I just returned from a glorious 3-week summer break and am now trying to catch up on my accumulated emails. A few things caught my eye that I thought may be of interest to other SLAW devotees:

1. IAALS events – I have followed the Institute for the Advancement of the America Legal System for some time. It is a U.S. leader in the analysis and reform of the U.S. justice system, including through unbundled legal services. Two events to note:
   1. Redesigning Legal Speaker Series: The next session is on August 24, 2021 and is entitled “Legal Tech –

Legal institutions demonstrate both a reliance on and a resistance to evidence-based decision-making. Across all areas of the law, cases are built, argued and decided on evidence that is meticulously gathered and assessed. Rigorous fact-seeking is the standard that gives credibility to law’s oft-cited assurances of impartiality and due process. Yet, the very legal mechanisms for which this standard informs and justifies decisions are often themselves without the data necessary to evaluate the frameworks within which they operate. The result is that there is a lack of data in the legal field in Canada (and elsewhere) on the processes used . . . [more]

Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

Going Public: A Survivor’s Journey from Grief to Action

Dr. Julie Macfarlane is a Distinguished University Professor and Professor of Law at the University of Windsor. She is the author of Going Public: A Survivor’s Journey from Grief to Action (Between the Lines, 2020). She was named a member of the Order . . . [more]

The Labour Day weekend typically finds professors feeling melancholy: the four months of our summer term, which we use primarily for research and writing, attending conferences, and graduate supervision, are again drawing to a close. We know that the next eight months will be focused on the equally important work of teaching, academic planning and governance, so our next opportunity to think deeply about our scholarship is a long way away.

Yet, since many of us are unabashed nerds, we are perpetually excited about the beginning of a new school year, replete with ambitious plans for our courses and keen . . . [more]

When I was articling, eons ago, I came across a judge who smoked in court, made off-hand comments affecting his decisions without any evidentiary basis (“everyone knows what a second hand Lincoln costs”) and made sexist comments towards me (“bring this young lady into my chambers”). He was well-known in the particular legal community (I was merely “visiting” on a discovery issue) and no one thought there was a way to contain him. Indeed, as I sat in the courtroom waiting my turn, I was warned about him. I think of this judge as an “outlier”, beyond the reach of . . . [more]

I was recently invited to participate in a Runnymede Society debate against Asher Honickman—a co-founder of the Society—on “the future of legal education and curriculum.” I paused. I consulted. I reflected. And now, I am declining that invitation. But I want to explain why.

As a former debater and mooter, I love to argue. But as a legal scholar—and especially, a scholar of critical race theory—I am mindful of power and its inseverability from the conversations we engage in. Thinking about power, and its particular dynamics within the context of this proposed Runnymede Society debate, is ultimately what led me . . . [more]

When I ask lawyers what their firm’s business goals are for the year, it’s shocking how few know the answer, often because those goals don’t exist. So, it’s understandable that when I ask those same lawyers for their personal business goals are, they don’t know those either. Firms have dabbled in requesting personal or practice group business plans, but that’s a difficult ask when the firm hasn’t done its own planning. It’s enough to make any lawyer wonder: is goal setting really necessary?

Most businesses would find that question absurd. They set goals and develop plans to achieve those goals . . . [more]

1. Is it real?
2. What does it cost if it happens?
3. How does it compare to the status quo?
4. Are there other risks that are important, too?

Whether we have overcome our storied risk aversion, or we have merely been given a more important risk to avoid, the legal profession in Canada is now struggling to adopt technology at a very fast pace.

And as might be expected, success is not evenly distributed. The difference between the people who take this opportunity for change and those who miss it will be how they think about risk.

Here’s . . . [more]

Perhaps it is at least in part the fault of the idiot wing of the fund management business, that it seems to have become necessary for every aspiring new entity seeking to serve the legal and professional information sector to classify itself as a “disruptor” or “disruptive”. Whether or not such entities, their products and services are capable of achieving the criteria set by the fundamentalist religious cult enthusiast attributed with having identified the concept, nonetheless, to attract the funds and appear to be on message, they have to be disruptors. I find it tiresome to see commentators, as . . . [more]

Law touches many aspects of daily life. We skim and (hastily) agree to user agreements in order to stream music and videos online, sign lease agreements for housing, hydro contracts for hot water and electricity, and employment contracts that outline terms and conditions for work. The everyday legal problems landscape is rife with disputes with employers and neighbors, arguments over money owed, contentious divorces, and many other civil justice problems. The recent economic and social pressures created by the COVID-19 crisis have certainly not improved things. Everyday legal problems carry legal ramifications and profound personal, financial and social consequences. Much . . . [more]

Love it or hate it, everyone is on Zoom these days, including lawyers.

The company notes that daily use went up from 10 million users a day in December 2019, to over 200 million daily users in March 2020. On March 23, 2020 alone, the app was downloaded 2.13 million times globally.

Social distancing during COVID-19 has in no insignificant way pushed the use of this platform to new levels, with share prices going from $70 in January to $150 by the the end of March 2020. Yet, the platform was never designed with this type of use in mind. . . . [more]

Canada has come a long way since the SARS pandemic in 2003. With the outbreak of COVID-19, here is a non-exhaustive overview of some of the ways that pandemics have come up in our legal system.

Keri Gammon makes the argument in the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies that given the need for local implementation, provincial jurisdiction for pandemics is still warranted,

In extreme cases, such as where one province fails to act altogether in respect of a  public health emergency, federal jurisdiction may be required if only on a temporary basis. But with respect to