An email from MLB today introduces RawLaw:

This new service allows users to have free access to all judgments in our databases 24 hrs a day, 7 days a wk with the option of purchasing the headnote at a very low cost. We offer convenient pymt methods in the form of billing or immediate credit card charge through Pay Pal. Check it out at www.rawlaw.ca

Interesting! . . . [more]

Well Saturday saw the unveiling of the Canadian Bar Association Task Force Report on Conflict of Interest which was adopted virtually unanimously by Council on Sunday morning. While implementation of the reforms will be up to the Law Societies, and the acceptability of our analysis awaits the judgment’s of the courts in adjudicating conflicts cases, one important part of the Report is a Toolkit of conflicts management materials which is available for use by Canadian lawyers right now. . . . [more]

♫ All I know is I expected so much more
I don’t know what to say…♫

Words and Music by Graham Greer, recorded by the Barstool Prophets.

On Monday, The Right Honourable Joseph Jacques Jean Chretien QC gave the breakfast speech to open the Canadian Bar Association’s Canadian Legal Conference in Quebec City. I was looking forward to a distinguished speech by one of Canada’s foremost politicians and lawyers on something like the Rule of Law, the Charter or the like. Unfortunately, very quickly into his speech he could not resist making a few jibes at his old nemises, Allan . . . [more]

What do Slavians/Slawyers think about the US practice of courts deciding that their decisions will not be published, or to ‘de-publish’ decisions that have already been published? I came across a citation for a case like that, where the higher court decided, apparently, that the lower court’s decision should be de-published. The effect is that it is not to be cited as authority and is removed from official court reports.

The case is People v Wu, 235 Cal.App 3d 614, 286 Cal Rptr 69 (1991), (California Court of Appeal); order of depublication by California Supreme Court Jan 23,1992. The case . . . [more]

We’ve mentioned The Lawyer’s Guide to Collaboration Tools & Technologies, Dennis Kennedy’s and Tom Mighell’s book, a few times here on Slaw. We’re big fans of both the authors. Now it’s time to report that they’ve started a companion blog — of the same name, natch. A month and a week old, the blog has a couple of interesting entries and we expect more of the same in the future. . . . [more]

Michael Kirby, Mr. Justice Kirby of the High Court is known to love the limelight and he doubtless was tickled when the latest issue of Australian Business described him as the Rock star of the bench.

In a wide ranging account drawn from a speech to university students he talked about the organization of judgments:

“I know the real reason you love me,” Justice Kirby said.

“Headings. Headings. Sub-headings. Sub-sub-headings. Indent dot points. That’s the real reason.”

Kirby had some other helpful hints for those who find his judgments time-consuming. “You don’t communicate ideas if you write High Court . . . [more]

I first met our new Slaw contributor Omar Ha-Redeye just over a year ago at a meeting of PR professionals when he was doing PR work in the healthcare industry. I was not previously familiar with him, but he stood out to me as one of the most approachable, charismatic people in the room. We immediately hit it off, as I am sure he hits it off with most people. He quietly told me he had applied for law school and was waiting to hear if he had been accepted. I am not at all surprised that he was! Not . . . [more]

When Dr. Henry Morgentaler was presented the Order of Canada some people raised eyebrows, but few were in a fury.

Church officials expressed disappointment with the appointment, and the Federal government deliberately distanced themselves. Dimitri Soudas, a government spokesperson, said,

The Conservative Government is not involved in either deliberations or decisions with respect to which individuals are appointed to the Order of Canada…

Rideau Hall makes these appointments based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council for the Order which is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Nobody expected the controversy to result in . . . [more]

I don’t mean to steal this issue from privacy guru David T. S. Fraser, but here’s a development that people might be interested in.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada launched a new Legal Corner page on their website this week.

Resources on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and Privacy Act are collected on the page.

Although we intend for this Corner to be particularly useful for members of the legal community and law students, we hope that individuals, organizations and government institutions will also benefit from accessing relevant laws, jurisprudence, findings, interpretations,

One of my profs during the first-year of university told me there are 4 types of lawyers:

1. Finders are those who find the work, better known today as rainmakers
2. Grinders are those who grind out the client work, and are really efficient and doing research memos
3. Binders are those who bring the members of a firm together by (for example) inviting a small group to lunch or recognizing achievements of the firm’s lawyers
4. Minders are those who perform administrative tasks, and coordinate the efforts of the finders, grinders, and binders to be sure that the firm will run as

[S]omewhere between 40 and 70 percent of trials now feature overmatched laymen bumbling through labyrinthine court procedures without the help of a lawyer.

The Walrus has an article by Alex Hutchinson, “The People’s Court, A case for universal legal care,” that looks at some of the changes that have happened to legal aid over the last decade and a few of the changes to civil procedure expected in British Columbia. . . . [more]

Richard A. Posner, the outspoken justice on the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and University of Chicago law professor, has written a short piece for The New Republic, entitled “In Defence of Looseness,” in which he takes the U.S. Supreme Court to task for its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller [PDF], the case involving the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution dealing with arms and militias. As always, Posner is enjoyable to read because his mind is good and he expresses his arguments well. If you’re interested in constitutional or statutory interpretation, you’ll . . . [more]