Litigation Branch Evaluation Final Report

Litigation Branch Evaluation Final Report

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

Appendix C: Data Collection Instruments

Key Informant Interview Guides

Case study guides

File review templates

Survey Questionnaire

Key Informant Interview Guides

Case study guides

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Litigation Branch Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for International Assistance Group Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for
Litigation Practice Management Centre Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for
National Security Group and National Security Coordinator

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Regional Justice Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Ministers of Justice Portfolios

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Client Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Departmental Legal Services Unit Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Litigation Branch

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Client Department Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Departmental Legal Services Units and Regional Offices

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Civil Litigation Section (CLS) and
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit (MCAMLU)
File Review

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Civil Litigation Section (CLS) and
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit (MCAMLU)
File Review – Appeal Schedule

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
International Assistance Group (IAG)
File Review

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
National Security Group (NSG)
File Review

Litigation Branch Evaluation

Background

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Litigation Branch Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for International Assistance Group Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Litigation Practice Management Centre Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for National Security Group and National Security Coordinator

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Regional Justice Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Ministers of Justice Portfolios

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Client Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Key Informant Interview Guide for Departmental Legal Services Unit Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Case Study Guide for Litigation Branch

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Case Study Guide for Client Department Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Case Study Guide for Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch Case Study Guide for Departmental Legal Services Units and Regional Offices

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Litigation Branch Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for International Assistance Group Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for
Litigation Practice Management Centre Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for
National Security Group and National Security Coordinator

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Regional Justice Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Ministers of Justice Portfolios

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Client Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Key Informant Interview Guide for Departmental Legal Services Unit Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Litigation Branch

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Client Department Representatives

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Public Law Sector

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Case Study Guide for Departmental Legal Services Units and Regional Offices

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Civil Litigation Section (CLS) and
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit (MCAMLU)
File Review

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
Civil Litigation Section (CLS) and
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit (MCAMLU)
File Review – Appeal Schedule

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
International Assistance Group (IAG)
File Review

Evaluation of the Litigation Branch
National Security Group (NSG)
File Review

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Overview

iCase information (to extent available)

To be completed by the Business Management Section

Information from file [Answer the following questions based on documents in the file]

Files brought before National Litigation Committee

Dispute resolution

Risk assessment

Files with legal agent involvement (Q54 – 65)

Overview

To be completed by the Business Management Section

Information from file [Answer the following questions based on documents in the file]

Files brought before National Litigation Committee

Risk assessment

Files with legal agent involvement (Q54 – 65)

Overview

iCase information (to extent available)

To be completed by the Business Management Section

Information from file [Answer the following questions based on documents in the file]

Files brought before National Litigation Committee

Risk assessment

Overview

iCase information (to extent available)

To be completed by the Business Management Section

Information from file [Answer the following questions based on documents in the file]

Files brought before National Litigation Committee

Risk assessment

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance

Performance — effectiveness

Performance — efficiency and economy

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

Conclusion

Legal risk management

Consultation and communication

Resources

Results

The Department of Justice has hired PRA Inc. to conduct an evaluation of the Litigation Branch. The evaluation covers the work of all areas within the Litigation Branch. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), Litigation has functional and coordination responsibility for all litigation conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Justice and chairs the National Litigation Committee. In addition, the units within the Litigation Branch include: the Litigation Practice Management Centre; the Civil Litigation Section; the Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit; the National Security Group; National Security Coordinator; and the International Assistance Group.

The evaluation includes interviews with those working within the Litigation Branch, with representatives of Justice Canada, and with representatives of other government departments who are familiar with the work of the Litigation Branch.

The information we gather through this interview will be summarized in aggregate form. Interview notes will not be shared outside of PRA and the Evaluation Division of Justice Canada. You will have an opportunity to review our written summary of the interview and make any corrections or additions.

**The following questions refer to the Litigation Branch, but we understand that you may not have direct knowledge of the Litigation Branch as a whole. If that is the case, please respond for the unit within the Litigation Branch with which you have experience.**

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities.

2. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in the demand for Litigation Branch services? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics of your work (e.g., self-represented litigants). How has the Litigation Branch responded to these trends?

3. How does your work support the current policy and legislative objectives of the Government of Canada?

4. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

In your view, are these Service Standards being met? In instances where the Service Standards are not met, please identify which are not, and what you believe are the most common contributing factors?

5. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

6. How would you describe the working relationship between the NLC and the regional litigation committees? Do you have any suggestions for the NLC, including how it coordinates with the regional litigation committees?

7. How would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and regional offices more generally? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and regional offices coordinate/collaborate with each other?

8. How would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and Departmental Legal Services Units (DLSUs)? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and DLSUs coordinate/collaborate with each other?

9. What other processes or structures, if any, does the Litigation Branch have in place to resolve any areas of disagreement between the client and Justice or within Justice, and to ensure that consistent legal positions are taken? (Probe: Justice National Security and Intelligence Committee for NSG)

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

10. What role, if any, do you play in the process of appointing legal agents? Approximately how many times in the last three years have you been involved in legal agent appointments? What factors do you consider when determining the need for a legal agent? How is the client involved in the decision to use an agent, if at all?

11. Have you instructed or managed legal agents? If yes, how do you monitor and evaluate agent activities? Can you think of a time that you had an issue with agent performance? If so, what factors did you consider when addressing these issues? What, if any, remedial action did you take to rectify the issues?

12. How effective is the LPMC in the management and operations of the Agent Affairs Program? Overall, do you have any suggestions for how to improve when and how legal agents are used?

13. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk? (Probe: consultations with client; use of processes and tools for assessing legal risk) How consistent and/or helpful to the client is the language used to communicate legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.
How does the Litigation Branch contribute to its clients’ understanding of the implications and potential legal risks of their legal issues?
How effective is the Litigation Branch in assisting clients with managing and mitigating legal risk?
To what extent do clients understand their role and Justice’s role in managing legal risk?
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve clients’ understanding of the implications and potential risks of their legal issues?

14. In your experience, to what extent is the advice provided by the Litigation Branch considered by clients in developing legal strategies and making decisions? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered? (Probe: timeliness of advice; provision of advice with options, implications, recommendations)

15. How does the Litigation Branch contribute to ministerial decision making (e.g., whether to intervene in court, appoint agents, surrender individuals to foreign countries)?

16. Do Litigation Branch staff have the appropriate tools, technology, and resources to support their work? (Probe: practice groups; practice directives; knowledge management system; Justipedia; best practice documents; e-discovery software) What is lacking/missing?

17. Do Litigation Branch staff have adequate training opportunities? What gaps in training exist, if any? (Probe: subject matter; does training address needs of senior and junior lawyers)

18. How does the Litigation Branch’s work support Canada’s bijural and bilingual legal system? To what extent is the Litigation Branch a centre of expertise for providing litigation services in this context? In your response, please consider how internal policies, procedures, and processes reflect and respond to the bijural and bilingual nature of the legal system.

19. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human — sufficiency in number and level for paralegals and counsel; financial; technological) in place to support the work of the Litigation Branch? How does the Litigation Branch manage resource challenges?

20. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness in obtaining client instructions

21. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk and/or complexity
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

22. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

23. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

The Department of Justice has hired PRA Inc. to conduct an evaluation of the Litigation Branch. The evaluation includes interviews with those working within the Litigation Branch, with representatives of Justice Canada, and with representatives of other government departments who are familiar with the work of the Litigation Branch.

**For brevity’s sake, the questions refer to Litigation Branch legal services or advice. Please respond based on the work you do for the Litigation Branch, including litigation, litigation support, legal advice, policy advice, and legal policy advice.**

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities.

3. How does your work support the current policy and legislative objectives of the Government of Canada?

4. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

5. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

10. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk? (Probe: consultations with client; use of processes and tools for assessing legal risk) How consistent and/or helpful to the client is the language used to communicate legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.

11. In your experience, to what extent is the advice provided by the Litigation Branch considered by clients in developing legal strategies and making decisions? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered? (Probe: timeliness of advice; provision of advice with options, implications, recommendations)

12. How does the Litigation Branch contribute to ministerial decision making (e.g., whether to intervene in court, appoint agents, surrender individuals to foreign countries)?

13. How does the Litigation Branch ensure that it properly exercises its delegated ministerial functions (e.g., Extradition Act; Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act; use of agents/outsourcing)? Do you have any suggestions for improvements to how the Litigation Branch manages its delegated ministerial functions?

14. How does the Litigation Branch manage information in a way that respects and maintains the security levels associated with the classification of that information? Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the handling of sensitive information?

15. Do Litigation Branch staff have the appropriate tools, technology, and resources to support their work? (Probe: practice groups; practice directives; knowledge management system; Justipedia; best practice documents; e-discovery software) What is lacking/missing?

16. Do Litigation Branch staff have adequate training opportunities? What gaps in training exist, if any? (Probe: subject matter; does training address needs of senior and junior lawyers)

17. How does the Litigation Branch’s work support Canada’s bijural and bilingual legal system? To what extent is the Litigation Branch a centre of expertise for providing litigation services in this context? In your response, please consider how internal policies, procedures, and processes reflect and respond to the bijural and bilingual nature of the legal system.

18. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human — sufficiency in number and level for paralegals and counsel; financial; technological) in place to support the work of the Litigation Branch? How does the Litigation Branch manage resource challenges?

19. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk and/or complexity
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

20. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

21. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities.

3. How does your work support the current policy and legislative objectives of the Government of Canada?

4. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

5. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

10. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk? (Probe: consultations with client; use of processes and tools for assessing legal risk) How consistent and/or helpful to the client is the language used to communicate legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.
How does the Litigation Branch contribute to its clients’ understanding of the implications and potential legal risks of their legal issues?
How effective is the Litigation Branch in assisting clients with managing and mitigating legal risk?
To what extent do clients understand their role and Justice’s role in managing legal risk?
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve clients’ understanding of the implications and potential risks of their legal issues?

12. How does the Litigation Branch contribute to ministerial decision making (e.g., whether to intervene in court, appoint agents, surrender individuals to foreign countries)?

14. Based on your experience, are there any issues, gaps, or areas for improvement in how Justice counsel (e.g., requesting manager or instructing counsel) appoint and/or manage legal agents?

16. Do Litigation Branch staff have adequate training opportunities? What gaps in training exist, if any? (Probe: subject matter; does training address needs of senior and junior lawyers)

19. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness in obtaining client instructions

20. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk and/or complexity
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

21. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

22. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities.

3. How does your work support the current policy and legislative objectives of the Government of Canada?

4. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

5. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

10. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk? (Probe: consultations with client; use of processes and tools for assessing legal risk) How consistent and/or helpful to the client is the language used to communicate legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.
How does the Litigation Branch contribute to its clients’ understanding of the implications and potential legal risks of their legal issues?
How effective is the Litigation Branch in assisting clients with managing and mitigating legal risk?
To what extent do clients understand their role and Justice’s role in managing legal risk?
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve clients’ understanding of the implications and potential risks of their legal issues?

12. How does the Litigation Branch contribute to ministerial decision making (e.g., whether to intervene in court, appoint agents, surrender individuals to foreign countries)?

13. How does the Litigation Branch ensure that it properly exercises its delegated ministerial functions (e.g., Extradition Act; Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act; use of agents/outsourcing) Do you have any suggestions for improvements to how the Litigation Branch manages its delegated ministerial functions?

14. How does the Litigation Branch manage information in a way that respects and maintains the security levels associated with the classification of that information? How does the Litigation Branch track the redaction of sensitive information and any changes that are made to those redactions over the course of a section 38 case? Do you have any suggestions for improvements to the handling of sensitive information?

16. Do Litigation Branch staff have adequate training opportunities? What gaps in training exist, if any? (Probe: subject matter; does training address needs of senior and junior lawyers)

19. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness in obtaining client instructions

20. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk and/or complexity
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

21. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

22. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

The Department of Justice has hired PRA Inc. to conduct an evaluation of the Litigation Branch. The evaluation covers the work of all areas within the Litigation Branch. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), Litigation has functional and coordination responsibility for all litigation conducted by or on behalf of the Department of Justice and chairs the National Litigation Committee. In addition, the units within the Litigation Branch include: the Litigation Practice Management Centre; the Civil Litigation Section; the Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit; the National Security Group; the National Security Coordinator; and the International Assistance Group.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Please describe briefly your current roles and responsibilities. In addition, please describe the level and nature of your involvement with the Litigation Branch. Which Litigation Branch units have you worked with the most?

If you have worked with more than one unit, please specify to which unit you are referring in your answer and how you interact with the Litigation Branch.

2. Over the last five years, have you experienced a change in your demand for Litigation Branch services? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics of your work. How has the Litigation Branch responded to these trends?

3. (For Regional Offices that have work with IAG) Over the last five years, has the demand for your services by the IAG changed? In what ways has it changed? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics of your work.

4. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

5. We are interested in your experiences working with the NLC. Is it clear when a matter should come before the NLC? What is your opinion of the submission process? How useful is the feedback your regional office has received from the NLC?

7. How would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and regional offices? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and regional offices coordinate/collaborate with each other?

8. (Note to interviewer: not applicable for regional office work with IAG) From your perspective, how well is the briefing process working between regional offices and the Litigation Branch? How does the briefing process work when different regional offices are involved in a national legal issue (e.g., who is responsible for briefing)?

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

10. Has your region worked with the Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit? In what capacity? How was that experience? (Probe: did MCAMLU clearly communicate with your office on the file? How effective was the working relationship with MCAMLU?)

11. Has your region worked with the International Assistance Group? In what capacity? How was that experience? (Probe: did IAG give clear instructions? How effective was the working relationship with IAG?)

12. Has your region worked with the Litigation Practice Management Centre (oversees the Agents Affairs Program) when it has used agents on files? How was that experience in terms of providing a clear operational framework for how to work with agents and assisting with the management of the file?

13. What role, if any, do you play in the process for appointing legal agents? Approximately how many times in the last three years have you been involved in legal agent appointments? What factors do you consider when determining the need for a legal agent? How is the client involved in the decision to use an agent, if at all?

14. Have you instructed or managed legal agents? If yes, how do you monitor and evaluate agent activities? Can you think of a time that you had an issue with agent performance? If so, what factors did you consider when addressing these issues? What, if any, remedial action did you take to rectify the issues?

15. How effective is the LPMC in the management and operations of the Agent Affairs Program? Overall, do you have any suggestions for how to improve when and how legal agents are used?

16. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Describe the level and nature of your portfolio’s involvement with the Litigation Branch. Which Litigation Branch units have you worked with the most?

If you have worked with more than one unit, please specify to which unit you are referring in your answer.

2. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in your client department/ agency’s demand for Litigation Branch services? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics. How has the Litigation Branch responded to these trends? (Probe: IAG, NSG, CLS, Class Actions)

3. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

4. Based on your experience, how would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and DLSUs in your portfolio? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and DLSUs coordinate/collaborate with each other?

5. How would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and regional offices more generally? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and regional offices coordinate/collaborate with each other?

6. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

7. What other processes or structures, if any, does the Litigation Branch have in place to resolve any areas of disagreement between the client and Justice or within Justice, and to ensure that consistent legal positions are taken? (Probe: Justice National Security and Intelligence Committee for NSG)

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

8. How effective is the LPMC in the management and operations of the Agent Affairs Program? Overall, do you have any suggestions for how to improve when and how legal agents are used?

9. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.

10. What do you consider to be the respective roles of the Litigation Branch, the DLSU, and the client department/agency in managing legal risk? Do you have any suggestions for how the Litigation Branch can work with DLSUs and client department/agencies to improve the management of legal risk?

12. Has your portfolio worked with the International Assistance Group and/or the National Security Group? In what capacity? How was that experience?

13. Based on your experience with the Litigation Branch, are appropriate counsel assigned to files (in terms of counsel years of experience and areas of subject matter expertise, and the level of complexity of files)? Please explain.

14. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human — sufficiency in number and level for paralegals and counsel; financial; technological) in place to support the work of the Litigation Branch? How does the Litigation Branch manage resource challenges?

15. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness of client instructions

16. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk, complexity, or other complicating factors
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

17. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

18. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Describe the level and nature of the Public Law Sector’s involvement with the Litigation Branch. Which Litigation Branch units have you worked with the most?

If you have worked with more than one unit, please specify to which unit you are referring in your answer.

2. Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in the demand for Litigation Branch services? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics. How has the Litigation Branch responded to these trends? (Probe: IAG, NSG, CLS, Class Actions)

3. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

4. Based on your experience, how would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and the Public Law Sector? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and Public Law Sector coordinate/collaborate with each other?

5. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

6. What other processes or structures, if any, does the Litigation Branch have in place to resolve any areas of disagreement between the client and Justice or within Justice, and to ensure that consistent legal positions are taken? (Probe: Justice National Security and Intelligence Committee for NSG)

In your opinion, are these processes and strategies effective in ensuring that the Litigation Branch takes an integrated, whole of government approach? Why or why not?

7. Legal risk management within Justice Canada includes the identification, assessment, mitigation, and management of legal risk.

How effective is the Litigation Branch in early identification and assessment of legal risk?
In your opinion, are high-risk files sufficiently resourced?
In your view, how well does the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? In your answer, please consider the processes relevant to your work (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure). Are senior managers/officials in Justice made sufficiently aware of complex and high-risk cases? Please explain.

8. What do you consider to be the respective roles of the Litigation Branch, the Public Law Sector, and the client department/agency in managing legal risk? Do you have any suggestions for how the Litigation Branch can work with the Public Law Sector and client department/agencies to improve the management of legal risk?

9. Has the Public Law Sector worked with the International Assistance Group and/or the National Security Group? In what capacity? How was that experience?

10. Based on your experience with the Litigation Branch, are appropriate counsel assigned to files (in terms of counsel years of experience and areas of subject matter expertise, and the level of complexity of files)? Please explain.

11. In your opinion, are adequate resources (e.g., human — sufficiency in number and level for paralegals and counsel; financial; technological) in place to support the work of the Litigation Branch? How does the Litigation Branch manage resource challenges?

12. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk, complexity, or other complicating factors
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

13. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

14. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Do you work directly with the Litigation Branch or only indirectly, through the Departmental Legal Services Unit? Describe the level and nature of your involvement with the Litigation Branch. Which Litigation Branch units have you worked with the most?

If you have worked with more than one unit, please specify to which unit you are referring in your answer.

2. [Note to interviewer: Clients working only with MCAMLU have typically only worked with them on large issues, so they won’t be able to assess trends. Please confirm with interviewee and skip this question] Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in your department/agency’s demand for Litigation Branch services? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics of your work. How has the Litigation Branch responded to these trends?

3. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

4. Please describe how/if the Litigation Branch and your department/agency work together to identify and assess legal risks, and how/if they work together to develop options to manage or mitigate those risks. In your opinion, how effective is this collaboration?

5. In your opinion, has your department/agency’s level of awareness and understanding of legal risks improved over the last five years? If yes: to what do you attribute that improvement? (Probe: role of Litigation Branch and DLSU in increasing awareness) If no: how might Justice assist in improving your department/agency’s awareness and understanding of legal risks?

6. When you have worked with the Litigation Branch, how satisfied were you with how legal risks were communicated to your department/agency in terms of timeliness, clarity, and consistency? In your opinion, were the legal risk descriptions useful to your department/agency? Why or why not?

7. How effective is the Litigation Branch in assisting clients with managing and mitigating legal risk? In your opinion, are high-risk files appropriately resourced by the Litigation Branch?

8. What do you consider to be the respective roles of the Litigation Branch and the client department/agency in legal risk management?

9. Have you experienced any disagreement with the legal advice given or litigation strategy suggested by the Litigation Branch? If so, how was that disagreement resolved? Were you satisfied with how this was handled by the Litigation Branch?

10. In your experience, to what extent was the advice provided by Litigation Branch considered in the legal strategies pursued and decisions made by your department/agency? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered?

11. Have you been involved in a file where the litigation work was outsourced to an agent? If so, were you consulted prior to the legal agent being assigned and did you approve the decision to outsource the work? Were you satisfied with the rationale provided for the assignment of a legal agent? Please describe your experience in terms of the quality and responsiveness of the legal services received, as well as the effectiveness of the monitoring by Justice of the agent’s work.

12. Based on your experience with the Litigation Branch, are appropriate counsel assigned to files (in terms of counsel years of experience and areas of expertise, and the level of complexity of files)? Please explain.

13. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness of client instructions

14. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk and/or complexity
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

15. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

16. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

In addition, some questions may not be applicable to the work you do. Please let us know, and we will skip that question.

The evaluation focuses on 2008–2013, so please consider your experiences during those years in your responses.

1. Describe the level and nature of your involvement with the Litigation Branch. Which Litigation Branch units have you worked with the most?

If you have worked with more than one unit, please specify to which unit you are referring in your answer.

3. (For DLSUs that have worked with IAG) Over the last five years, have you observed any changes in your interaction with the International Assistance Group? In what ways has it changed? In your response, please consider the volume, type of legal issues, complexity, legal risk level, and any other characteristics of your work.

4. As you know, the Litigation Branch is guided by Service Standards in its dealings with its clients. These standards include the following:

Provision of legal services in either official language
Courteous and respectful treatment
Regular and informative progress reports or ongoing feedback in respect of client requests for services
Provision of clear and practical guidance on resolving legal issues
Identification of means to prevent and resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunity
Respond in a timely manner to requests for legal services
Negotiate and meet mutually agreed-upon deadlines
Involvement of the client in the development of legal strategy and positions

5. Based on your experience, how would you describe the working relationship between the Litigation Branch and DLSUs? Are the roles and responsibilities of each clear? Do you have any suggestions for possible improvements in how the Litigation Branch and DLSUs coordinate/collaborate with each other?

6. Part of the mandate of the National Litigation Committee (NLC) is to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally. In your opinion, how well is it fulfilling its mandate?

7. What role, if any, do you play in the process for appointing legal agents? Approximately how many times in the last three years have you been involved in legal agent appointments? What factors do you consider when determining the need for a legal agent? How is the client involved in the decision to use an agent, if at all?

8. Have you instructed or managed legal agents? If yes, how do you monitor and evaluate agent activities? (Probe: please describe your experience in terms of the quality and responsiveness of the legal services received) Can you think of a time that you had an issue with agent performance? If so, what factors did you consider when addressing these issues? What, if any, remedial action did you take to rectify the issues?

9. How effective is the LPMC in the management and operations of the Agent Affairs Program? Overall, do you have any suggestions for how to improve when and how legal agents are used?

10. (Not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG) Please describe how/if the Litigation Branch, the DLSU, and your client department/agency work together to identify and assess legal risks, and how/if they work together to develop options to manage or mitigate those risks. In your opinion, how effective is this collaboration?

11. (Not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG) In your opinion, has your client department/agency’s level of awareness and understanding of legal risks improved over the last five years? If yes: To what do you attribute that improvement and what role does the DLSU and LB play? If no: how might your client department/agency’s awareness and understanding of legal risks be improved?

12. (Not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG)When you have worked with the Litigation Branch, how satisfied were you with how legal risks were communicated to you in terms of timeliness, clarity, and consistency? In your opinion, were the legal risk descriptions useful to you and your client department/agency? Why or why not? [Evaluation matrix Q6]

13. (Not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG) In your opinion, are high-risk files appropriately resourced by the Litigation Branch?

14. What do you consider to be the respective roles of the Litigation Branch, the DLSU, and the client department/agency in managing legal risk? Do you have any suggestions for how the Litigation Branch can work with DLSUs and client department/agencies to improve the management of legal risk?

15. Have you experienced any disagreement with the legal advice given or litigation strategy suggested by the Litigation Branch? If so, how was that disagreement resolved? Were you satisfied with how this was handled by the Litigation Branch?

16.(Not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG) In your experience, to what extent was the advice provided by Litigation Branch considered in the legal strategies pursued and decisions made by your client department/agency? What factors make it more or less likely that advice will be considered?

17. Have you worked with the International Assistance Group? In what capacity? How was that experience? (Probe: did IAG give clear instructions? How effective was the working relationship with IAG?)

(Questions 18 to 21 are not applicable to DLSUs that have only worked with IAG)

18. Based on your experience with the Litigation Branch, are appropriate counsel assigned to files (in terms of counsel years of experience and areas of subject matter expertise, and the level of complexity of files)? Please explain. (Probe added after pre-test: In your opinion, are adequate resources in place to support the work of the Litigation Branch? How well can the Litigation Branch handle e-discovery?)

19. In your opinion, what role do clients play in improving the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of legal services? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

the role and responsibility of clients in managing demand for legal services
the use of early dispute resolution or alternative dispute resolution processes by clients
the timeliness in which clients involve the Litigation Branch in files
the timeliness of client instructions

20. In your opinion, are the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch cost-effective? In your response, please consider issues such as the following:

use of alternative dispute resolution practices and early resolution strategies, when appropriate
appropriate use of agents
the hours spent on a case/file in proportion to legal risk, complexity, or other complicating factors
availability of counsel at the appropriate level for the file risk/complexity
use of paralegals
other tools or practices used to reduce the cost of legal services

21. What, if any, suggestions do you have for improving the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

22. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

The Department of Justice has hired PRA Inc. to conduct an evaluation of the Litigation Branch. One aspect of the study is an in-depth review of three files to provide more detailed information on the Litigation Branch’s approach to managing files. Each case study includes interviews with representatives of Justice and the client department/agency, as well as a review of the file, which is conducted by Justice Canada staff.

1. What was your role on the file that we will be discussing today?

2. If you are aware of it, please describe the process used to engage the Litigation Branch’s legal services in this file. In your opinion, was the Litigation Branch engaged in a timely manner? Why or why not?

3. Were you involved in the identification and assessment of legal risk on the file? If yes, were others from Justice Canada and the client department/agency consulted to assist in the identification and assessment of the legal risk? How were they involved? Was this involvement effective in identifying and assessing the legal risks?

4. To the best of your recollection, how were the legal risks described in this file in terms of risk level or other language used? Based on your experience on this file, do you think the Litigation Branch and Justice Canada use consistent language to describe legal risk? In your opinion, were the legal risk descriptions useful to the client department/agency? Why or why not?

5. In this file, how was Litigation Branch legal advice used to manage and mitigate legal risks?

6. Was a contingency plan developed for this file? Why or why not? Was the Litigation Branch consulted in the preparation of the contingency plan? If so, to what extent?

7. How often and for what purposes did the Litigation Branch consult with other areas of Justice (Departmental Legal Services Units, regional offices, specialized units at headquarters) on this file? Were the appropriate areas within Justice consulted? How effective were those consultations in managing the file?

8. How often and for what purposes did the Litigation Branch consult with the client department/agency on this file? To what extent was the client involved in the development of legal strategy and positions?

9. How well did the client understand the legal issues and risks involved in the file?

10. Was the file brought to the attention of the National Litigation Committee, regional Litigation Committees, and/or client litigation or risk committees? If yes, please describe the process and what impact it had on managing the file, developing a consistent legal position, and/or making senior officials aware of the file and its implications.

11. What, if any, briefing or reporting was done on this file (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure, reporting through the National Coordination Network)? If none occurred, please explain why. If briefing occurred, please consider who was briefed, and when and why they were briefed. In your view, how well did the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? Were senior managers/officials made sufficiently aware of this file? Please explain.

12. If you are aware of it, what process was used within the Litigation Branch to assign staff to this file? In your opinion, was the file sufficiently and appropriately resourced in terms of number of staff, experience of staff, or any other attributes that you want to mention?

13. What, if any, resources challenges (human, financial, technical) did you experience in your work on this file? How were these challenges managed?

14. Were early resolution strategies or alternative dispute resolution strategies considered or used in this file? Why or why not? If they were used, what caused them to be successful or unsuccessful in resolving the file?

15. In your opinion, was this file handled in a cost-effective manner? What, if anything, could have been done differently by the Litigation Branch and/or the client department/agency to reduce costs?

16. To what extent was the legal advice provided by the Litigation Branch considered in the legal strategies pursued and decisions made by the client in this file? Please explain.

17. Do you believe that the Litigation Branch provided timely, responsive, high-quality legal services on this file? Why or why not? What feedback, if any, did the Litigation Branch team receive from the client on your legal services?

18. Are there any best practices/lessons learned from this file that you would like to share?

19. Based on your legal experience, how do the Litigation Branch’s legal services differ from what the private sector would provide the client? Please answer based on this file and your work with the Litigation Branch more generally.

20. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

1. What was your role on the file that we will be discussing today?

3. Were you involved in the identification and assessment of legal risk on the file? If yes, were others from Justice Canada and your department/agency consulted to assist in the identification and assessment of the legal risk? How were they involved? Was this involvement effective in identifying and assessing the legal risks?

5. In this file, how was Litigation Branch legal advice used to manage and mitigate legal risks?

6. Was a contingency plan developed for this file? Why or why not? Was the Litigation Branch consulted in the preparation of the contingency plan? If so, to what extent?

7. How often and for what purposes did the Litigation Branch consult with your department/agency on this file? To what extent was your department/agency involved in the development of legal strategy and positions?

8. How well did your department/agency understand the legal issues and risks involved in the file?

9. To your knowledge, how effective was the collaboration of Justice (Litigation Branch, Departmental Legal Services Units, regional offices, specialized units at headquarters, as applicable) for resolving this file?

10. To your knowledge, was the file brought to the attention of the National Litigation Committee, regional Litigation Committees, and/or your departmental litigation or risk committees? If yes, please describe the process and what impact it had on managing the file, developing a consistent legal position, and/or making senior officials aware of the file and its implications.

11. To your knowledge, what, if any, briefing or reporting was done on this file? If none occurred, please explain why. If briefing occurred, did the Litigation Branch support the briefing process within your department/agency? Were senior managers/officials in your department/agency made sufficiently aware of this file? Please explain.

12. In your opinion, were appropriate counsel assigned to this file (considering the years of experience of the counsel and the level of complexity of the file)? Did the Litigation Branch assign adequate resources to undertake the work required? Please explain. Were you aware of any other resource challenges (human, financial, technical) in your work on this file? How were these challenges managed?

13. Were early resolution strategies or alternative dispute resolution strategies considered or used in this file? Why or why not? If they were used, what caused them to be successful or unsuccessful in resolving the file?

14. In your opinion, was this file handled in a cost-effective manner? What, if anything, could have been done differently by the Litigation Branch and/or your department/agency to reduce costs?

15. To what extent was the legal advice provided by the Litigation Branch considered in the legal strategies pursued and decisions made by your department/agency in this file? Please explain.

16. Do you believe that the Litigation Branch provided timely, responsive, high-quality legal services on this file? Why or why not?

17. Are there any best practices/lessons learned from this file that you would like to share?

18. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

Depending on your role on this file, you may not be able to answer all of the questions below.

1. What was your role on the file that we will be discussing today?

2. If you are aware of it, please describe the process the Litigation Branch used to engage your services in this file. In your opinion, was your Section engaged in a timely manner? Why or why not?

5. In this file, how was your advice used by the Litigation Branch to manage and mitigate legal risks?

6. How often and for what purposes did the Litigation Branch consult with other areas of Justice (Departmental Legal Services Units, regional offices, specialized units at headquarters) on this file? Were the appropriate areas within Justice consulted? How effective were those consultations in managing the file?

7. Was the file brought to the attention of the National Litigation Committee, regional Litigation Committees, and/or client litigation or risk committees? If yes, please describe the process and what impact it had on managing the file, developing a consistent legal position, and/or making senior officials aware of the file and its implications.

8. What, if any, briefing or reporting was done on this file (e.g., Early Warning Notes, Adverse Reporting Procedure, reporting through the National Coordination Network)? If none occurred, please explain why. If briefing occurred, please consider who was briefed, and when and why they were briefed. In your view, how well did the briefing process work (e.g., in terms of clarity of the process and level of effort required)? Were senior managers/officials made sufficiently aware of this file? Please explain.

9. What, if any, resources challenges (human, financial, technical) did you experience in your work on this file? How were these challenges managed?

10. In your opinion, was this file handled in a cost-effective manner? What, if anything, could have been done differently by the Litigation Branch and/or the client department/agency to reduce costs?

11. Are there any best practices/lessons learned from this file that you would like to share?

12. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

Depending on your role on this file, you may not be able to answer all of the questions below.

1. What was your role on the file that we will be discussing today?

4.To the best of your recollection, how were the legal risks described in this file in terms of risk level or other language used? Based on your experience on this file, do you think the Litigation Branch and Justice Canada use consistent language to describe legal risk? In your opinion, were the legal risk descriptions useful to the client department/agency? Why or why not?

5. In this file, how was Litigation Branch legal advice used to manage and mitigate legal risks?

6. Was a contingency plan developed for this file? Why or why not? Was the Litigation Branch consulted in the preparation of the contingency plan? If so, to what extent?

9. How well did the client understand the legal issues and risks involved in the file?

13. What, if any, resources challenges (human, financial, technical) did you experience in your work on this file? How were these challenges managed?

16. To what extent was the legal advice provided by the Litigation Branch considered in the legal strategies pursued and decisions made by the client in this file? Please explain.

17. Do you believe that the Litigation Branch provided timely, responsive, high-quality legal services on this file? Why or why not? To your knowledge, what was the client department/agency’s opinion of the legal services they received from the Litigation Branch?

18. Are there any best practices/lessons learned from this file that you would like to share?

20. Do you have any other comments?

Thank you. We greatly appreciate your participation.

1. File Code Number:

2. Date file opened: (dd/mm/yy) Date file closed: (dd/mm/yy)

3. Organizational unit:

CLS
MCAMLU

4. Lead counsel:

CLS
Regional office
DLSU
MCAMLU
Other

5. Case type:

Litigation
Litigation support

6. Number of counsel on file:

7. Number of paralegals on file:

8. Client department/agency:

9. Client is

Claimant
Respondent
Appellant
Respondent on appeal
Can’t tell

10. Level of court:

Supreme Court of Canada
Federal Court of Appeal
Federal Court
Provincial Court of Appeal
Provincial/Territorial Superior Court
Provincial Court
Other, please specify

11. Legal issue and brief description of the nature of the file, without waiving solicitor–client privilege.

12. What was the outcome of the case in the lower court?

Settled
Court decision on merits in favour of government
Court decision on merits in favour of other party
Case dismissed without a decision on the merits
Case withdrawn
Partially successful
Other, please specify:

13. Has the case been appealed?

Yes
No
Not applicable (cannot appeal from decision – e.g., Supreme Court file)
No decision re: appeal yet/can’t determine

If yes to Q13:

13a. How many levels of appeal were there?
13b Please list the file code number of the related appeal files:
13c To which courts was the case appealed? (Check all that apply.)
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Provincial Court of Appeal
- Other, please specify:

Please remember to complete a separate form for the appeal.

14. Potential client impact:

Affects administration of justice/public confidence
Affects federal, provincial, or international relations, treaties, or agreements
Legal issues or events that may be controversial, attract significant national media attention, or involve Cabinet Ministers or prominent public figures
Limitations of federal jurisdiction
Major effect on fiscal resources of client or government
Major effect on human rights, personnel, access and privacy, gender, or diversity issues
Major effect on law/ regulations of client or government
Major effect on programs/ policies/initiatives of client or government
Major effect on relations with Aboriginal people, Métis
Major effect on the Charter or Constitution
Matter of national interest
Not applicable
Unable to assess

15. Risk level (1–9):

15b. Earlier risk level (if available through iCase)

16. Complexity:

Low
Medium
High
Mega
Not applicable

17. What was the seniority level of lead counsel?

LA0
LA1
LA2A
LA2B
LA3A
LA3B
LA3C
Can’t tell

18. Indicate the number of staff on the file by level and indicate the number of hours spent on the file:

Check	# of staff	Hours for each staff resource
1 LA0		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
2 LA1		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
3 LA2A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
4 LA2B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
5 LA3A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
6 LA3B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
7 LA3C		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
8 EC		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
9 AS		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
10 CR		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:

19. Were any court deadlines missed?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

20. (If yes to Q19) How many times?

21. (If yes to Q19) Were additional court procedures required as a result of the missed deadlines (e.g., motions)?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

22. Is there documentation in the file that shows what the client was consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Options to manage legal risk
Developing legal strategies and positions
To discuss the impact of legal risk
To discuss possible settlement (including early resolution)
Other
Unable to assess

23. Is there documented evidence in the file that the CLS/MCAMLU considered client policy and program objectives when developing legal strategies?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

24. Was the file brought to the attention of any client committees?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

25. (If yes to Q24) Which committees?

Risk Committees
Litigation committees
Other

26. Was the file brought to the attention of other Justice officials/structures?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

27. (If yes to Q26) Which ones? (Check all that apply.)

Minister/Deputy Minister
National Litigation Committee
Regional Litigation Committees
ADAG, Litigation
Regional Director
Other

28. Why was the file brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

Request to approve a course of action
Direction sought
Other

29. Who requested that the file be brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

CLS
MCAMLU
Regional Litigation Committee
Other

30. Did the memoranda prepared for the National Litigation Committee contain any of the following?

Concise statement of legal issue involved
Recommended options
Pros and cons for each option
Factors to be considered (communication issues, Federal/Provincial/Territorial considerations

31. What was the result of the National Litigation Committee meeting on this file?

Course of action/recommendations approved
Course of action/recommendations approved, with amendments
Course of action not approved, additional submission requested
Other

32. Did counsel consult with specialized sections or Portfolio structures within Justice?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

33. (If yes to Q32) Which ones?

34. (If yes to Q32) What were the specialized sections or Portfolio structures consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Potential litigation strategies
Questions of law
Other

35. Were other potentially affected departments and agencies consulted?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

36. (If yes to Q35) What were they consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Potential litigation strategies
Questions of law
Other
Unable to assess

37. At what stage were dispute resolution options considered? (Check all that apply.)

DR not considered (GO TO Q40)
Post-pleading
Post-production of documents
Post-discovery
Just prior to trial or hearing
Other (please specify):
Don’t know/can’t tell

38. At what stage were dispute resolution options used?

Post-pleading
Post-production of documents
Post-discovery
Just prior to trial or hearing
Other (please specify)
Don’t know/can’t tell

39. What dispute resolution options were used?

Negotiation
Voluntary mediation
Court-mandated mediation
Neutral evaluation
Other (please specify):
Don’t know/can’t tell

40. Is there documented evidence in the file that the client considered the legal advice to prevent, mitigate, and/or manage legal risk?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

41. Is there documentation in the file that shows that any of the following were used/prepared?

Contingency plan
Briefing notes
Documentation on structured review of facta/approval of facta

42. Was the file included in any of the following?

Early Warning Notes
Top 100 High Impact Report
Radar Screen
Scanning News
Justice Practice Group discussion

43. What legal risks are identified? Please check all that apply. Only include if there is documentation that specifies risks (in-text fields in iCase or in file); do not try to interpret information (e.g., counsel indicates difficult facts in memo in file; the researcher should not make his own decision that facts are difficult). You do not have to enter risks that are already listed under potential client impact in iCase (see Q14). You should include other risks that might be identified in the Background, Impact, and Status sections of iCase, as well as risks identified in the paper files.

New/novel legal issue
Constitutional or Charter issue
Issue with availability of evidence
Issue with availability of affiants/witnesses
Difficult facts to support claim/defence
Unfavourable case law
Significant media interest
Potential to lead to termination or elimination of program
Class action
Cabinet Ministers or other prominent figures involved
Legal issue considered controversial
Case involves national security
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

44. Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file or in iCase?

Yes
No (GO TO Q54)

45. What is the initial (or only) risk level (1–9)?

Can’t tell

46. Date of initial (or only) risk assessment: (dd/mm/yy)

Can’t tell

47. At what stage in the case was the initial (or only) risk assessment done?

Post-pleadings
Post-discovery
Pre-scheduled trial date
After decision
After appeal filed
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

48. Was risk reassessed?

Yes
No (GO TO Q52)
Can’t determine (GO TO Q52)

49. To what risk level?

50. At what stage in the case was the risk reassessed?

Post-pleadings
Post-discovery
Pre-scheduled trial date
After decision
After appeal filed
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

51. If case was reassessed to a higher risk level, did any of the following occur after the reassessment?

Increased number of counsel on file
Assignment of senior counsel to file
Consideration of dispute resolution process
Use of dispute resolution process
Increased consultations
Increased reporting
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

52. Were the levels of risk clearly communicated throughout the file?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

53. (If no to Q52) What language was used to describe the level of legal risk to clients? Please give verbatim examples that show the range of language used.

54. What was the rationale behind outsourcing (from Outsourcing Rationale document and/or other documents in the file)

Unavailability of resources within Justice Canada
Urgency — delay injurious to public interest or Crown’s position
Official language requirements
Geographical considerations
Infrastructure/capacity
Expertise/experience
Conflict of interest issues
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

55. Is there a detailed explanation outlining the rationale for outsourcing in the file (on Outsourcing Rationale document or separate memo)?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

56. Was outsourcing initiated:

At client request
By Justice Canada
Can’t tell

57. (If answer 2 to Q56) Was the client consulted about the outsourcing?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

58. (If answer 2 to Q56) Does the file show that the client approved outsourcing?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

59. Does the file contain Ministerial approval of the appointment?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

60. Does the file contain correspondence and instructions from the instructing counsel to the legal agent?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

61. Does the file contain evidence of monitoring costs?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

62. Did projected expenditures have to be adjusted?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

63. (If yes to Q62) Was the Requesting Manager notified?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

64. Does the file indicate any issues with agent performance?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

65. (If yes to Q64) What, if any, remedial actions were taken to rectify the issues?

66. Any additional comments? (Indicate applicable question number, if appropriate.)

Note: This template will only be used if we also completed a lower court template for the same file.

1. File Code Number:

2. Date file opened: (dd/mm/yy) Date file closed: (dd/mm/yy)

3. Organizational unit:

CLS
MCAMLU

4. Lead counsel:

CLS
Regional office
DLSU
MCAMLU
Other

5. Number of counsel on file:

6. Client is

Claimant
Respondent
Appellant
Respondent on appeal
Can’t tell

7. Level of court:

Supreme Court of Canada
Federal Court of Appeal
Federal Court
Provincial Court of Appeal
Provincial/Territorial Superior Court
Provincial Court
Other, please specify

8. What was the outcome of the case on appeal?

Settled
Court decision on merits in favour of government
Court decision on merits in favour of other party
Case dismissed without a decision on the merits
Partially successful
Other, please specify:

9. What was the seniority level of lead counsel assigned to this level of appeal?

LA0
LA1
LA2A
LA2B
LA3A
LA3B
LA3C
Can’t tell

10. Indicate the number of staff on the file by level and indicate the number of hours spent on the file:

Check	# of staff	Hours for each staff resource
LA0		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA1		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3C		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
EC		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
AS		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
CR		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:

11. Based on the documentation in the file, what was the client consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Options to manage legal risk
Developing legal strategies and positions
Developing legal strategies and positions
To discuss possible settlement (including early resolution)
Other
Unable to assess

12. Was the file brought to the attention of any client committees?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

13. (If yes to Q12) Which committees?

Risk Committees
Litigation committees
Other

14. Was the file brought to the attention of other Justice officials/structures?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

15. (If yes to Q14) Which ones? (Check all that apply.)

Minister/Deputy Minister
National Litigation Committee
Regional Litigation Committees
ADAG, Litigation
Regional Director
Other

16. Why was the file brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

Request to approve a course of action
Direction sought
Other

17. Who requested that the file be brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

CLS
MCAMLU
Regional Litigation Committee
Other

18. Did the memoranda prepared for the National Litigation Committee contain any of the following?

Concise statement of legal issue involved
Recommended options
Pros and cons for each option
Factors to be considered (communication issues, Federal/Provincial/Territorial considerations)

19. What was the result of the National Litigation Committee meeting on this file?

Course of action/recommendations approved
Course of action/recommendations approved, with amendments
Course of action not approved, additional submission requested
Other

20. Did counsel consult with specialized sections within Justice?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

21. (If yes to Q20) Which ones?

22. (If yes to Q20) What were the specialized sections consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Potential litigation strategies
Questions of law
Other

23. Is there documentation in the file that shows that any of the following were used/prepared?

Contingency plan
Briefing notes
Documentation on structured review of facta/approval of facta

24. Was the file included in any of the following?

Early Warning Notes
Top 100 High Impact Report
Radar Screen
Scanning News
Justice Practice Group discussion

25. Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the appeal file?

Yes
No (GO TO Q29)

26. What is the risk level for this level of appeal (1–9)? Can’t tell

27. If the case was reassessed from its earlier level of risk to a higher risk level at this appeal stage, did any of the following occur after the reassessment?

Increased number of counsel on file
Assignment of senior counsel to file
Consideration of dispute resolution process
Use of dispute resolution process
Increased consultations
Increased reporting
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

28. Complexity:

Low
Medium
High
Mega
Not applicable

29. What was the rationale behind outsourcing (from Outsourcing Rationale document and/or other documents in the file)

Unavailability of resources within Justice Canada
Urgency — delay injurious to public interest or Crown’s position
Official language requirements
Geographical considerations
Infrastructure/capacity
Expertise/experience
Conflict of interest issues
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

30. Is there a detailed explanation outlining the rationale for outsourcing in the file (on Outsourcing Rationale document or separate memo)?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

31. Was outsourcing initiated:

At client request
By Justice Canada
Can’t tell

32. (If answer 2 to Q31) Was the client consulted about the outsourcing?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

33. (If answer 2 to Q31) Does the file show that the client approved outsourcing?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

34. Does the file contain Ministerial approval of the appointment?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

35. Does the file contain correspondence and instructions from the instructing counsel to the legal agent?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

36. Does the file contain evidence of monitoring costs?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

37. Did projected expenditures have to be adjusted?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

38. (If yes to Q37) Was the Requesting Manager notified?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

39. Does the file indicate any issues with agent performance?

Yes
No
Can’t tell

40. (If yes to Q39) What, if any, remedial actions were taken to rectify the issues?

41. Any additional comments? (Indicate applicable question number, if appropriate.)

1. File Code Number:

2. Date file opened: (dd/mm/yy) Date file closed: (dd/mm/yy)

3. Type of file:

Extradition request made to Canada
Extradition request made by Canada
Mutual legal assistance request made to Canada
Mutual legal assistance request made by Canada
Other

4. (For 01 and 03 to Q3) Was the request authorized/approved?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

5. Number of counsel on file:

6. Number of paralegals on file:

7. Who made the request?

8. Legal issue and brief description of the nature of the file, without waiving solicitor–client privilege.

9. Were court proceedings required?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

9a. (If yes to Q9) What levels of court were engaged?

10. What was the outcome of the case? (Choose the appropriate category A–D)

a. Extradition request made to Canada	Refused ATP	Discharged
a. Extradition request made to Canada	Withdrawn	Surrendered	Stayed
b. Extradition request made by Canada	Extradition granted	Extradition denied
c. Mutual legal assistance request made to Canada	Fully executed	Partially executed	Denied
d. Mutual legal assistance request made by Canada	Fully executed	Partially executed	Denied

11. Potential client impact:

Affects administration of justice/public confidence
Affects federal, provincial, or international relations, treaties, or agreements
Legal issues or events that may be controversial, attract significant national media attention, or involve Cabinet Ministers or prominent public figures
Limitations of federal jurisdiction
Major effect on fiscal resources of client or government
Major effect on human rights, personnel, access and privacy, gender, or diversity issues
Major effect on law/ regulations of client or government
Major effect on programs/ policies/initiatives of client or government
Major effect on relations with Aboriginal people, Métis
Major effect on the Charter or Constitution
Matter of national interest
Not applicable
Unable to assess

12. Risk level (1–9):

15b. Earlier risk level (if available through iCase)

13. Complexity:

Low
Medium
High
Mega
Not applicable

14. What was the seniority level of lead counsel?

LA0
LA1
LA2A
LA2B
LA3A
LA3B
LA3C
Can’t tell

15. Indicate the number of staff on the file by level and indicate the number of hours spent on the file:

Check	# of staff	Hours for each staff resource
LA0		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA1		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3C		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
EC		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
AS		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
CR		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:

16. Were any of the below statutory requirements missed for extradition?

File did not involve extradition (Go to Q18)

a. Did the file involve an extradition request made to Canada?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
b. (If yes to Q16a) Was an authority to proceed issued? (If yes to Q16b, answer the below sub-parts)	Yes	No	Unable to assess
c. Was the issuance of the authority approved by the DG/team leader?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
d. Was there a surrender decision?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
e. (If yes to Q16d) Were the briefing materials for the Minister’s surrender decision reviewed by the team leader and the DG?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
f. Was the decision on surrender made within the statutory deadline?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
g. Did the IAG update the foreign state on the status of the extradition request?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
h. Did the file involve an extradition request made by Canada?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
i. (If yes to Q16h) Was the request approved by the Team Leader? (Is there a record in the file, i.e., memo?)	Yes	No	Unable to assess
j. (If yes to Q16h) Was the request approved by the Director General? (Is there a record in the file, i.e., memo?)	Yes	No	Unable to assess

17. (If no to any part of Q16) If any statutory requirements described above were missed, why were they missed? What were the consequences of missing them, if any?

18. Were any of the below statutory requirements missed for mutual legal assistance?

File did not involve mutual legal assistance

a. Does the file involve an incoming mutual legal assistance request?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
b. (If yes to Q18a) Was the incoming request reviewed by the DG? (Is there a record in the file, i.e., memo?)	Yes	No	Unable to assess
c. (If yes to Q18a) Was an authorization issued?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
d. (If yes to Q18a) Was the request reviewed by the team leader before the file was assigned?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
e. (If yes to Q18a) Did the IAG update the foreign state on the status of the mutual legal assistance request?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
f. Was this an outgoing mutual legal assistance request?	Yes	No	Unable to assess
g. (If yes to Q18f) Was the request approved by the Team Leader? (Is there a record in the file, i.e., memo?)	Yes	No	Unable to assess
h. (If yes to Q18f) Was the request approved by the Director General? (Is there a record in the file, i.e., memo?)	Yes	No	Unable to assess

19. (If no to any part of Q18) If any statutory requirements described above were missed, why were they missed? What were the consequences of missing them, if any?

20. Was the file brought to the attention of Justice officials/structures?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

21. (If yes to Q20) Which ones? (Check all that apply.)

Minister/Deputy Minister
National Litigation Committee
ADAG, Litigation
Other

22. Why was the file brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

Request to approve a course of action
Direction sought
Other

23. Who requested that the file be brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

IAG
Minister/Deputy Minister
ADAG, Litigation
Other

24. Did the memoranda prepared for the National Litigation Committee contain any of the following?

Concise statement of legal issue involved
Recommended options
Pros and cons for each option
Factors to be considered (communication issues, Federal/Provincial/Territorial considerations)

25. What was the result of the National Litigation Committee meeting on this file?

Course of action/recommendations approved
Course of action/recommendations approved, with amendments
Course of action not approved, additional submission requested
Other

26. Did counsel consult with specialized sections or Portfolio structures within Justice?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

27. (If yes to Q26) Which ones?

28. What were the specialized sections or Portfolio structures consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Questions of law
Other

29. Were other potentially affected departments and agencies consulted?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

30. (If yes to Q29) What were they consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Whether information can be provided without a court order
Questions of law
Other
Unable to assess

31. What legal risks are identified? Please check all that apply. Only include if there is documentation that specifies risks (in-text fields in iCase or in file); do not try to interpret information (e.g., counsel indicates difficult facts in memo in file; the researcher should not his their own decision that facts are difficult). You do not have to enter risks that are already listed under potential client impact in iCase (see Q11). You should include other risks that might be identified in the Background, Impact, and Status sections of iCase, as well as risks identified in the paper files.

New/novel legal issue
Constitutional or Charter issue
Issue with availability of evidence
Issue with availability of affiants/witnesses
Difficult facts to support claim/defence
Unfavourable case law
Significant media interest
Potential to lead to termination or elimination of program
Class action
Cabinet Ministers or other prominent figures involved
Legal issue considered controversial
Case involves national security
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

32. Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file or in iCase?

Yes
No (GO TO Q41)

33. What is the initial (or only) risk level (1–9)?

Can’t tell

34. Date of initial (or only) risk assessment: (dd/mm/yy)

Can’t tell

35. At what stage in the case was the initial (or only) risk assessment done?

Same day file was opened
Within five working days
Within 10 working days
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

36. Was risk reassessed?

Yes
No (GO TO Q39)
Can’t determine (GO TO Q39)

37. At what stage in the case was the risk reassessed?

At the executive/ministerial stage
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

38. If case was reassessed to a higher risk level, did any of the following occur after the reassessment?

Increased number of counsel on file
Assignment of senior counsel to file
Consideration of dispute resolution process
Use of dispute resolution process
Increased consultations
Increased reporting
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

39. Were the levels of risk clearly communicated throughout the file?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

40. (If no to Q39) What language was used to describe the level of legal risk to clients? Please give verbatim examples that show the range of language used.

41. Any additional comments? (Indicate applicable question number, if appropriate.)

1. File Code Number:

2. Date file opened: (dd/mm/yy) Date file closed: (dd/mm/yy)

3. Type of file:

Section 38
Legal advice
Other

4. Number of counsel on file:

5. Number of paralegals on file:

6. Client department/agency:

7. Legal issue and brief description of the nature of the file, without waiving solicitor–client privilege or disclosing national security information.

8. (Section 38 files) Before which court/tribunal was the request for information initiated?

9. Potential client impact:

Affects administration of justice/public confidence
Affects federal, provincial, or international relations, treaties, or agreements
Legal issues or events that may be controversial, attract significant national media attention, or involve Cabinet Ministers or prominent public figures
Limitations of federal jurisdiction
Major effect on fiscal resources of client or government
Major effect on human rights, personnel, access and privacy, gender, or diversity issues
Major effect on law/ regulations of client or government
Major effect on programs/ policies/initiatives of client or government
Major effect on relations with Aboriginal people, Métis
Major effect on the Charter or Constitution
Matter of national interest
Not applicable
Unable to assess

10. Risk level assessed by NSG (1–9):

10b. Risk level of underlying proceeding

11. Complexity:

Low
Medium
High
Mega
Not applicable

12. What was the seniority level of lead NSG counsel?

LA0
LA1
LA2A
LA2B
LA3A
LA3B
LA3C
Can’t tell

13. The litigation team includes: (Check all that apply.)

Regional office
DLSU
NSG
Other

14. Indicate the number of NSG staff on the file by level and indicate the number of hours spent on the file:

Check	# of staff	Hours for each staff resource
LA0		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA1		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA2B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3A		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3B		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
LA3C		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
EC		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
AS		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:
CR		Hours for 1: ; 2: ; 3: ; 4: ; 5: ; 6:

15. Did the NSG prepare a work schedule?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

16. (If yes to Q15) Is there documentation that demonstrates that the work schedule was developed in consultation with the client department responsible for the information in question and the litigation team?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

17. Did the NSG miss work schedule deadlines?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

18. (If yes to Q17) How many times, and for what reason(s) (if an explanation to the client is available on file)?

19. Were any court deadlines missed?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

20. (If yes to Q19) How many times?

21. (If yes to Q19) Were additional court procedures required as a result of the missed deadlines (e.g., motions)?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

22. Did the file contain any of the below?

22a. Was memoranda of legal advice prepared by NSG?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

22a1. (If yes to Q22a) How many memoranda of legal advice prepared by NSG were in the file?

22a2. (If yes to Q22a) Were the following groups consulted in preparation of the legal advice? (Check all that apply.)

Litigators in the underlying proceeding
Client departments responsible for the information in question
Other (specify: )

22a3. (If yes to Q22a) Were the memoranda of legal advice in the file reviewed by the Director of the NSG?

Yes, all
Yes, some
No
Unable to assess

22b. Attorney General of Canada decisions made pursuant to section 38?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

22b1. (If yes to Q22b) How many decisions?

23. Were any of the Attorney General of Canada section 38 decisions taken to the Federal Court of Canada?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

23a. (if yes to Q23) How many decisions?

23b. (If yes to Q23) How many of the Federal Court rulings were consistent with the Attorney General section 38 decisions?

24. Was the file brought to the attention of Justice officials/structures?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

25. (If yes to Q24) Which ones? (Check all that apply.)

Minister/Deputy Minister
National Litigation Committee
ADAG, Litigation
National Security Intelligence Committee
ADAG, Public Safety, Defence and Immigration Portfolio
ADAG, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio
Other

26. Why was the file brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

Request to approve a course of action
Direction sought
Other

27. Who requested that the file be brought to the National Litigation Committee? (Check all that apply.)

NSG
Minister/Deputy Minister
ADAG, Litigation
Other

28. Did the memoranda prepared for the National Litigation Committee contain any of the following?

Concise statement of legal issue involved
Recommended options
Pros and cons for each option
Factors to be considered (communication issues, Federal/Provincial/Territorial considerations)

29. What was the result of the National Litigation Committee meeting on this file?

Course of action/recommendations approved
Course of action/recommendations approved, with amendments
Course of action not approved, additional submission requested
Other

30. Did counsel consult with specialized sections or Portfolio structures within Justice?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

31. (If yes to Q32) Which ones?

32. (If yes to Q32) What were the specialized sections or Portfolio structures consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Potential litigation strategies
Questions of law
Other

33. Were other potentially affected departments and agencies consulted?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

34. (If yes to Q35) What were they consulted about? (Check all that apply.)

Identifying and assessing legal risk
Managing legal risk
Potential legal options
Potential litigation strategies
Questions of law
Other
Unable to assess

35. What legal risks are identified? Please check all that apply. Only include if there is documentation that specifies risks (in-text fields in iCase or in file); do not try to interpret information (e.g., counsel indicates difficult facts in memo in file; the researcher should not make his own decision that facts are difficult). You do not have to enter risks that are already listed under potential client impact in iCase (see Q11). You should include other risks that might be identified in the Background, Impact, and Status sections of iCase, as well as risks identified in the paper files.

New/novel legal issue
Constitutional or Charter issue
Issue with availability of evidence
Issue with availability of affiants/witnesses
Difficult facts to support claim/defence
Unfavourable case law
Significant media interest
Potential to lead to termination or elimination of program
Class action
Cabinet Ministers or other prominent figures involved
Legal issue considered controversial
Case involves national security
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

36. Is there a discussion/indication of risk level indicated in the file or in iCase?

Yes
No (GO TO Q54)

37. What is the initial (or only) risk level (1–9)? Can’t tell

38. Date of initial (or only) risk assessment: (dd/mm/yy) Can’t tell

39. At what stage in the case was the initial (or only) risk assessment done?

Same day file was opened
Within five working days
Within 10 working days
Other, please specify:
Can’t tell

40. Were the levels of risk clearly communicated throughout the file?

Yes
No
Unable to assess

41. (If no to Q40) What language was used to describe the level of legal risk to clients? Please give verbatim examples that show the range of language used.

42. Any additional comments? (Indicate applicable question number, if appropriate.)

Table 1: Skip logic for survey of legal counsel and paralegals
Questions	Type of respondents (Q2)
Questions	CLS (1)	Class Actions (2)	MCAMLU (3)	NSG (4)	IAG (5)	Litigation Support (6)	ADAG (7)
1	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
2	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
3	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
4	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
5	x	x		x	x
6	x	x		x	x
7	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
8	x	x	x	x	x		x
9	x	x	x	x	x
10	x	x	x	x	x		x
11	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
12					x		x
13				x			x
14	x	x	x	x	x		x
15	x	x	x	x	x		x
16						x
17	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
18	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
19	x	x
20	x	x					x
21	x	x
22	x	x
23	x	x
24			x
25	x	x
26	x	x	x				x
27	x	x	x				x
28	x	x
29	x	x	x	x	x
30	x	x	x	x	x
31	x	x	x	x	x
32	x	x	x	x	x
33	x	x
34	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
35	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
36	x	x	x	x	x	x	x

The following questions will be used to establish a profile of survey respondents.

1. When did you first join the Department of Justice?

Less than a year ago
Between 1 and 5 years ago
Between 6 and 10 years ago
More than 10 years ago

2. Where do you work?

Civil Litigation Section
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit
Agent Affairs (LPMC)
National Security Group
International Assistance Group
National eDiscovery and Litigation Support Services
Office of the ADAG

3. What is your classification?

EC
LP-00
LP-01
LP-02
LP-03
LP-04
LP-05
LC-01
LC-02
LC-03
LC-04

4. What kind of files do you work on most often?

Litigation
Advisory
Policy development
Other

Note to IAG

For questions regarding "clients", consider the foreign authorities from whom you receive MLA and extradition requests, and/or the Canadian investigative/prosecutorial authorities on whose behalf you make MLA and extradition requests to foreign authorities, as appropriate, as the client.

5. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you or a member of the legal team on the file...
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Consulted with the client department to understand the nature of the legal problem?
Provided the client department with updates/progress reports?
Involved the client department in the development of legal strategies, positions and/or options?
Discussed policy and/or program objectives with the client department?
Worked with the client department to identify legal risks, their impact, and/or options to manage them?
Consulted with specialized sectors within the Department of Justice (e.g., Public Law, Legislative Services)?
Consulted or briefed the client department's DLSU?
Consulted with other potentially affected departments/agencies?
Briefed or reported on your files to senior management in the Litigation Branch?
Briefed or reported on your files to the Associate DM or DM's office?
Briefed or reported on your files to the Minister's office?

6. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often has your primary contact regarding a file been with...
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
The client department's DLSU?
The client department directly?

7. Please indicate your overall experience working with the Litigation Branch areas listed below. Feel free to explain or qualify your response in the space provided.
	Excellent	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Civil Litigation Section
Management of Class Actions and Mass Litigation Unit
Agent Affairs (LPMC)
National Security Group
International Assistance Group
National eDiscovery and Litigation Support Services
Office of the ADAG

Comments:

8. Please indicate your overall experience working with the areas of Justice listed below. Feel free to explain or qualify your response in the space provided.
	Excellent	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Departmental Legal Services Units
Regional litigators
Specialized sectors (e.g., Public Law, Legislative Services)
Portfolios (e.g., Aboriginal Affairs, PSDI, BRLP, Central Agencies)
DM and/or Associate DM Offices

Comments:

10. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how would you assess the work of the Litigation Branch in the following areas?
	Excellent	Above average	Average	Below average	Poor	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Responding to legal service requests by clients in a timely manner
Meeting client deadlines
Meeting internal Department of Justice deadlines
Providing legal services in both official languages
Involving/consulting with specialized sectors within the Department of Justice (e.g., Public Law, Legislative Services)
Involving/consulting with regional offices when appropriate
Involving/consulting with the client department's DLSU
Involving/consulting with the client department directly
Involving/consulting with other potentially affected departments/agencies
Providing timely assessments of legal risk so that it can be factored into decision-making
Reassessing legal risk when factors that affect the level of risk change

11. Please provide your level of agreement with the following statements. The Litigation Branch...
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Has structures in place to ensure that Justice provides consistent legal advice.
Has structures in place to ensure that consistent legal positions are adopted nationally.
Has structures in place to ensure that risks are assessed in a consistent manner across portfolios and regions.
Has contributed to enhancing clients' understanding of legal issues and their implications.

12. Please provide your level of agreement with the following statements. The IAG...
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Informs ministerial decisions.
Effectively manages its delegated functions.

13. Please provide your level of agreement with the following statements. The NSG...
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Informs ministerial decisions.
Effectively manages its delegated functions.

14. To what extent do you find the following tools, structures and processes to be useful to your work?
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Legal risk management (LRM) assessment grid/matrix
File assignment process
Practice directives
Early Warning Notes
eDiscovery Software
Justipedia
Internal mentoring practices
Practice groups
Civil Litigation Section Litigation Committee
National Litigation Committee
Departmental policies

15. Are there other tools or structures that you have found useful in managing your work?

No other tools/structures
Other, please specify:
Other, please specify:

16. In your opinion, are the services of the National eDiscovery and Litigation Support group utilized to the extent they should be?

Over-utilized
Adequately utilized
Under-utilized
Don't know

(If Over-utilized is selected) Please explain:

(If Under-utilized is selected) Please explain, including what obstacles may exist in the use of the Centre's services:

17. How would you describe the available training opportunities in terms of...
	Excellent	Very Good	Adequate	Fair	Poor	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Amount of training?
Relevance to your work?

18. In your opinion, what gaps exist in the training available, if any?

No gaps exist

19. Use of Dispute Resolution (DR) includes negotiated settlement of files, as well as other DR processes such as mediation and pre-trial settlement. Thinking of the files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you or a member of the litigation team on the file...
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Considered using DR options?
Used neutral evaluation (or non-binding arbitration) to try to resolve/settle a file?
Used negotiation to try to resolve/settle a file?
Used voluntary mediation to try to resolve/settle a file?
Used court-mandated mediation to resolve/settle a file?

20. In your opinion, are Dispute Resolution processes...

Over-utilized
Adequately utilized
Under-utilized
Don't know
Not applicable to my work

(If Over-utilized is selected) Please explain:

(If Under-utilized is selected) Please explain, including what obstacles may exist in the use of DR:

21. In the last two years, have you worked with legal agents?

22. (If yes to Q21) Did you experience any issues with agent performance?

23. (If yes to Q22) What, if any, remedial actions were taken to rectify the issues?

24. (If yes to Q21) Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often...
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Were requests for agents made in appropriate circumstances?
Were requests for agents made in a timely manner?
Did counsel provide adequate business cases for the use of legal agents without the need for LPMC intervention/feedback?
Did counsel follow the policies and directives related to the use of legal agents without the need for LPMC intervention/feedback?

25. (If yes to Q21) Thinking of your experience working with Agent Affairs in the assignment of legal agents to files, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Provision of a business case for requesting a legal agent was a useful process.
Requests for legal agents were handled in a timely manner.
Legal agents with appropriate experience were assigned to the file.
Policies and directives related to the use of legal agents are clear.
Policies and directives related to the use of legal agents are easy to apply.
The processes in place have brought transparency to the use of legal agents.

26. In your opinion, are legal agents...

Over-utilized
Adequately utilized
Under-utilized
Don't know

(If Over-utilized is selected) Please explain:

(If Under-utilized is selected) Please explain, including what obstacles may exist in the use of agents:

27. In your opinion, does the use of legal agents primarily...

Increase the cost of legal services
Decrease the cost of legal services
Don’t know

(If Increase or Decrease is selected) Please explain:

28. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often...
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Were files completed in a timely manner without undue delays within the control of the Branch?
Were files conducted in a cost-effective manner?
Were files assigned to the appropriate level of counsel given the legal risk/complexity of the file?
Were tasks allocated appropriately (level and experience) within the team assigned to manage the file?
Were appropriate levels of mentoring and/or supervision provided to support the management of your files?

29. (Counsel only) Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you used paralegals in the following activities?
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Document production
Legal research
Initial drafts of pleadings
Initial draft of written submissions
Preparation of affidavits
Preparation of responses to undertakings given at discovery
Preparation of documents for submission to PCO for certification of Cabinet confidences
Redaction of documents for privileges (national security and solictor-client privilege)
Interviewing potential witnesses
Review of extradition/MLAT requests
Review of public interest immunity claims and redactions

30. (Paralegals only) Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you been engaged in the following activities?
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Document production
Legal research
Initial drafts of pleadings
Initial draft of written submissions
Preparation of affidavits
Preparation of responses to undertakings given at discovery
Preparation of documents for submission to PCO for certification of Cabinet confidences
Redaction of documents for privileges (national security and solictor-client privilege)
Interviewing potential witnesses
Review of extradition/MLAT requests
Review of public interest immunity claims and redactions

31. (Paralegals only) Are there additional tasks that you believe you could perform to contribute more efficiently to the Litigation Branch?

No additional tasks
Other, please specify:
Other, please specify:

32. (Paralegals only) Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you felt that counsel spend time on tasks paralegals could do?

Frequently (80-100% of files)
Regularly (50-79% of files)
Occasionally (25-49% of files)
Rarely (1-24% of files)
Never (0%)
Don't know
Not applicable to my work

33. Thinking of files you have been involved with in the last two years, how often have you worked with the client to monitor and/or conserve costs by:
	Frequently (80-100% of files)	Regularly (50-79% of files)	Occasionally (25-49% of files)	Rarely (1-24% of files)	Never (0%)	Don't know	Not applicable to my work
Providing an estimate of expected costs?
Sharing the work (e.g. having the client do initial drafts of documents)?
Other:

If other, please specify:

34. What factors contribute to the Litigation Branch's ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services?

Don’t know

35. What factors constrain the Litigation Branch's ability to provide timely, high-quality, cost-effective legal services?

Don’t know

36. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the legal services provided by the Litigation Branch?

No suggestions

Date modified:: 2022-05-13

Very clear

Not very clear

Totally unclear

Don't know

Not applicable to my work

Departmental Legal Services Units

Regional litigators

Specialized sectors (e.g., Public Law, Legislative Services)

Portfolios (e.g., Aboriginal Affairs, PSDI, BRLP, Central Agencies)