Paul Cahill Recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada

Paul Cahill has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada in the Medical Negligence practice area each year since 2021. A note on peer recognition in legal practice.

By Paul Cahill August 26, 2023 3 min read

Paul Cahill recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada in the Medical Negligence practice area each year since 2021. By Paul Cahill, LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation.

Paul Cahill has been recognized by Best Lawyers in Canada in the Medical Negligence practice area each year since 2021.

Best Lawyers is a peer-review legal directory that has been published since 1981. It is one of the oldest and most established peer-review publications in the legal profession. Recognition is based on confidential evaluations by other practising lawyers in the same area of practice. Lawyers cannot pay to be included, and the methodology is designed to identify lawyers whose peers regard them as among the strongest practitioners in their field. Lawyers who are recognized in one edition must continue to receive sufficient peer support in subsequent surveys to remain in future editions.

The Medical Negligence practice area is one of the more specialized listings in the directory. The lawyers recognized in this category in any given year are a small group, typically counsel who spend the majority of their practice on plaintiff-side or defence-side medical negligence work. In Ontario, where the defence side of medical malpractice is dominated by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), the plaintiff bar is comparably specialized, and consistent peer recognition over multiple years is a useful indicator of standing in the area.

What peer recognition signals

Peer-review legal directories are imperfect. They reflect the views of the lawyers surveyed, which may not always align with the views of clients who have actually worked with a given lawyer. They are not, on their own, a substitute for the more concrete indicators of trial experience, clinical depth, and case results that should drive a prospective client’s evaluation of counsel.

What peer recognition does signal, when consistent over time, is professional standing in the area. A lawyer who has been recognized in the same specialized category each year for multiple consecutive years is a lawyer whom other practitioners in the same field have repeatedly identified as a leader in the work. That is meaningful corroborating evidence, even if it is not the only evidence.

Paul also holds the Law Society of Ontario Certified Specialist designation in Civil Litigation, a separate peer-validated credential awarded by the Law Society itself on the basis of substantial and ongoing experience in the specialty, peer review, and continuing education in the area. The two credentials taken together (Best Lawyers in Canada in Medical Negligence and LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation) reflect substantive professional standing in the medical negligence field.

What this means for prospective clients

For someone considering whether to retain a particular lawyer for a medical malpractice claim, peer-review credentials are one of several useful inputs alongside trial experience, reported decisions, references, and the lawyer’s response in the first consultation. For a fuller discussion of how to evaluate counsel in this area, see How to Choose a Medical Malpractice Lawyer in Ontario, which sets out a framework for evaluating any prospective lawyer (including Paul) on the substantive criteria that matter most.

Paul’s track record as plaintiff’s counsel is reflected in the Notable Cases page, which links to the reported decisions in each. For commentary on recent Ontario medical malpractice and regulatory discipline jurisprudence, see the blog. For an introduction to the framework of medical malpractice claims in Ontario more generally, see Suing for Medical Malpractice in Ontario: What You Need to Know.

Filed under:

About the Author

Paul Cahill

Partner, Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP | LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation

Paul represents victims of medical malpractice across Ontario, with trial experience including a $11.5M jury verdict in a birth injury case. He is recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada and serves as trial counsel to other lawyers on complex medical negligence matters.

About Paul

More on medical malpractice in Ontario.

Other articles by Paul exploring the conditions, decisions, and systems behind preventable medical harm.

Case header: Bradley v Wang with subtitle 'Direct observation outweighs a physician's evidence of usual practice' on a dark blue banner with 'Case Comment' and professional labels at top corners.

Bradley v Wang: A Misplaced Injection, Usual Practice Evidence, and the Mitigation Burden

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Wang’s appeal in Bradley v Wang, upholding findings that a tetanus vaccine was injected in the wrong part of the arm, that the misplacement caused an adhesive capsulitis, and that no mitigation defence was made out. The decision confirms that counterfactual proof can be assembled from evidence excluding the competing explanation, and that a defendant who cannot show suitable alternative work was available loses the mitigation argument regardless of the plaintiff’s own efforts.

Ibrahimova v Cavanagh: The Court of Appeal Upholds a Causation Finding Built on Inference

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismisses Dr. Cavanagh’s causation appeal in Ibrahimova v Cavanagh, upholding findings about what would have happened at a tertiary hospital the patient never reached on the relevant day. The decision confirms that a plaintiff can prove a counterfactual treatment path through a specialist from the receiving discipline, without institutional witnesses, and that a defendant who calls no expert in that specialty is unlikely to recast the resulting findings as speculation.

Navy title card reading "Dementia in the Hallway: Hallway care and the cognitively impaired patient in Ontario" from paulcahill.ca.

Five Days in a Hallway: Dementia, Delirium, and Hospital Liability in Ontario

A Saskatoon family went public this week after an 88-year-old man with early Alzheimer’s spent nearly five days on a bed in an emergency department hallway. The story is from Saskatchewan, but the conditions are familiar in Ontario, and the risks are sharpest for the patient who cannot orient himself, use a call bell, or tell anyone something has changed. Where the line falls between a strained system and an actionable failure is narrower than the headlines suggest.