Kowalski in the News and on Youtube

Monica Goyal was the brainchild behind the first series of Virtural Town Halls, that I participated in. Here is the link to the last one.  The sound is muted at first but then catches on.

The Law Times has been posing a series of questions to Bencher candidates.  I have responded to all of them.

The OBA has also created a series of questions for Benchers that I have answered - here.

Also I am taking part in a Twitter Townhall on April 15 at 9:30 am EST - take part and look for hashtag #bencher.

UWO is promoting its alumni who are running for Bencher of which I am one - here.

The Youth and Work Blog asked Monica Goyal and myself to answer some additional questions which you can view - here

2011 Bencher Platform

As we head to the polls, I now release my platform of change for the Law Society.

The following are what I would like to achieve over the next four years:

1.       Immediate freeze on fees until 2015;

2.       In order to increase participation in the 2015 Bencher Election, provide a $50.00 discount on 2015 annual fees for those members who vote in the Bencher Election;

3.       Mandate that the 2015 Bencher Election be fully electronic – no paper ballots and no paper election packages to  save costs;

4.       Implement further governance reform by capping Benchers to a maximum of eight years in office;

5.       Implement full disclosure on Bencher expenses and Bencher compensation on an individual basis;

6.       Implement “cap” on election spending from all sources on Bencher candidates;

7.       Direct staff to implement value for money audits on all programs. Programs which do not provide value of money and which do not have clear definitions of success are to be cancelled;

8.       Implement a practice of openness at Convocation such that in camera meetings are used sparingly;

9.       Providing full disclosure on staff salaries over $100,000.00 per year, akin to the provincial Sunshine List;

10.   Implement discussions with the provincial government to create a student loan forgiveness programme for law students who practice in small communities with few lawyers;

11.   Implement new legal services delivery models similar to those in the United Kingdom and Australia, including franchises and outside investment. New players and models should provide greater access to justice at reduced costs for the public and should also provide greater work/life balance for those who desire it;

12.   Create and/or revise, if necessary, practice standards in connection with the Cloud, LPOs and SaaS;

13.    Implement diversity conflict/mentorship arrangement with a broad range of firms in the province;

14.   Reconsider the licensing process for lawyers in Ontario such that all those wishing to practice are guaranteed an articling position; and

15.   Reconsider the licensing process for foreign lawyers, particularly those who have practiced in Commonwealth countries, to make that process faster and more in line with that found in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.   

                                            I ask for your support.

Work/Life Balance

Despite all the attention, the Law Society still does not have a coherent strategy with respect to women and law. The initiatives it has created are overly simplistic and not effective. Sadly the Law Society does not even have a way to measure the success of the hodge podge of initiatives that it has created. 

But I am most concerned about the Law Society’s propensity to pit genders against each other.

As a solo practitioner and single father of two children, I fully understand how difficult it is to run a law practice and raise a family.  I have adjusted my practice and have made trade-offs in my life to spend more time with my family. So I find it deeply offensive when the Law Society states that I have an advantage in law because of my gender.

The practice of law is unfair to all lawyers in equal measure.  Each lawyer must choose the sacrifices that he or she is prepared to make, and not make, in his or her career.

The real issue is work/life balance for lawyers who want it.

The greatest enemies to work/life balance are the structure of law firms and the billable hour. It is time for Ontario to follow the lead of the UK and Australia and allow for alternative business models that will change how legal services are delivered thereby permitting greater work/life balance for lawyers. 

Ideas For A More Diverse Bar

I come at this issue from different angles.  My kids are of mixed-race - Chinese and Caucasian - so I have a very personal stake in diversity issues. But I also live in one of the most diverse cities on the planet, so I see first-hand the benefits of blending many cultures.

What has the Law Society done to create a more diverse bar in Ontario?

Not much - other than give lip service to the obvious fact that “something” needs to be done.

Diversity is not about lowering standards to give someone something that he or she could not get on the own merits.

Diversity is simply about choosing lawyers with a background that reflects that of our clients.

How do we get there?

Forget about creating endless and fruitless roundtables.

Forget about giving Law Society money directly to any particular lawyer.

Let’s keep it simple.

When a conflict arises in the course of your work, commit to sending that conflict work to a diverse lawyer.  There are countless associations of lawyers with different ethnic/cultural/racial backgrounds – use them as your resource for lawyers with the skills your clients require.

For those larger firms who question the standards of diverse lawyers, those firms need to commit to a mentorship program to bring diverse lawyers up to their so-called “standard.” The diverse lawyers would make a similar commitment to training in return for the conflict work.  Firms may be as creative as they like in dealing with this. A by-product of this program is that it creates a mentorship program. 

In addition diverse lawyers would commit to speak to their communities on Law Days and other events so that the next generation of kids can see that the profession is open to all.

With such a plan, achievable targets can be created and success can be measured with little, if any cost, to the Law Society.

The Need for Broad Representation Among Benchers

It is important for Convocation to have a broad representation of practice areas so that issues which affect those practice areas can be discussed with knowledge and experience.

Many of the solicitors who are currently Benchers are not running for re-election.

It is important that Convocation not lose the voice of solicitors.

As a solo practitioner focussed on real estate and commercial law, I will bring that perspective and experience to Convocation.

I ask for your vote.

Unbundled Legal Services

Andrew Feldstein asked for my views on limited retainers/unbundled legal services and the LSUC Report on same.  Andrew, thanks for joining the conversation.

I am in favour of innovative approaches that allow for greater public access to the legal system.  Unbundled legal services are a direct result of a legal system that is no longer affordable to many members of the public.

Ideally, we would create legal service providers that deliver quality legal services at affordable prices; this is why I am such a strong proponent of Alternative Business Structures (ABS).

ABS need to come to Ontario within the next four years.

Until we have players in the legal services area who will deliver such a service, we must allow for unbundled legal services.

The proposed rules by LSUC are, for the most part, common sense; make sure the client understands what you are doing and what you are not doing, the ramifications/risks of unbundling, make sure everyone else is also aware of the unbundled nature of the legal services and provide for termination of representation.

I am confused by the reference to "the quality of legal service" which LSUC extends to the entire matter.  In other words, LSUC seems to be proposing that a lawyer not offer unbundled legal services if the overall quality of the matter would suffer. This is going too far. It is up to the client, not LSUC, to decide what legal services she wishes to use and pay for.

In my profile I mention my favourite quote by Richard Susskind: "Law is not created for the benefit of lawyers any more than sickness is created for the benefit of the medical profession."  We as lawyers need to work within the means of our clients and do the best we can within those limits.

If that means that we only deal with part of a matter, then so be it.

"Quality" should only apply to the services which we offer.

Andrew, I hope I answered your question. If not, was there something specific for which you wanted my comment?

Best,

Mitch

Who to vote for if you want to see real change at the Law Society of Upper Canada

Here are some of the candidates that I believe will deliver change real change and reform to the Law Society.

I urge you to support me and them.

Toronto Region

Chris Bredt
Julian Falconner
Monica Goyal
Mitch Kowalski
Jeff Lem


Outside of Toronto

John Arkelian
Alan Silverstein
Robert Wadden

Alternative Business Structures

In 2007, the UK passed the Legal Services Act which allowed for alternative business structures ("ABS") for the delivery of legal services. The Law Society of Upper Canada has taken little notice of this important piece of legislation.

In my view, ABS provide the answer to issues of work/life balance, gender/diversity in the Bar and access to justice/legal aid. In many ways, it is Ontario's current structure of legal services delivery that creates roadblocks to these matters.

The 2011/2012 Draft Business Plan for the UK's Legal Services Board is in agreement, for it states that:

ABS is potentially one of the most transformative developments in the history of legal services provision.

It will bring new investment, fresh ideas and new ways of working to the market. A well-regulated dynamic market for legal services will deliver across the regulatory objectives. By removing historical restrictions - whilst replacing them with robust risk-assessment measures focused on outcomes - practitioners will be able to innovate and reshape their offer in ways that were previously not possible.

New forms of collaboration and new entrants into the market will increase consumer choice, whilst greater competition will raise standards.

Existing law firms will be able to attract new capital – providing a driver for sustainability and growth in difficult economic times.

‘This programme will also contribute to a greater degree of plurality in the market, bringing new working practices and career pathways.

New entrants with original approaches to development, virtual law firms and greater numbers of telephone and web-based advisory services with greater varieties of pricing structures are just some examples.

Challenging old orthodoxies will be a major feature of the more dynamic and diverse marketplace – having an impact on areas such as workforce diversity, where the unreformed market had difficulty with the pace of change in other sectors.

Opening up the market can also have a major impact on widening access to justice at a critical time.

Increased levels of supply from new entrants, alongside greater innovation in the way services are packaged and delivered, will create competitive forces that lower prices and widen access.

In the current economic climate, and in the context of new pressures on legal aid, this has the potential to have a major impact – particularly for those consumers who, whilst better-off than the threshold for public support, still struggle to afford to engage good-quality legal advice.

Competition is more likely to extend the reach of provision in these areas than current restrictive practices will allow.

The Law Society of Upper Canada can no longer keep its head in the sand and ignore what is happening around the world. We need to take advantage of the experience and research that is being done worldwide and create a new era of legal services delivery for the betterment of the people of this province.  

The Purpose of the Law Society

The purpose of the Law Society of Upper Canada is, in my view, twofold:

1. assist lawyers in delivering legal services in better, more effective and efficient ways for the benefit of the public; and

2. protect the public by ensuring a competent and ethical Bar.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has done little in connection with the first purpose.

It is time to re-focus.

It is time for change.

What do I get from becoming a Bencher?

My friends ask me time and again, "Why run for Bencher? Where do you have the time? What do you get out of it?"

My answer is always the same, "Things need to change and they won't change if I don't do what I can to change them. I can whine and complain about the "old guard" that runs the law society or I can do something about it."

For me there is a legacy aspect to my quest.

I want to leave the law society in much better shape than it is now; I want to leave a more efficient law society, a more fiscally responsible law society, a more transparent law society, a law society with a clear strategic vision for the future of law; a law society that seeks to be a leader in innovative legal services delivery.

I also won't run for more than two terms as I understand that after 8 years as a Bencher, your thinking is no longer fresh and innovative; that it is time to step aside for the next group.

The last question, "What do you get out of it?" is one that concerns me the most.

It tells me that too many lawyers see running for Bencher as a career move.

And that is certainly the impression that I received from attending the Toronto Bencher information session late last year. Speakers at that session spoke about what a great personal experience it is to be a Bencher and what connections could be made as a Bencher.

In my view those are the wrong reasons to run for Bencher.

Becoming a Bencher is about service to the profession - full stop.

A lawyer should run for Bencher because he or she has ideas, plans and skills to make the profession better for lawyers and for the public.  A lawyer should not be running for Bencher to add to his or her resume.

We need Benchers with actual governance experience and training; Benchers who are well-versed with innovative legal technology; Benchers who understand that the legal landscape has changed and have a vision of where law is going; Benchers who represent practice areas other than litigation; Benchers who are aware of and are willing to learn from what other regulators are doing.

We are in need of fresh thinking.

I urge you to vote for fresh faces, fresh ideas, fresh experience and for those with a vision.

It is time to renew the law society.

What do I get from becoming a Bencher?

Nothing.

It is what I can give to the profession by becoming a Bencher that is important to me.

The Growing Endorsement List

As the endorsements grow, so too will this post.  Stay tuned as we are just beginning!

Change is finally coming to Ontario's law society - be a part of fresh thinking and an exciting new vision of law in this province.

The following  have endorsed my candidacy:

Ian Beverley
Blair Bowen
Michael Carabash
Alexandra Cho
Perry Dellelce
Rafael Fabregas
Rod Flynn
Jordan Furlong
Paul Gonsalves
Colin Grey
Sunny Ho
Omar Ha-Redeye
Richard Herold
Chris Jaglowitz
Kari Kim
Jeff Lem
John Rider
Garry Shapiro
Paul Tackaberry
Bob Tarantino

Endorsements

The campaign has barely begun and I have my first endorsement!  Omar writes a ton of stuff on various legal issues and so his unsolicited endorsement so early in the campaign is a fantastic surprise for me!

Another prominent blogger and legal innovator, Michael Carabash, also believes in my platform and has been kind enough to endorse my bid for Bencher.

We keep rolling!

Election Statement

I offer a breadth of practice experience that speaks to all members of the Bar: I have practiced in one the world’s largest law firms, in a mid-sized firm, as in-house counsel and now as a sole practitioner.  I understand the concerns of lawyers in all these situations.

As a single father with custody of two children I also fully understand the competing pressures of family and practice.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “You don't write because you want to say something, you write because you have something to say.” 

Similarly, I am not running for Bencher because I want to do something.

I am running because I have something to do.

In the 20 years since my call to the bar I have seen a Law Society that has become increasingly disconnected from the average lawyer in this province. A Law Society that reacts at glacial pace, if at all, to matters of real importance to the day-to-day life of lawyers and the public.  A Law Society that is obsessed with regulation and ring-fencing at the expense of innovation.

Such an attitude is no longer sustainable.

As Richard Susskind notes in The End of Lawyers, “Law was not created for the benefit of lawyers any more than illness was created for the benefit of the medical profession.”   The Law Society can no longer operate on the notion that lawyers will always have the exclusive right to deliver legal services.

Now is the time for fresh new ideas and bold initiatives that address the changing legal landscape.

The Benchers that we elect in 2011 need to have a vision of the future of law. They need to be aware of and embrace legal innovation world-wide.

The Benchers that we elect in 2011 will be required to understand the Cloud, SaaS, LPOs, social media, value-based billing, alternative firm structures that allow for outside investment and many other innovations.  Many legal governing bodies around the world are allowing new governance structures and service delivery models to the benefit of both the public and members of the profession.  It is time for us to join them - or we risk being left even further behind than we already are.

My current practice is 90% value-based billing with very few files being billed on an hourly basis.  My files are paperless. I will be moving my practice completely to the Cloud by year’s end with a SaaS element.  I have worked with LPOs and I closely follow innovative ways to deliver legal services which I blog, tweet and write about. The fact that the American Bar Association is publishing my book on innovation in legal practice, The Profitable Law Firm, is a strong indication that my ideas are well thought-out and relevant.

But legal innovation is not the only reason I am running for Bencher.

My practical board experience with Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) together with my ICD.D designation in corporate governance, have enhanced my natural drive for better, more efficient and more transparent entities.

Financial transparency is a particular problem at the Law Society; there is no reason why financial information should be hidden from members.

The Law Society has also shown little appetite for finding efficiencies within the organization in order to freeze or even lower annual dues. This needs to be a priority. Increases to annual dues should not be taken as cavalierly as they have in the past. All Law Society initiatives need to prove value for money.

The Law Society seems disinterested in reining costs at our own captive insurance company. As a result, premiums continue to rise.

The Law Society has also done very little to provide the public with quality, low cost legal representation; again, innovation, not regulation, is the key here.

Being elected Bencher is not in itself a personal goal of mine; it is merely a platform from which to effect needed change; a way for me to use my skill and knowledge to make the Law Society accountable to members and to ensure that our profession keeps step with the changing needs of society.

I ask for your vote.

Look for me on Facebook.  Search: Kowalski for Bencher 2011

Follow me on Twitter on www.twitter.com/mekowalski