Jordan Furlong at Law 21 has a great post on decoupling price from cost in legal services.  His argument: law firms have never been motivated to streamline the cost of their production because of a long tradition of simply passing costs on to the client. True enough, for decades that mentality has fueled the relentless rise in the cost of legal services.

But the clients also have themselves to blame too, Furlong implies. Money quote:

“What’s interesting is that most conversations about “reducing costs” are one-dimensional. They focus on the client getting the same kinds of services from the same kinds of law firms at a lower price; or, more concisely, the same-old same-old for less. They don’t envision rethinking the source of the services, or more importantly, the ways in which those services are produced. Ron Friedmann points out that when looking at ways to control costs, in-house counsel tend to focus on pricing elements — rate freezes, flat fees, discounts, alternative fees, and so forth — while ignoring the potential savings of reforming the process by which legal services are provided.”

That said, the cost of legal services is beginning to adapt to new realities:

“Here’s the really important thing that’s happening right now: the price of legal services is finally becoming uncoupled from the costs lawyers incur to produce it. Partly through efforts to identify the underlying value of a service to the client (something unrelated to lawyers’ cost), and partly through the relentless advances of technology and globalization, legal services price has been liberated from lawyers’ costs and is starting to establish its own gravity and orbit.”

In the years ahead, legal services will be delivered from a variety of different source points.  Hopefully we’ll see the overall cost of legal service come back down to Earth as a result.  If so, technology and the automation of legal services delivery will have played a big role.

A recent blog post by Seth Godin outlined ways to do business online (post: here).

In summary he says, “connect the disconnected to each other and you create value.”

1. Connect advertisers to people who want to be advertised to.
2. Connect job hunters with jobs.
3. Connect information seekers with information.
4. Connect teams to each other.
5. Connect those seeking similar.
6. Connect to partners and those that can leverage your work.
7. Connect people who are proximate geographically.
8. Connect organizations spending money with ways to save money.
9. Connect like-minded people into a movement.
10. Connect people buying with people who are selling.

Of these items, we directly tackle items 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

NIMONIK is really about building a community of like-minded environmental managers, consultants and companies. We hope you help us build this thriving community with your comments and feedback.

For Québec

The proposed Regulation respecting the mandatory declaration of water withdrawals requires institutions not supplied by water supply works, as well as industries and businesses to send to the Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks the following information:

• the number of withdrawal sites used and their location,
• the intended use of the withdrawals, and
• whether or not measuring equipment is used to measure the volumes withdrawn

The proposed regulation would require those that withdraw frequently to measure the volumes withdrawn. Small and medium-sized businesses must send in information on their water withdrawals.

The proposed regulation may come into force 60 days after November 5, 2008.

In St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Barrette, neighbours of a cement factory filed a class-action lawsuit against the company alleging that the factory’s activities caused neighbourhood disturbances that were excessive.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Québec has two regimes of civil liability under s.976 of the Québec Civil Code:

1. The ordinary rules of civil liability, which are based on the wrongful conduct of the person who allegedly caused the disturbances, and
2. A regime of no-fault liability based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim for the purposes of s.976.

The fact that the company’s conduct was proper, and that it complied with all applicable standards were not valid defences. Under s. 976, the company is liable once there is proof that it has caused excessive neighbourhood annoyances.

In Québec, it is now important to conform to all applicable standards, but that in itself will not protect a company from civil liability. The effect of this ruling in other Canadian provinces and territories is unclear. Whether in Québec or not, consult a legal professional for more information.

Industrial polluters — even those that comply with emissions regulations — can be found liable and forced to pay significant damages if their activities are  found to be a nuisance to nearby residents.

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that St. Lawrence Cement (SLC), a subsidiary of the world’s second-biggest cement maker Holcim Ltd., was responsible for inconveniences its smoke and dust caused caused nearby residents in the Quebec City area. I have highlighted sections of a Globe and Mail Article, which outlines this finding.

What does this mean for your operations? Is following the letter of the law no longer enough? Strictly speaking, the answer is no, since the court concluded that there are two ways to determine civil liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances in Quebec law, wrote Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Madam Justice Marie Deschamps.  The first, under common rules of civil liability, is based on a person’s wrongful conduct, while the second is a regime of no?fault liability related to neighbourhood disturbances under art. 976 of the Civil Code of Québec.

Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the trial court had allowed the class action launched by local citizens, on the basis of that second scheme of no-fault liability related to neighbourhood disturbances exists under art. 976 of the Civil Code of Québec, which prohibits owners of land from forcing their neighbours to suffer abnormal or excessive annoyances.

“No-fault liability also reinforces the application of the polluter-pay principle,” the Court wrote.

It’s not so much that the ruling adds more environmental legal requirements to industrial activity.  Rather it is reiterating the rule that neighbours are only expected to “suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local custom”.  In other words, your property rights do not give you a free hand to do what you wish at the expense of those who are impacted by your activities.

There’s no question this ruling makes stakeholder engagement and community involvement all the more important for industry. Perhaps the most important item to take away from this decision is that it shows how effective a tool class actions are becoming in disputes involving the environment.  The sooner industry understands community expectation, the sooner they will save time, money and potentially, lawsuits.