Nominations
Nouvel avocat chez Lavery
L'équipe Droit-inc
2009-09-10 08:30:00
Lavery accueille un nouvel avocat au sein de son groupe de droit des affaires à ses bureaux de Montréal.
Il s’agit de Me Marc Dagenais, qui pratiquera dans sa spécialisation, le droit minier.
Admis au Barreau du Québec en 1990, Me Dagenais a débuté sa carrière au contentieux de Cambior Inc. où il a pratiqué jusqu’en 2006 alors qu’il occupait les fonctions de vice-président, Affaires juridiques et secrétaire corporatif de cette entreprise.
Depuis 2007, il était associé et vice-président, Affaires juridiques de MinQuest Capital Inc., un gestionnaire privé d’un fonds d’investissement spécialisé dans l’industrie minière.
Dans le cadre de ses fonctions, Me Dagenais conseillera les clients du cabinet et les représentera dans divers dossiers concernant le domaine minier.
Me Dagenais détient, en sus de son baccalauréat en droit civil de l’Université de Montréal, un baccalauréat en comptabilité de management (B.A.A.) de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.
Admis au Barreau du Québec en 1990, Me Dagenais a débuté sa carrière au contentieux de Cambior Inc. où il a pratiqué jusqu’en 2006 alors qu’il occupait les fonctions de vice-président, Affaires juridiques et secrétaire corporatif de cette entreprise.
Depuis 2007, il était associé et vice-président, Affaires juridiques de MinQuest Capital Inc., un gestionnaire privé d’un fonds d’investissement spécialisé dans l’industrie minière.
Dans le cadre de ses fonctions, Me Dagenais conseillera les clients du cabinet et les représentera dans divers dossiers concernant le domaine minier.
Me Dagenais détient, en sus de son baccalauréat en droit civil de l’Université de Montréal, un baccalauréat en comptabilité de management (B.A.A.) de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.
15606
10 commentaires
Anonyme
il y a 14 ansDidn’t those recruiters recently post an editorial on this site saying how difficult it is for an in-house counsel to go back to private practice with a large firm? Didn’t my comments on this site to the effect that legal recruiters were nothing more than flunkies cause an uproar with other readers who questioned my professionalism?
Well, read this guy’s bio. Proof is in the pudding.
Me
il y a 14 ansC'est quoi au juste du "droit minier" ? :)
Me
il y a 14 ans> Didn’t those recruiters recently post an editorial on this site saying how difficult it is for an in-house counsel to go back to private practice with a large firm? Didn’t my comments on this site to the effect that legal recruiters were nothing more than flunkies cause an uproar with other readers who questioned my professionalism?
>
> Well, read this guy’s bio. Proof is in the pudding.
So if your proof is made of ONE guy who successful did it, in which aspect does this one guy render the statement "it is very difficult" false? Would you mind brushing up on your basic logical reasoning skills?
Me
il y a 14 ansThis guy is basically hired just like a partner would be: he comes in with a shitload of clients. Why is it so difficult for most of the in-hounse counsel to go back to practice? Simply because 99% of them don't have the clients-bringing ace.
hoffmann
il y a 14 ans> This guy is basically hired just like a partner would be: he comes in with a shitload of clients. Why is it so difficult for most of the in-hounse counsel to go back to practice? Simply because 99% of them don't have the clients-bringing ace.
aussi simple que ça!
Anonyme
il y a 14 ans> > Didn’t those recruiters recently post an editorial on this site saying how difficult it is for an in-house counsel to go back to private practice with a large firm? Didn’t my comments on this site to the effect that legal recruiters were nothing more than flunkies cause an uproar with other readers who questioned my professionalism?
> >
> > Well, read this guy’s bio. Proof is in the pudding.
>
>
> So if your proof is made of ONE guy who successful did it, in which aspect does this one guy render the statement "it is very difficult" false? Would you mind brushing up on your basic logical reasoning skills?
Ok, here's my reasoning. As I had said at the time I was posting my comments to those flunkies, the function of in-house counsel requires a certain level of expertise and autonomy that larger firms often look for. In my opinion, it is less difficult for an in-house counsel to make the transition to private practice than it would be for a lawyer in private practice to make the transition to another firm.
In response to the other comments that this guy ended up at Lavery because of his clientele, I don’t think that Lavery is experiencing a shortage of clients.
Anonyme
il y a 14 ansAnd is it supposed to be a proof?? Me Dagenais is a very good lawyer with an even better book of business! Your reasoning when saying Lavery doesn't lack clients is exactly the reason why you wouldn't get back into a law firm and also the reason why you have no credibility. You have no clue what it takes to be a partner in a major firm it seems. A firm never has enough clients, a firm never would say, no thanks, we're good, we don't need your clients... the more money getting in, the better. And it's normal, a law firm is a business like anyone else. It's there to make money. It seems you are the flunky Sr Macho :)
> Didn’t those recruiters recently post an editorial on this site saying how difficult it is for an in-house counsel to go back to private practice with a large firm? Didn’t my comments on this site to the effect that legal recruiters were nothing more than flunkies cause an uproar with other readers who questioned my professionalism?
>
> Well, read this guy’s bio. Proof is in the pudding.
Anonyme
il y a 14 ansYeah, "Aussi simple que ça".
As I alluded to in my answer above, last I heard, Lavery isn’t exactly starving for new clients. Have you people ever thought that perhaps he made it on his skill and talent?
Me
il y a 14 ans>>>> the function of in-house counsel requires a certain level of expertise and autonomy that larger firms often look for.
Actually it does, but it really shouldn't. Being in-house, you spend most of your time dealing with basic problems, you don't need much experience. However, companies require 3-5 years of experience... although most needs are well taken care of by someone freshly out of the bar. But because there is a huge market, companies can afford to raise expectation when they post jobs for a in-house counsel.
Anonyme
il y a 14 ans> >>>> the function of in-house counsel requires a certain level of expertise and autonomy that larger firms often look for.
>
> Actually it does, but it really shouldn't. Being in-house, you spend most of your time dealing with basic problems, you don't need much experience. However, companies require 3-5 years of experience... although most needs are well taken care of by someone freshly out of the bar. But because there is a huge market, companies can afford to raise expectation when they post jobs for a in-house counsel.
I won't totally disagree with you because your statement is true in certain industries that are limited to certain fields of law such as real estate. Other industries, for example multinationals, public companies etc., the requirements are much higher that 3 to 5 years and demand a high level of expertise that is similar to the expertise possessed by specialists in the same field.