Inter-Provincial Law Firms and the Merger of Shrum, Liddle & Hebenton and McCarthy & McCarthy
![handle is hein.barjournals/advvba0043 and id is 15 raw text is: TheAdvocate 15
Inter-Provincial Law Firms and the
Merger of Shrum, Liddle &
Hebenton and McCarthy &
McCarthy
by Byran Gibson
Should lawyers in British Columbia be permitted to form a law firm which includes
partners who are qualified only in another province? This question is immediately
relevant in British Columbia because the firm in which I am a partner, Shrum, Liddle
& Hebenton, has entered into an agreement in principle with the Toronto law firm of
McCarthy & McCarthy to merge the two firms.
Shrum, Liddle & Hebenton is a Vancouver law firm of 42 lawyers, 22 of whom are
partners. We have a general practice, being engaged in most areas of litigation and
most areas of solicitor's work. McCarthy & McCarthy, which traces its roots to the firm
of Boulton & McCarthy, established in Barrie, Ontario, in 1855, is now a partnership
in Toronto comprising 138 lawyers of whom 75 are partners. Its areas of practice are
wider than ours because of its longer history and larger size.
The agreement between the two firms provides that they will be fully merged into
one partnership under the name of McCarthy & McCarthy. All lawyers practising in
the Vancouver office of the new firm will be duly qualified members of The Law
Society of British Columbia. We hope that, over the years, we can rotate some of the
members of legal staff between the two cities. Every person who moves will write the
bar examinations and become qualified to practise in the new jurisdiction.
I believe that nothing in the present rules of The Law Society of British Columbia
prohibits our proposed merger. However, our firm has requested the assurance of the
benchers o! The Law Society of British Columbia that they will not object to the
merger. One reason for this request is that we wish to avoid the retroactive invalida-
tion of the sort which was visited by The Law Society of Alberta on the interlocking
partnership created between Black & Company of Calgary and McCarthy & McCar-
thy in 1981. (See Black v. Law Society of Alberta, [1984] 6 WWR. 385; on appeal)
Another reason is our awareness that the existing British Columbia rules have been
drafted with single jurisdiction firms in mind. A number of features of our British
Columbia rules would be more effective in the multijurisdictional context if they were
refined in some respects.
In the time that has passed since Shrum, Liddle & Hebenton made its initial
submission to the Treasurer, we have received a number of comments about the
proposed merger from clients, members of the public and other lawyers. Comments,
especially from the public and clients, have been almost uniformly favourable. We
have also received expressions of support from a number of lawyers in the province.
However a few lawyers in other firms have expressed concerns about the conse-
quences of the merger. The purpose of this article is to discuss the reasons for the
merger, the issues that might concern The Law Society of British Columbia and to
demonstrate, insofar as I can, that the apprehensions are not warranted.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.barjournals/advvba0043&div=6&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Inter-Provincial Law Firms and the Merger of Shrum, Liddle & Hebenton and McCarthy & McCarthy
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most