×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Borden Ladner Gervais LLPSenior Associate
Daniel Grodinsky

Daniel Grodinsky

Not yet reviewed

1000 de La Gauchetière Street West, Suite 900, Montreal, QC H3B 5H4

Litigation and Arbitration, Securities Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation and 2 more

About Daniel Grodinsky

Daniel Grodinsky is a lawyer practicing litigation and arbitration, securities litigation, intellectual property litigation and 2 other areas of law. Daniel received a B.A. degree from McGill University in 2004, and has been licensed for 18 years. Daniel practices at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Montreal, QC.

Daniel Grodinsky (Montreal, Quebec)

Reviews for Daniel

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Transportation
  • Other 4
    • Litigation and Arbitration
    • Securities Litigation
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • International Trade Litigation and Arbitration

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Senior Associate
    Firm Name
    Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Work: On behalf of a leading software manufacturer, successfully obtained a series of injunctions
    seizure orders to shut down a network of companies illicitly reselling software.
    Successfully obtained an Anton Piller Order to recover confidential information stolen via industrial espionage.
    Successfully opposed a number of trade-mark applications which were held to be confusing with the SECRET family of trade-marks (Cortefiel S.A. v. Gildan Apparel (Canada) LP, 2014 FCA 255
    Eclectic Edge Inc v. Gildan Apparel (Canada) LP, 2015 FC 1332)
    Successfully obtained a $1.1 million arbitration award as well as full indemnity for costs for Honeywell International. The arbitration in Montreal arose out of the sale of the Canadian assets of EMS (now a division of Honeywell) to Advantech. The counterclaim was also dismissed.
    Successfully obtained a stay of proceedings before the Federal Court in favour of arbitration in New York on a decision deciding a novel point of Canadian maritime law. (T.Co. Metals LLC v. Vessel Federal EMS , 2011 FC 291)
    Successfully defended an arbitration claim by the charterers of a vessel against its Owners, while obtaining full indemnity for the client. The claim arose from the Owners' decision to refuse delivery to an unsafe port.
    Counsel for the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney before the Oliphant Commission (2008).

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2008, Québec
    Memberships

    Professional Involvement

    •Member of the Quebec Bar
    •Member of the Steering Committee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Young Members Group
    •Member of the American Bar Association
    •Member, The Advocates' Society

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Université de Laval
    Class of 2006
    LL.B.

    Dalhousie University
    Class of 2007
    LL.B.
    Other Education
    McGill University
    Class of 2004
    B.A.
    History & Economics

Daniel Grodinsky

Senior Associate at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Not yet reviewed

1000 de La Gauchetière Street West, Suite 900Montreal, QC H3B 5H4Canada

Email Daniel Grodinsky

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions