The Sun Rose in the West, Again
“[5] I have reviewed the time spent which is 15.9 hours and frankly, I am surprised that so few hours are being claimed …. ” (2010 ONSC 3935).
A round of applause for the successful party’s lawyer, please.
In somewhat the same vein, put up a hand if you’re in favour of a new rule of lawyer’s professional conduct which states that lawyers acting for the winning side in a law suit are allowed to comment on the merits of the result for the media – print, electronic, and otherwise – only if the lawyers concede, on the record, that the decision is wrong on the facts and the law, and that they were surprised (nay, astonished, flabbergasted, etc) that any of their arguments were accepted by the judge. (There would be an analogous rule for the lawyers on the losing side.)
There could be an exception for the case where the lawyer is not and will not benefit from his or her work, beyond the moral reward of taking on a brief where there is wrong involved that requires correction.
David, this is an interesting, short, costs case. I am interested in your take on the way the style of cause is presented in
ah’she hodeeheehonto v. Bomberry, 2010 ONSC 3935 and Ah’she hodeeheehonto v. Bomberry, 2010 ONSC 3701, the decision that lead to the costs award.
What does “trustee for the living man” mean? It only appears in CanLII twice – in these two decisions.
Stumped,
Shaunna