Lubomyr Chabursky is a Director in DisputeSoft’s IT Project Failure practice. Lubomyr first developed expertise in large IT project failures as a litigation attorney when he organized and managed the largest systems development lawsuit in Canada. From 1996 until 2002, he provided analysis on all factual, strategic and technical issues in the case to prepare for deposition and trial. Building upon that experience, Lubomyr honed his skills as a litigation consultant and testifying expert to focus on a variety of issues that arise in large IT project lawsuits, including representation of the business case; adequacy of personnel qualifications; understanding and meaning of contractual terms and SOW provisions; management of requirements, scope and specifications; creation and fine-tuning of designs; selection and implementation of systems development methodologies; execution of risk management and status reporting; recognition of error patterns found in testing; and implication of problems and defects arising after go-live.
Lubomyr received his LL.B. from Osgoode Hall Law School and his LL.M. from McGill University. He also received his M.B.A. from the University of Ottawa, and he clerked for the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the matter of Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation v. Miami-Dade County Expressway Authority, Lubomyr proffered an expert report and testified at trial on behalf of the plaintiff, who alleged breach of contract and bad faith with regard to a systems development project to implement an open-road electronic tolling solution. The trial judge relied on Lubomyr’s opinion that the defendant inappropriately refused to approve or reject the plaintiff’s design, and that therefore the defendant’s order to take the system live without the benefit of a final design constituted breach of contract.
Lubomyr also proffered an expert report and testified on behalf of the plaintiff in the matter of South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Hewlett Packard State and Local Enterprise Services, Inc. He opined that the defendant caused delays in the testing phase of the project that it was unable to remediate due to failings in the design process.
AREAS OF PRACTICE