every policy has its pros and cons.

Not all policies and coverage are the same.

If you think the present policy is ok then let the LSO know why you support the present approach. Make suggestions on how to insure “full disclosure” is real disclosure.

It is the LSO’s obligation to ensure the public is being treated fairly. But we are also entitled to be paid fairly for the services we provide.

If you have changes/alterations or suggestions, please, let them know.

The time to speak up is now.