Helen Pelton said the decision by the women to change lawyers came as “a bit of a surprise,” but isn’t unusual when dealing with a large group of clients over a longer time period. She represented all 12 women in unsuccessful efforts to get the courts to allow an appeal of a 2007 disciplinary tribunal ruling that quashed 24 Police Services Act charges against Sgt. Kevin Dhinsa because they were filed eight days past a statutory six-month deadline.

A spokesperson for the 10 women has declined to divulge reasons for the split and Ms. Pelton said she’s never been given an explanation.

She continues to represent two of the women, referred to only as Jane Does in court documents.

“I still believe very firmly in the case and I’m still working very hard on it, and I really hope that we see some justice,” Ms. Pelton said.

“It’s always a little trickier when the clients themselves are somewhat fractured and unfortunately it tends to happen when you represent a group of people,” she said.

“Groups tend to start out, they’re all on the same page, and as time goes on there are differences between people and their approaches.

Unfortunately, that’s where we are now. Ten of the 12 women have decided to seek a second opinion from a Toronto law firm.”

The 10 women have hired human rights lawyer Julian Falconer, whose high-profile clients have included Maher Arar, recipient of a $10-million settlement from Ottawa for Canada’s complicity in a U. S. decision to send him to Syria, where he was jailed and tortured as a suspected terrorist.

He also famously sparred with OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino last fall over disciplinary charges laid against two police officers he represented in a case that saw the top cop unsuccessfully attempt to have the adjudicator removed for alleged bias.

Each of the 12 women –11 officers and one civilian –is seeking $2 million in damages from the Hamilton police services board, its lawyer and Police Chief Brian Mullan for their alleged negligence in dealing with 24 disciplinary charges related to their harassment complaints.

A tribunal quashed the Police Services Act charges in February 2007, ruling they had been filed eight days after a statutory six-month deadline –a decision both sides tried unsuccessfully to overturn in the courts.

Filed last December, the lawsuit alleges the defendants were negligent in failing to provide a harassment-free workplace and to investigate and lay police act charges in a timely manner against Sgt. Dhinsa, who has been on paid leave since November 2005.

The defendants have filed a motion seeking to have the case tossed out, including on the grounds that the women are precluded from civil action because they belong to a police association that offers a grievance procedure to address their concerns.

Efforts to get the lawsuit heard in court have hit their own delays. The case was adjourned in April, when the 10 women decided to change lawyers. Superior Court Justice James Turnbull “reluctantly” agreed to a second adjournment on June 8 because the women had only hired Mr. Falconer the previous week.

But the judge warned he will dismiss the suit if the plaintiffs aren’t prepared to proceed when the court reconvenes on Aug. 10. Ms. Pelton said she is ready to argue the case and hopes the lawsuit stays alive at least until other means of redress –like the grievance process –show they can bring results.

“I’m not convinced that they will succeed in these other avenues,” she said. “What I don’t want to see is every single door shut in their face.”