As noted above, this error is very easy to prevent. Everyone should have proper tickler systems in place. You should identify time deadlines, follow-ups and reminders. Establish a system for checking the accuracy of information inputs. Keep a backup system as a safety net. Calendar every case, not just litigation matters.

For a more detailed review of what you can do to prevent this error, and others like it, visit www.practicepro.ca and download the managing the lawyer/client relationship booklet. It will help you avoid making this mistake, and build a better relationship with your client.

Please ensure that your clients sign the Acknowledgments, as recommended by the Joint Committee. If the Acknowledgment generated by the software does not cover any parties who would traditionally have signed the document, please consider alternate ways to evidence the party's consent.

The introduction of electronic registration across Ontario has raised numerous questions from lawyers on how LPIC will deal the payment of DEDUCTIBLES on claims arising out of escrow closings.

In various presentations made recently, LPIC has confirmed the following position on lawyers' liability for DEDUCTIBLES on claims arising out of e-reg transactions.

Liability arising from the Document Registration Agreement (DRA)
The issue
The real estate bar has been concerned about the need to verify the reliability of the other lawyer(s) in the transaction, and the possibility that some firms could consequently refuse to do escrow closings with firms (based on lack of knowledge and trust of the other parties).

LPIC 's position
LPIC will not require payment of the DEDUCTIBLE, or impose a claims history levy surcharge, where a claim is brought against a member due to a purported breach of the DRA by the opposing counsel during the escrow closing.

To access the Document Registration Agreement, as approved by the OBA-LSUC Joint Committee on Electronic Registration of Title Documents on the LSUC website, click here.

Liability arising from compliance with law statements
The issue
Members of the bar have questioned the need to verify the grounds used by the other lawyer in the transaction to make a compliance with law statement.

LPIC 's position
LPIC believes there should be no need for a lawyer (with no adverse knowledge) to verify statements made by opposing counsel, even if the compliance with law statement is being made to close a pending transaction as opposed to a historic transaction.

LPIC therefore will waive any DEDUCTIBLE and claims history levy surcharge in situations where a negligence claim is brought against a lawyer who innocently relied on the compliance with law statement made by the lawyer representing the other party(ies).

Liability arising from e-reg signatures
The issue
In the e-reg environment, it is lawyers, not clients themselves, who sign the documents for registration. This raises concerns that lawyers can be held accountable for factual statements made by clients (such as confirmation of age, spousal status) when the lawyer does not personally know if the information provided by the client is correct.

LPIC 's position
Section 57 of the Land Titles Act states that a person on whose application an erroneous registration is made is open to a claim by the person wrongfully deprived of land by reason of that entry on the register.

LPIC believes the following two measures help to "bullet-proof" lawyers on this issue:

• The Acknowledgment generated by the e-reg system confirms the answers given to the software, and should be signed by the client before closing. Therefore, the likelihood of the client making a mistake or denying giving information after the fact is minimized.

• Section 40(3) of O.Reg. 19/99 states that, in terms of factual statements, the lawyer is deemed NOT to be the person on whose application the registration is made, making the client primarily responsible for any such errors.

Please ensure that your clients sign the Acknowledgments, as recommended by the Joint Committee. If the Acknowledgment generated by the software does not cover any parties who would traditionally have signed the document, please consider alternate ways to evidence the party's consent.

LPIC's legal fee payments

Each year, LPIC provides an updated list of the legal fee payments made to the defence counsel law firms who billed the most to LPIC in the previous year.

The attached chart is a composite that takes as its base, information on the legal fee payments made to the law firms who, in 1995, billed the most to LPIC; the chart tracks legal fee payments made to these firms through to 1998. It also provides additional information on the firms with which LPIC currently contracts to provide most of its legal work.

Overall legal fee payments to defence counsel firms have decreased consistently over the last four years, reflecting LPIC's success in managing claim costs more effectively. The chart also indicates a realignment of the firms who do most of LPIC's legal work.

As outlined in LPIC's annual report, LPIC insured are quite satisfied with the defence counsel process now in place. In a survey of 300 lawyers who had a claim with LPIC, 88 per cent indicated they are satisfied with the process of selecting defence counsel (all insureds play an active role in selecting the most appropriate counsel for a specific claims file); 93 per cent said their concerns were understood by LPIC examiner staff; and 92 per cent said they were satisfied with LPIC's service.