Law firm Cassels Brock sues 150 lawyers

In response, Cassels has filed a claim against almost 150 lawyers and law firms across Canada. Cassels’ claim targets the lawyers from whom the individual GM dealers were required to seek independent advice when they were given just six days, over the Victoria Day weekend in May, 2009, to accept their “wind-down agreements” from General Motors. Cassels’ claim, filed late last year, demands that any damages it is forced to pay to the auto dealers should be instead covered by this list of lawyers; the claim also seeks legal costs for Cassels.

The Globe and Mail
May 1, 2012

Law firm Cassels Brock sues 150 lawyers
Jeff Gray

GM.jpg

Jerry Gazarek, who once owned a Pickering, Ont., Chevy-Cadillac dealership before he was forced out after 32 years, stands at the now-vacant dealership, May 1, 2012. Mr. Gazarek is part of a class-action lawsuit against General Motors and law firm Cassels Brock and Blackwell. Michele Siu for The Globe and Mail

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP is suing close to 150 law firms and lawyers across Canada as it faces conflict-of-interest allegations in a closely watched lawsuit.

The Bay Street law firm is a defendant in a $750-million class-action suit launched by more than 200 former GM car dealers against General Motors of Canada Ltd. (GM-N22.93-0.38-1.63%) over the rapid-fire shutdown of their businesses in 2009, as the car maker sought a government bailout and teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.

That original lawsuit accuses GM of using “shock and awe” tactics to pressure the dealers into agreeing to close their businesses in just a few days, allegedly violating franchise laws. The suit also alleges that Cassels had an “undisclosed conflict-of-interest” in the case.

The suit alleges that Cassels advised both the auto dealers’ association and the Canadian government on the matter, as Ottawa was allegedly pressuring GM to cut its number of dealerships to receive a bailout and avoid bankruptcy. The allegations have not been proven in court.

In response, Cassels has filed a claim against almost 150 lawyers and law firms across Canada.

Cassels’ claim targets the lawyers from whom the individual GM dealers were required to seek independent advice when they were given just six days, over the Victoria Day weekend in May, 2009, to accept their “wind-down agreements” from General Motors.

Cassels’ claim, filed late last year, demands that any damages it is forced to pay to the auto dealers should be instead covered by this list of lawyers; the claim also seeks legal costs for Cassels.

The list ranges from Cassels’ Bay Street rivals to small-town solo lawyers, and other unknown lawyers it identifies as “John Doe.” If any harm were done, the claim alleges, it was because of those lawyers’ “negligence,” not Cassels.

The class-action suit’s allegation that Cassels was wrong in acting both for the federal government and for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association has attracted wide attention in legal circles, because it raises fundamental questions about conflicts of interest.

The way the profession deals with conflicts has been a source of contention for years, especially as law firms merge into larger entities more likely to end up with clients with opposing interests.

David Sterns, a Toronto class-action lawyer with Sotos LLP acting for the GM dealers in their lawsuit, calls Cassels’ move to sue nearly 150 lawyers unprecedented.

“For one law firm to be suing that many other law firms is pretty unusual,” Mr. Sterns said.

Cassels declined Tuesday to comment on the case. Lawyers and law firms on the list contacted on Tuesday also declined to comment.

Claims such as this one are usually handled by the insurers that provide lawyers with their malpractice policies.

The original case against GM and Cassels was certified, or given a green light as a class action, by Mr. Justice George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court last year.

Judge Strathy said in his decision that he recognized the $750-million action may be “an embarrassment” to the Bay Street law firm. But he refused a request that the case against Cassels be put on hold pending the result of the fight against GM.

Both GM and Cassels lost appeals of the certification decision in Divisional Court, in rulings released in March. Cassels is now seeking permission to appeal that ruling before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Jerry Gazarek, 71, lost both of his family dealerships in Pickering, Ont., east of Toronto, where he had sold cars for 32 years. He said he only had a few days to find a local lawyer to look over the wind-down agreements from GM over the holiday weekend in May, 2009, which he said was not enough time.

He said he had spent more than $5-million on renovations to his main dealership at GM’s behest in 2006. And the $600,000 he received from GM under the wind-down agreement, he said, was barely enough to cover the costs of terminating his nearly 100 employees.

Mr. Gazarek said that while he decided to sell his real estate to cover his costs and retire, some of his fellow dealers ended up in much worse financial shape.

“They gave us three or four working days to surrender our lives,” he said. “ ‘Get independent legal advice by your local solicitor and get it in by Tuesday or we’ll go bankrupt and you won’t get anything.’ Talk about a gun to your head.”

COMMENTS

1. Nonsense
I vote for the 750 . Hope Casels takes the hit they deserve. Their implied arrogance that they are wiser than the other 750 is the height of hubris.

2. NeoNerd
7:10 PM on May 1, 2012
… and now you know why many lawyers will not do Independant Legal Advice. I'm one of them. All you do is to provide your insurance to cover the other guy's *ss.

3. QSE1
10:12 AM on May 2, 2012
The "sisters" have a number of checks and balances to vet potential conflict of interest issues. I suspect greed $$$$ at CB overrode the firm's COI protocol.

4. Simmadawnnaw
11:11 AM on May 2, 2012
Wow. Cassels must have let their PR staff go. As an in-house lawyer for a multi-national my immediate reaction was to make a mental note never to instruct Cassels. Complete and utter bush league nonsense. I would have to think that the current crop of senior associates must have cringed deeply to see the greed and incompetence of the partnership tarnish the reputation of the firm they were hoping to take stewardship of.

5. jafo72
12:18 PM on May 2, 2012
Greedy senior partners? Say it ain't so!!

6. J Hanner
7:32 AM on May 2, 2012
What GM did to their dealers was absolutely criminal. Criminal.

The dealers never cost GM a penny. They were independent businesses.

GM has lost a lot of market share in the Tillsonburg area where they closed down 4 dealers within a 30 mile radius. You see a lot less GM product on the road and for good reason.

I hope GM gets creamed in these lawsuits.

7. Joseph 3050
8:03 PM on May 1, 2012
First we let Conrad Black in and then we find out Bay St. lawyers are suing other Bay St. lawyers…. Whats next…. the Leafs' make the playoffs?

8. jafo72
8:45 AM on May 2, 2012
I don't disagree. However, GM had waaay too many dealerships to begin with.

9. Joseph 3050
8:03 PM on May 1, 2012
First we let Conrad Black in and then we find out Bay St. lawyers are suing other Bay St. lawyers…. Whats next…. the Leafs' make the playoffs?

10. Breakfast Sausage
9:28 AM on May 3, 2012
Take note little John Doe Lawyers and law students,

This is an important case study in the business of law, not the law itself.

This is how a big firm tries to save its asss-ets, by blaming the little people (John Does), how insulting. Typical big business tactic. Three things to be noted here.

1. It's trying to pass on its laiblity should a judgement be rendered against them.

2. It's trying to deflect attention from its own credibility by using the courts.

3. It's probably tyring to protect the partnership assets and bonuses that will be on the line.

To the law students who think the big firm it the be all and the end all, think again, there are many careers in law and related fields.

Signed

Proud little John Doe LL.B.

11. Bjorn Dunkerbecker
2:14 PM on May 2, 2012
First of all, let's take all just take a deep breath and … sorry, time's up, have to docket.

12. The Media Lies to YOU
3:31 PM on May 2, 2012
"The list ranges from Cassels' Bay Street rivals to small-town solo lawyers, and other unknown lawyers it identifies as "John Doe." If any harm were done, the claim alleges, it was because of those lawyers' "negligence," not Cassels."

Did Cassels disclose the 'alleged' conflict of interest to the ILA providers?

13. An Observer
12:27 PM on May 2, 2012
Lawyers fighting lawyers. Sounds like a good plot for a sequel of too big to fail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/law-firm-cassels-brock-sues-150-lawyers/article2419438/


Brought to you by WikidFranchise.org

Risks: Blue chip, Conflict of interest, Incompetent or predatory: for the small business investor, the outcome is the same, Credence goods, Credence good fraudulent expert, Credence goods: taking advantage of the innocents, Lawsuits, class action, Lawyers trying to play both sides of dispute,** Reputation risk, Sue the lawyer, Termination of franchisee, mass, Trust, Canada, 20120501 Law firm

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License