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.