Disputed episodes


We surveyed 437 in-house counsel across Canada and the US on their 2022 disputes experiences and expectations for 2023. The results? Greater regulatory scrutiny, increased hacker sophistication and a spotlight on employment and labour issues as workers return to the office in this post-COVID world, along with some interesting differences between Canada and the US. Joining us to share their insights are Jennifer Teskey and Sandeep Savla. Jennifer, based in Toronto, is our national chair of litigation and disputes, and Canadian head of financial institutions. Sandeep, based in New York, is the co-head of regulatory, investigations, securities and compliance in our US firm. 

For more information:
The 2023 Litigation Trends Survey results

CPD credits: This episode is accredited for 0.68 Substantive hours in Ontario and 0.68 Substantive hours in British Columbia.

The 2023 Litigation Trends Survey | S3 EP2



Listen and subscribe to the Disputed podcast on:


Contact us



Jen Teskey  00:00
With these survey results in hand, I'm able to take that information and run it up the flagpole to the senior management and to talk about these are the issues of the day. These are the things we need to be thinking about getting ahead of, and frankly, getting buy in from senior management and boards around, you know, how do we prepare for this? We were really convinced that this is an incredibly useful tool to our clients to have those open discussions.

Andrew McCoomb  00:33
Welcome to Disputed, a Norton Rose Fulbright podcast and in this episode, we're talking about Norton Rose Fulbright’s Annual Litigation Trends Survey, the longest running litigation-focused survey of in-house counsel. NRF has conducted the survey for 18 years led by the US but in response to significant interest from Canadian clients, this is the first year that in-house counsel in Canada have also participated. In November last year, the firm polled 437 senior in-house counsel from the US and Canada who shared their experiences and opinions on disputes-related topics impacting their organizations. Participants represented each of our industry sectors, with more than half of respondents working for organizations with more than US a billion in annual revenue. Key among the findings was concern over employment and labour disputes, cybersecurity threats, regulatory scrutiny, class actions and evolving ESG-related suits. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the overwhelming expectation among US and Canadian in-house counsel was that litigation risk was going to increase in 2023. Or at least stay the same. We take a deeper dive into these results with two guest speakers from Canada and the US. Our guest speaker from Canada is our national chair of litigation, Jennifer Teskey, who practices corporate and commercial litigation, with an emphasis on class actions, securities, accounting, regulatory and energy-related matters. Jennifer is also the Canadian head of our financial institution sector. Jennifer is joined by Sandeep Savla, the Co-head of regulatory investigations, securities and compliance in our US firm. Sandeep's practice focuses on civil litigation and white collar investigations involving securities, financial markets, tax and financial products. In his 20 years of practice, Sandeep has acted in almost every major industry wide financial investigation before US federal, state and foreign authorities. We hope this episode will be useful information for general counsel and senior litigators and decision making related to exposure mitigation and litigation management. Thanks for listening.

Ailsa Robertson  02:53
Jennifer, Sandeep, welcome to the podcast. And thank you very much for joining us.

Jen Teskey  02:57
Thanks so much for having us.

Sandeep Savla  02:59
Yeah, thanks for having us.

Ailsa Robertson  03:00
Okay, so let's start at the beginning. Can you tell us a little bit about Norton Rose Fulbright’s Litigation Trend Survey? What is its purpose? And why should companies be interested in the results?

Jen Teskey  03:13
Sure. You know, what we're really aiming up through the Litigation Trends Survey is to get a clear picture of the issues of the day that our clients are, have both recently faced and are facing into the coming year. And it really helps us to set the table around the litigation and regulatory landscape that our clients are facing, and frankly, how we can best prepare and advise them into 2023. I should note that the survey is not new, it has been running for 18 years now in the United States. This year, though, I'm excited to report that--, that Canada participated in the survey. In so doing, we polled in-house  counsel at a whole variety of Canadian institutions around their 2022 experiences, and again, what they're expecting to trend into 2023. And as we all know, you know, litigation trends have a tendency of finding their roots in US litigation. And so it's also a helpful goalpost, we think, for our clients to get a sense of what might be coming down the pike from a Canadian perspective based on the US experience.

Andrew McCoomb  04:38
So can you guys tell us about the survey process and methodology?

Jen Teskey  04:42
Sure. So just in terms of the process itself, the survey started out with a formal survey conducted of in-house counsel, we had upwards of 400 participants, in terms of the industries that we reached out to, it really is a full cross-section of all the industry participants everything from retail, financial services, energy, healthcare, technology, construction, media and others. And really what we were aiming at was to get at the types of disputes that our clients find themselves involved in, where they see future risk and estimates around what the 2022 state of play was and what they're seeing into 2023. And trying to ascribe certain values as to why our clients may think that certain risks are increasing or decreasing. You know, when, for example, the kind of feedback that we've received is, you know, our clients are expecting greater regulatory scrutiny coming down the pike. They, in the cyber space expect, you know, increased hacker sophistication. And on the employment side, they're expecting more employee demands and potential union activity, particularly as companies and their employees head back to the workplace in a post-COVID world. Something else that we canvassed is, our clients respective levels of litigation preparedness. So what are they doing? What are they thinking about doing to try and ward off or mitigate litigation risk? And in addition to the formal survey portion of the analysis, we also wanted to supplement that analysis by conducting interviews of certain of our clients to help inform the survey questions and the raw data that was received through the survey.

Ailsa Robertson  06:47
Okay, so it's a combination of the qualitative with the quantitative. And I think it is interesting, as you point out that Canada has joined the survey for the first time this year, and also when we think about how Canadian counsel can make use of the results, not just from a Canadian perspective, but also looking at the changes that happened in the US and how they are a marker of what is what is to come.

Sandeep Savla  07:09
I think what's interesting is, for those who are or were in-house counsel, and I used to be in-house counsel, as head of litigation at a bank, is that you really get to see what industry participants are doing in a cross-sectional way. Often when you are working at a company or an organization, you know what your entity does, you know, how to advise your management. But it's--, it's fascinating to be able to see what others in the industry are facing, and that often informs how you advise senior management or the board. One of the interesting things to me was legal spend, and how prominent that was for the survey participants. And to me that reflects the high level of sophistication and the increased in ever increasing level of sophistication that in-house counsel and in-house corporate departments have. And I always say and I said when I was in-house, when in-house counsel use outside counsel, it is not about the in-house capability, it's about the in-house capacity. In-house lawyers typically nowadays have the capability to do most of what outside counsel do. It's a question of capability and having the bandwidth. And I think what we're seeing with the increased insourcing by in-house counsel is reflective of that trend. And so when is it that in-house counsel go to outside counsel is the truly interesting question, I think behind these survey findings, and what we've seen both at Norton Rose Fulbright, but what I also experienced when I was in-house, is you're really looking for outside counsel, who will partner with you to achieve your business objectives and solve business problems.

Ailsa Robertson  09:02
So you alluded to some of the findings. I wonder if we can focus in on that. So perhaps, Sandeep, can you talk us through some of the top level highlights that came out of the survey?

Sandeep Savla  09:13
I think as Jennifer said, there's-- there's an increased focus on employment and labour and a spotlight on workplace issues, particularly as we're coming out of COVID. We're seeing more people in the in the workplace environment, and then with the overlay of DEI and ESG. That probably dovetails with the findings regarding ESG litigation, which only a minority of respondents reported ESG litigation, but more than a quarter reported, deepening exposure and anticipated litigation going forward. And we are certainly seeing that in terms of what our clients are sensitive to and what they are increasingly attune to. Class actions are a perennial feature of-- of the landscape, regulatory scrutiny, a majority of respondents reported some sort of regulatory proceeding or scrutiny. And we are certainly seeing that on the ground at Norton Rose Fulbright, and we're seeing that in a multi-jurisdictional way. Obviously, business is borderless, these problems are often borderless, regulatory scrutiny is often borderless. And so we see a lot of multi-jurisdictional regulatory proceedings and investigations, cyber security. And data protection, again, is a perennial feature of-- of what we deal with. So I think those are the—the-- the hot topics that the respondents picked up on, which actually dovetail which—with what we’re finding on the ground. 

Andrew McCoomb  10:57
Yeah, I would agree with that, Sandeep, from my practical vantage point as well, like you say, it really does seem to match up well, with the trends that we're seeing on this side as external counsel. What-- what can you guys tell us about any differences between what Canadian and US respondents to the survey are reporting? Are there differences on either side of the border? Are there any kind of different headwinds? 

Jen Teskey  11:25
There are some differences, albeit modest differences, as between Canada and the United States, but certainly Canadian respondents seem to identify things like market volatility, and--, and a movement towards arbitral proceedings, for example, as things that, you know, they indicated they expect to see more of, and influencing litigation in 2023. And I think, you know, as, as you mentioned, anecdotally, as litigators looking at this, it's not a huge surprise that we see an uptick in anticipated arbitral proceedings, for example, you know, owing to the fact that in COVID, you had courts closed and you had parties taking matters into their own hands and structuring arbitrations in lieu of civil litigation. And I think frankly, parties have now come to realize that, you know, setting their own agendas and being able to work perhaps more nimbly in the disputes context--, context via arbitration has a certain level of attractiveness as well, there's no doubt that it's a quicker way to an end resolution, but just to pick up on the market volatility piece. So Canadian respondents, as I said, did indicate that they anticipate that market volatility will lend itself to a larger uptick in disputes. Similarly, you know, that the risk of an impending recession, rising interest rates, heightened inflation, all of these factors were pointed to as potential issues that could influence increased disputes for our clients. Canadian respondents also said that they anticipate a an uptick in regulatory exposure in 23, in believing that this is an area that they're going to need to be spending more time on as compared to US counterparts. And what I would say the takeaway, certainly for us is, you know, just a reminder, a good reminder, that when advising our clients, we need to be looking at the full picture an in-house counsel should always be very mindful of in that civil litigation or arbitral context, what could the follow-on regulatory implications be and to be looking at things in a very holistic way rather than in a siloed, you know, civil litigation lens, for example, only kind of way. Canadian respondents also identified a heightened concern as compared to US counterparts on the cybersecurity side, pointing to data protection, data privacy as factors that they have a-- an increased concern around in terms of civil litigation in 2023. Again, not a terrible surprise, not only given the increased prevalence of cyber incidents, but as well given, you know, heightened regulatory scrutiny around such issues as well.

Ailsa Robertson  14:36
I think the regulatory piece that you mentioned is something we want to hone in on because, Sandeep, you're of the Co-head of our regulatory investigations and securities and compliance practice in the US. So, can you go a bit deeper on the findings when it comes to anticipations for regulatory investigations, and also internal investigations? What are your thoughts-- thoughts around those results?

Sandeep Savla  15:02
I think the results really mirror what we are seeing, which is, I've called it more muscular enforcement by regulatory authorities. At least in the US there was a perception that under the prior administration, that federal enforcement had scaled back with the current administration, what we're definitely seeing is more enforcement, more investigations, and just a much more muscular attitude towards how regulators and prosecutors deal with companies, their attitudes towards penalties and the collateral consequences on companies of penalties has-- has changed under the current administration. There's always an element of regulatory competition between various regulators that you often see, in the US regulators competing with foreign regulators about certain market conduct penalties and what have you. In the US, you see competition between, regulatory competition, between state actors and federal actors, and that that continues to be a feature of the landscape. I'll just say that, with respect to some of the differences between the US and Canada, it's--, it's once again, an instance where the Canadians are ahead of the US. You know, I'm surprised that the US respondents have not yet said that market volatility is a-- is a contributing--, contributing factor to what they're seeing. Because certainly those of us who have been through a rising interest rate environment in the past, or have dealt with a market environment that's on the cusp of a recession, have seen what typically happens, which is a search for yield. And once you have a search for yield, in other words, people seeking out a higher interest rate than the current prevailing yield, you see all sorts of litigation coming up around products that are being offered suitability to clients, and regulators jumping into that space, when you see the sort of structural issues that have come out of COVID, for example, and increased work from home environment that has an impact on office leases, and commercial mortgage backed securities. So I think this is an instance where, once again, the Canadians are ahead of the US. And I suspect, if I'm reading the tea leaves, we're going to be seeing much more of market volatility and higher interest rates playing out in the US and in an international environment as well.

Ailsa Robertson  17:47
I think that intersect with the political that you alluded to, as well as also interesting when considering the regulatory landscape, because, as you mentioned, yeah, there was kind of a scaling back under the previous administration, and under Biden's administration, this has been ramping up. And there's also an ideological difference, I'm assuming between at state level versus federal level, what would your advice be to companies to manage that fluid minefield, if that's not an oxymoron?

Sandeep Savla  18:18
I will say that one of the things the current administration is emphasizing a lot is the value of compliance programs. Now again, we've heard this from practically every administration, but this one seems to be saying that, they will really evaluate and kick the tires on the efficacy of a compliance program. The DOJ in the US recently released guidance, I think, maybe a week ago, saying that one of the factors, gating factors, for whether you get a declination or cooperation credit, is whether there is already existing an efficacious compliance program, an effective compliance programs. So I think that's going to put a lot of focus for companies on putting together compliance programs that try and target areas where there’s-- there's risk to the enterprise. So that's, that's one of the key things we're going to be seeing, I think. There's also a continued focus on individual accountability, so when companies are looking at conducting internal investigations, or responding to regulators, a feature of this is going to be really digging into who did what and when.

Ailsa Robertson  19:41
And we recorded an episode recently on remediation agreements in Canada, and obviously, they're only available for a small subset of criminal offenses in Canada at the moment, but I understand in the US, deferred prosecution agreements are potentially available for a wider range of regulatory offences. Are you seeing any trends in the use of deferred prosecution agreements coming alongside these regulatory changes?

Sandeep Savla  20:06
Yeah, so the deferred prosecution agreement has been a favourite tool of US regulators. The idea is that, if you agree with the government, that they will defer prosecution for a certain number of years, and no misconduct takes place. And in that time period, no recurrence of the conduct, then that prosecution will be dropped is the idea behind a deferred prosecution agreement, there is a landscape of what prosecutors in the US can do. They can decline to take any action, they can actually pursue a-- actual indictment against a company. So the deferred prosecution remains a tool to incentivize cooperation. The other tool that US prosecutors use, and it's-- it fell out of favour with-- with the prior administration, it's--, it's I think, more open to the current administration, is the use of corporate monitors, where the DOJ installs a--, a monitor to oversee compliance by a company. So those are the things that that we are seeing in the US, and I think we'll continue to see.

Andrew McCoomb  21:23
I, one of the things I—from-- from listening to both speak about the survey results I find interesting, is the spotlight on employment and labour issues. In a sense, I don't find it surprising, because practically every in-house counsel, I know who's in a big institution has some exposure to an employment and labour portfolio. It's kind of the most consistent aspect of so many in-house counsel’s jobs, because no matter what's happening with sales, no matter what's happening with markets, or mergers, or whatever, people are always coming and going and there's always tension around that, given the importance of work to this sort of human experience. But it's interesting to hear even--, even still, there is an emphasis on employment and labour, now. We've done a couple episodes of the podcast talking about the return to work and some of the interesting issues that are highlighted with all of that. But can you tell us a bit more about what-- what people are really concerned about in that space?

Jen Teskey  22:30
We heard pretty uniformly from our clients across both Canada and the United States, that they are anticipating increasing exposure to employment and labour disputes in 2023, you know, in part owing to COVID, and again, the post-COVID world and rising tensions potentially, on return to work policies, efforts towards unionization, heightened regulatory scrutiny, issues like pay equity. It runs the gamut that all of the issues historically that have been on the table are continuing to be on the table. And if anything, are heightened by virtue of the return to office. There--, there's no doubt that our employment and labour team on both sides of the border will tell you that the in-office work environment, just by virtue of what it is, really does increase that risk of allegations of discrimination and/or harassment. And so it also comes as no terrible surprise that there is a view that there may be more litigation and, frankly, more internal investigations around such issues. This as well, you know, when you dovetail into other things like you know, the enhanced focus on social justice and-- and issues around diversity, equity and inclusion, that, you know, it's not surprising to hear that this may be prompting more people to raise issues and complaints that could turn into civil litigation. In the-- in the United States, specifically, it was identified that increased activity from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is also fueling more workplace-related litigation around discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and that issues around wage and hour disputes, that that's also percolating. Lastly, I would say that, that in terms of the data set that we obtained through the survey results, it's clear that these issues pervade all business types. So, perhaps not a huge surprise that, you know, we're everything from healthcare, to logistics, energy, retail, technology, you know, E&L issues, are identified as really a key risk to all of, you know, all of the businesses and all of those industries.

Andrew McCoomb  25:24
Yeah, and thinking about them as sort of compartmentalized issues is probably the wrong way to approach it, given that, you know, I mean, I'm thinking about the layoffs, for example, recent layoffs in the tech sector, that are I'm sure, animating a lot of the answers that go into a survey like this about people's concerns and the risk of layoffs. But of course, that's a risk that's connected to the maturation of an industry, market condition, market volatility that you've already talked about. So these things are so, they're so cross-connected, it's really interesting, but obviously, across industries as well. What about what about in the ESG side? I mean, I can tell you from my practice now, I have started to see an increase in actual ESG litigation, ESG class actions relating to you know, conduct, international conduct questions. So I can sense why that would be on someone's dashboard. But what did the survey tell you about that particular space?

Sandeep Savla  26:28
I think, well, what the responses show is increasing attunement to ESG issues, we're certainly seeing that the SEC has proposed climate disclosure rules that are very contentious in the US, with respect to certain categories of companies. And I think the cases that we're seeing on the-- on the regulatory front are really plain disclosure cases, under the rubric of ESG. A company says it's doing one thing, and in actuality it's-- it's doing something else. It has been subjected to criticism in the US that there's increased politicization of ESG rules. And it fits into a broader trend where at least some critics say the current administration in the US is trying to legislate through regulation, or is trying to regulate through enforcement. And let's not forget the ‘S’ part in the-- in the ESG, which is the social part of it, we are seeing increased investigations as to labour practices along the supply chain, increased scrutiny when you're dealing with labour practices, in developing countries that make products that are then consumed by the developed world, and then just with-- with labour practices, increased scrutiny on the hiring and work conditions of classes of workers.

Jen Teskey  28:13
I was just going to add that the other piece that we're obviously seeing as well, is a very significant uptick in shareholder activism in this space, where you're seeing shareholder proposals, and, frankly, some of those proposals gaining traction in a way that we have not seen in years past. And that, frankly, no matter what the type of corporation we're talking about, no one is immune to that kind of activity. So-- so no doubt a very significant uptick in the shareholder activism space, and increased concerns around proxy battle activity and the associated follow-on litigation that often results.

Ailsa Robertson  29:01
I think Sandeep’s reference as well to the ‘S’ and the focus on labour and human rights abuses in supply chains-- chains will also be really interesting to look into watching Canada in 2023. Because Canada's version of the modern slavery legislation is about to go through its third reading, and is expected to come into law in 2023, so that will be interesting to follow. And we have two episodes already looking at that modern slavery legislation and also comparing it with the regimes in Australia and certain regimes in Europe too. Another point I want to ask about the ESG trends though is, and I take your point about the increased shareholder activism, but there is also a bit of a trend in kind of anti-ESG activity now and particularly when we got an impending recession, higher interest rates, higher inflation, are we seeing certain groups of shareholders actually saying show-- show us the monetary value of what your sustainability policy is that you're implementing. Can you talk a bit about that anti-ESG trend?

Sandeep Savla  30:09
There is a certain anti-ESG wing, particularly in the-- in the United States, some state regulators have issued what's been termed ‘anti-ESG requests’. And more fundamentally, there's a movement to say, well, if you're a company, your legal obligation is to maximize profits for your shareholders. So, and whether you subscribe to this or not, some critics say it's impossible to reconcile that with ESG goals. Because, by definition, when you start accommodating ESG-related factors, you're not going to maximize value for shareholders. So the-- the minefield, I think, in big picture terms for companies, is going to be how to navigate the obligation to exercise business judgment and maximize value for shareholders, versus reconciling that with some of the ESG initiatives we're seeing.

Andrew McCoomb  31:17
Who was it, was it, I’m gonna get this wrong, was it BlackRock, who issued that open letter, you know, setting out what their expectations were for sort of the breadth of considerations that a modern investee target company has to bring to the table for them to be engaged? I mean, it's an interesting push/pull with that philosophy, obviously, people are going to have different views. But when that ends up is the mess that internal counsel has to deal with. I mean, to Jennifer's point about shareholder activism, I mean, we work on--, on activist situations all the time, both for target companies, and sometimes working with activists, and for internal counsel facing those, there's not really any difference between being involved in a major proxy fight and being involved in a major litigation, and often the two are intertwined and there's a litigation component. So you see all these-- all these challenges, all these tensions, all these risks and concerns, landing back in the lap of-- of in-house counsel who have to try to sort them out either on their own using that depth of resource and detail that you were talking about earlier, or--, or with the collaboration of external counsel. Jennifer, you mentioned the concept of sort of litigation preparedness earlier. What-- what flavour do you get for what people are actually doing to try to ward off threats before they land at the door.

Jen Teskey  32:48
We really heard three clear messages on this one, specifically, counsel identified the need to bolster and tighten existing contracts as one, which we'll come back to in a sec. Secondly, they indicated an intention of increased training of employees on litigation risk. And, third, they indicated an intention to embed lawyers into business operations more fully. And so just going through those quickly, you know, on the bolstering and tightening of contracts, the types of clauses that in-house counsel, were looking at revisiting and, you know, either wholesale amending, or at a minimum tweaking, were things like arbitration clauses. So as I was alluding to earlier, this notion of, let's give ourselves some flexibility, let's aim to-- to, rather than, you know, force civil litigation, and let's at least have the flexibility to perhaps consider arbitration. Similarly, forum clauses were something that in-house counsel identified as something that warrants a second look, and we know, of course, as litigators looking at it, that there may not even be a clear forum clause in a particular agreement. And there's no doubt that forum motions are not necessarily something that you want to be addressing right out of the gate. And so having some clarity around where litigation and/or arbitration shall sit in the context of a dispute ,and making sure in most cases, frankly, that it's on home turf, that--, that those disputes are being adjudicated. Termination clauses also, and making sure that you know, what they need in terms of termination for convenience, versus for breach, that those provisions were clear heading into 2023. On the training of employees on litigation risks, things that in-house counsel identified as being really key learnings included things like, you know, when to negotiate, when to litigate, identifying opportunities to settle along the way. And again, I'd say those findings come as no terrible surprise, because generally speaking, the theme was, let's look for opportunities to negotiate, rather than litigate in 2023. And as well, how can we head off litigation at the pass, potentially? So how can we put an end to disputes before they become monumental issues to a particular organization? Lastly, on the embedding lawyers into business operations, the thinking here really seem to be that by embedding lawyers into the business, obviously, you're increasing that dynamic and level of trust, as between in-house counsel and the business, and helping to again, potentially ward off disputes before they become bigger issues for the business.

Sandeep Savla  36:00
I’ll just say that I endorse one, what Jennifer said, and I'll just add an overlay from the in-house perspective, wearing my prior in-house hat, it can be very difficult to explain to senior management, why you are extending resources and cost before a litigation or investigation has actually hit. And so these are concepts of avoided costs are great in theory, are very hard to actually explain to senior management, why you're seeking authorization to undertake these sort of diligence exercises. And so being able to point to a sur-- survey and say, look, this is what the market at large is saying, and if we don't do it, we're going to be lagging in terms of our-- our ability to react is-- is a very powerful tool. So I think I think that's very useful. The other thing I'll say is, it's-- it's incredibly difficult to prepare for litigation. So we all try and think of different ways that litigation will arise, we look at market trends, we look at what's happening with employees and political trends, but the reality is you often get blindsided by an investigation or litigation. The-- the other way to approach it is, to also look at incentives. And you see from the recent DOJ guidance in the US, where they say, you know, they'll be looking at the incentives that are provided to senior executives, and also for companies to take away prior compensation to claw back compensation when misconduct has been identified. Another way of approaching it in a sort of more holistic way, is to look at compensation and how it's awarded and the various incentives, and then to target the conduct around that. But the big takeaway, I think, from this survey is that litigation preparation is important. And I think the-- the survey makes it easier for in-house counsel to have those conversations with senior management boards.

Andrew McCoomb  38:19
Sandeep, Jennifer, this has been extremely enlightening. And a good introduction, I think, for anyone listening, if they want to jump into the survey results and our commentary online about it as well. So thank you so much. And I think we'll probably be back to you to talk about future surveys or more in depth issues in relation to your own very interesting legal practices. So thanks very much.

Jen Teskey  38:46
Thank you. 

Sandeep Savla  38:47
Thank you.
Ailsa Robertson 38:48
We hope you enjoyed this episode of Disputed. If you'd like to find out more about this topic, or how to contact our guests, please visit nortonrosefulbright.com/disputed. Also, if you have any questions, feedback, or topics that you'd like us to cover in a future episode, please do email us at disputed@nortonrosefulbright.com. And if you would like to hear more, please subscribe to Disputed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. 

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP is providing this podcast as a purely educational service. While it may contain legal information, it should not be construed as legal advice, a legal opinion or recommendation, or a statement of process or policy of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP. The information, views and opinions expressed by guest speakers are entirely their own and their appearance on the podcast does not express or imply an endorsement by Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP of the information, views or opinions expressed by any guests, or of any entities they represent. Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP expressly disclaims any and all liability or responsibility for any direct, indirect, incidental or any other form of damages arising out of any individual’s or organization’s use of, reference to, reliance on, or inability to use this podcast or the information presented in this podcast.


Knowledge Lawyer
Managing Partner, Canada (January 2024)
Co-Head of Regulatory, Investigations, Securities and Compliance, United States