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]

Lateral hiring of partners or associates occurs at firms of every size, and is becoming far more common. In addition to reviewing the transferring lawyer’s credentials and suitability, the transferring lawyer and firm will need to identify and deal with potential conflicts of interest that may arise with respect to clients at the transferring lawyer’s previous firm, and in particular, clients for whom the transferring lawyer worked.

This critical task is not as easy as it might seem on first thought. The hiring firm must have sufficient information to complete an internal conflicts check, while at the same time making . . . [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]

Every once in a while you come across a lawyer or other professional who has such a bad presence that you question whether they are real or competent. It is often because they do some basic image affecting things horribly wrong.

Here are a few things needed to leave a good impression, are often done wrong, and yet cost little or nothing to do right:

• Have a web site. It doesn’t have to be fancy, but needs to include basic info like what you do, where you are, and how to contact you. It also needs to look professional. Blog

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]

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, newly appointed Justice Nadon “has been told” — presumably by the Chief Justice — to stay away, because of the pending challenge to his status.

The article quotes a letter by deputy registrar, Mary McFadyen, written at the behest of “the court” to the provincial and federal governments, making clear that:

As questions concerning the legality of Justice Nadon’s appointment are pending before the Court, it has adopted the following measures to ensure that justice is both done and is seen to be done in an independent and impartial manner: 1.

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]

A recent report shows that US government spying has gone even farther beyond what Edward Snowden disclosed. The National Security Agency has apparently broken the security of two major in-the-cloud email systems, Gmail and Yahoo! mail. The story reports that the spy agency intercepted metadata and content of over 180,000,000 emails in the space of a month.

Does knowledge of this activity mean that a lawyer who uses one of these services for business email waives privilege in the content? Is it like speaking to your client in a criminal matter with a police officer clearly within earshot?

Or does . . . [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]