Is the exclusion of “non-lawyers” from ownership of law firms simply a relic of the belief in lawyers’ superior morals? And is lawyers’ professionalism dependent on that particular organizational structure?

Those were questions raised in Tuesday night’s wide-ranging Twitterchat hosted by Monica Goyal, a partner in Aluvion Law and a member of the CBA Legal Futures Initiative’s Innovation and Business Structures team.

One of the most frequent objections to the idea of changing the current regulations regarding the ownership of law firms is the purported impact this will have on the professionalism of those involved.

“Is the reservation to diversifying . . . [more]

Currently Law Society Rules do not allow for non-lawyer ownership. While lawyers working for the government can have an attorney general who isn’t a lawyer, and individual lawyers are free to work ‘in house’ for corporations whose shareholders are not lawyers; when it comes to operating a law firm in Canada, lawyers have to be in control.

The UK and Australia allow for different legal business structures, more specifically they allow for non-licensee ownership and surprisingly with little repercussions. Advocates for liberalizing business structures say that this will lead to affordable legal services. There are a few examples of . . . [more]

“I know lawyers who are very innovative and lawyers with very traditional practices. The latter seem to make much more money,” says Noel Semple, a self-described “lapsed lawyer and aspiring professor.”

And there, in a nutshell, appear two of the biggest impediments to innovation in the legal field: the idea that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t need fixing, combined with the real possibility that the innovation will fail – or at the very least, that the innovator will be scrambling for money until the idea catches on.

Innovations in the legal sector – and the impediments thereto – were . . . [more]

Skype is now as ubiquitous as ICQ once was. We have family in Calgary and we regularly connect to them from Montreal using Skype. Using laptops at both ends, the software is simple and making the connection is a snap. Sure, the picture is grainy and frames are dropped: so what? It costs nothing.

Enter the world of courts, tribunals and commissions. The question is bound to be asked: why can’t we allow witness so and so to appear remotely using Skype or a similar program? If you think this reasoning simplistic, think again, as evidenced by the George Zimmerman . . . [more]

The Council of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society has just released a report produced by Victoria Rees, their Director of Professional Responsibility, entitled “Transforming Regulation and Governance in the Public Interest.” The report is currently under consideration by the Council.

From the Executive Summary:

The goal of this paper is to inform, not to persuade.
In adopting ‘Transforming Regulation and Governance in the Public Interest’ as a strategic priority, Council has signalled that it wants to consider fundamental and perhaps profound change. Council members will need to approach the concept of transforming regulation and governance with an open

Innovation in the legal space is lagging behind almost every other industry. For years now, people have been saying that the law students will take up the mantle and be the new wave of innovation, a new way of doing law that will mean affordable legal services. There is little evidence of this with students or in the profession. This gap in innovation is attributed to a reason for unaffordable legal services. There are exceptions to the rule, such as Cognition, and Riverview in the UK. Why is this happening? What can we learn from the innovators? And what can . . . [more]

I wrote last month on a recent conference, The Future of Law School. The backchannel and later discussion was considerable, as I’ve noted, and several others wrote about the rich panel presentations and their own ideas about the future of law school. Weeks later, I still find myself pondering ideas from it often. I’m thinking lately about the place of the law school and its connection—in Canada—to the university and its library.

The focus of the conference was where law school curricula are, should be, or could be headed. Participants and presenters discussed various factors that do or might drive . . . [more]

The announcement yesterday of the newly minted LeClairRyan Legal Solutions Center should provide another shockwave to an American legal profession that is already in distress.

National law firm of LeClairRyan (22 offices and 350 attorneys) and LPO UnitedLex (1,100 attorneys engineers and consultants), will now collaborate to provide “a wide range of support services and incorporate best-in-class technology and quality control processes which will be uniquely integrated into the law firm’s litigation and transactional practice areas….[allowing clients to obtain]….more comprehensive, value-based services at a lower and more predictable cost.

“The LeClairRyan Legal Solutions Center is an important part of . . . [more]

The business case for diversity is a strong one, says Omar Ha-Redeye, but paradoxically it rarely encourages change.

The issue of diversity – or the lack of it – extends across most spheres but studies have shown the legal profession to be a particularly noted offender; Dr. Arin Reeves, speaking at the 2013 CBA Legal Conference in Saskatoon this summer said this is the case no matter the country.

Diversity was the topic of the fifth weekly CBA Futures Initiative Twitterchat Tuesday night. Moderator Ha-Redeye encouraged participants to discuss the reasons for the lack of diversity in the profession, and . . . [more]

I recently heard a respected lawyer comment that if the legal profession allows disputes to be resolved outside of traditional legal systems, then we cannot ensure that proper attention will be paid to basic legal principles of fairness, justice and the rule of law.

That got me wondering, do lawyers have a monopoly not only on legal practice, but also on fairness, justice and rule of law? Are we the sole keepers of these ideals, delivered to us by governments who wisely recognized that only those called to the profession of law could meet the responsibility of ensuring adherence? (And . . . [more]

When lawyers say they can’t afford their own services, you might have an access to justice problem.

Regina lawyer Alex Shalashniy said during the CBA Legal Futures Initiative’s Twitter chat Tuesday night that he’s heard lawyers admitting they would be unable to pay their own fees if they needed a lawyer – something he calls a “telling illustration” of the access to justice problem in Canada.

A number of people participating in the third weekly Twitter chat, this one dealing with how legal services can be changed to increase access, pointed to cost as a barrier.

Corinne Boudreau, owner of . . . [more]

As some readers may know, I retain a small commercial real estate practice. I apply as much of my thinking to my practice as workable. The upside is that my practice runs on very low overhead and is cost-effective for me and my clients. It also forces me to assess risk with my clients so that I don’t negotiate every sentence of every document; which is the essence of being a “trusted advisor.”

The downside is dealing with lawyers (most of whom are from Biglaw) for whom concepts of cost-effectiveness, efficiency and thoughtfulness are completely unknown; lawyers who can’t stop . . . [more]