I am writing in response to the article “Lawyer slams costs for medical records” that appeared in the Jan. 9, 2012, edition of Law Times.

Last summer, I was appointed as the employer nominee to a panel that mediated/arbitrated the dispute between Air Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers.

In reference to Law Times’ coverage of the title insurance industry (see “Title insurance wars heating up once again,” July 11), Stewart Title Guaranty Co. would like to provide further context regarding the need for an important clarification to be made.

I am writing in response to an article on June 6 entitled “LSUC considers counselling for returnees.”

Your editorial in the June 6 edition of Law Times (see “In praise of second chances”) does not, in my view, provide a complete and full picture of what occurred in relation to the 2010 motion in the Superior Court of Justice surrounding the compensation order imposed on me in my criminal matters in May 1993.

I appreciate the important coverage in the May 16 edition of Law Times given to the report released by the Canadian Bar Association on solicitor-client privilege (see “Alarm sounded on solicitor-client privilege”).

The real problem in family law is the beliefs expressed by some lawyers that predominate in the family courts. Such views (see “Debate fires up over presumption of joint custody,” Law Times, Feb. 7) are wrong and discriminatory. But those who discriminate never see what they do as discrimination.