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
No comments:
Post a Comment