Category: 2015

Posted on

Showcasing Student Writing Part II: Alternative Business Structures

Here is the second winner of the class votes for best memo – this time, on the very hot topic of alternative business structures for legal service providers.  Please note: this is not legal advice!

L21C LAW OFFICE

____________________________________________________

AKKORN                                                                                                            900 McGill Road

Kamloops, BC

V2C 0C8

File No. 00005

November 5, 2015

Gater & Slordon Inc.

999 Kangaroo Street

Sydney, NSW

1234

firm@gatorslordon.com

RE:      Ownership Structures for Legal Service Providers

 

Dear Sirs and Madams,

This memo is to advise about Gater & Slordon’s (“G&S”) expansion into the market in British Columbia (“BC”) with respect to the regulation of legal service providers, the potential for changes or reforms to the existing model, and the implications for your business model.

G&S’s current model is not permitted in BC and, to operate, G&S would need to alter their structure by either becoming a law firm (corporation or limited liability partnership) or a multi-disciplinary practice.

Forms of ownership structure currently permitted for legal service providers in BC

Like many other Canadian jurisdictions, BC approaches legal services under a traditional model; the ownership of law firms, whether partnerships or corporations, is restricted to lawyers.[1] Alternative business structures (“ABS”) are a new legal paradigm that allows non-lawyers to own law firms. Currently, every province in Canada prohibits ABS. In BC, these structures are barred under the Legal Profession Act as per ss. 81(4) and 82(1).[2] However, BC allows for multi-disciplinary practices (“MDP”), which are partnerships between legal practitioners and non-legal practitioners who provide legal services.[3] The Law Society of British Columbia (“LSBC”) allows MDPs under Rules 2-38 – 2-49. These structures allow for non-lawyer ownership but prohibit law firms from being publicly traded or to pursue business that does not provide legal services.[4] To become a MDP in BC there is an application process that specifies “the non-lawyer partner provides no services to the public except those that support or supplement the practice of law under the supervision of a lawyer”.[5] Although MDPs are permitted in BC, it appears very few have emerged.

Significant proposals to reform or liberalize business structures for legal service providers in BC

The LSBC commissioned a committee in 2011 to discuss the suitability of ABS in BC. The committee’s report made the following recommendations:[6]

  1. Outside ownership involvement in law firms should be allowed provided it is properly regulated and lawyers remain in control of the provision of legal services offered by the ABS. Further limits should be placed on outside ownership in accordance with the core values of the profession.
  2. The public sale of shares of law firms on the securities market should not be allowed as the risks associated outweigh the benefits.
  3. The stated benefits of ABS are “very” speculative and specific proposals should not be developed at this time.

Reform in Other Jurisdictions

The Australian province of New South Wales has permitted ABS since 2001.[7] Other Australian jurisdictions allow Incorporated Legal Practices (“ILP”). These enable lawyers to work in tandem with other professionals to provide services subject to adherence with certain standards; furthermore, non-lawyers can invest in ILPs and the businesses may sell shares on the Australian stock exchange[8]. The LSBC, in the 2011 committee report, mentions the Australian experience and notes that empirical data is not available to assess the benefits of ABS to the public.[9]

In addition, England and Wales permit ABS pursuant to the Legal Services Act 2007.[10] The rationale for allowing ABS is that it increases access to finance for service providers and that increased competition leads to innovation and price decreases for consumers. Like the Australian model, the new rules allow for non-lawyers to be in professional, managerial, or ownership roles.[11]

The American Bar Association (“ABA”) has expressed a much more conservative view on ABS. No US jurisdiction permits ABS except the District of Columbia.[12] The ABA is unadventurous on this issue; in 2011 the ABA voted to circulate a proposed rule change that would allow law firms to include non-lawyers in minority ownership roles.[13]

Likelihood of BC adopting ABS

The initial impression is that it is unlikely that BC will adopt ABS in the immediate future. Some challenges that need to be addressed are the issue of profit sharing and ethical obligations of lawyers to the public and justice system. However, if proper ethical and securities reporting mechanisms are enacted, an ABS model may become more realistic.

Earning a profit is not an adverse goal of the legal profession; however, it is something that detracts from the role of being an officer of the court. The ultimate duty to the client, the state, and the courts is enshrined in the Code of Professional Conduct under Chapter 2.1.[14] Access to justice is at the forefront of many legal discussions and allowing non-lawyers to profit may appear to take away from the justice system. In allowing the use of MDPs, it may be that the LSBC is testing whether or not the ABS is a viable option for BC.

It will be necessary for G&S to demonstrate that their entrance into the BC market will place an emphasis on legal service ahead of profits. This is a concern that the client may want to heed when determining the business model they wish to establish in BC. The conversation on ABS in BC has cooled down since 2011; therefore, there is room to push the conversation over the concern of profits versus the legal duty, which can be addressed by the use of a securities regulator for ABS.

Being required to report to a securities regulator, G&S will provide some form of accountability to the Regulator. [15] In turn, this can provide greater detail to both the LSBC and clients on the operation of the firm. This may bridge the gap between profitability and the legal duty to the client. Having public reports on its financial situation can allow greater scrutiny on the value for cost ratio that many clients view services through, forcing firms to ensure that their clients get the best value for their dollar. The self-reflection that some firms may go through when becoming publicly traded could encourage the re-evaluation of the service by focusing on the most efficient method of addressing the needs of the client.

Conclusion

The ABS experience in Australia appears to be a positive development.[16] It is possible that BC will adopt ABS, and possibly the rest of Canada, once legal regulators develop core principles that a self-regulating model can adhere to.

It is recommended that G&S alter their model to conform with current standards for BC if they wish to enter the market sooner rather than later. Transitioning to their Australian model once the LSBC approves the use of ABS will be easier if it is already established in the marketplace.

Moreover, G&S would benefit from maintaining their reporting habits from Australia.[17] This will demonstrate the willingness to maintain transparency and accountability to the LSBC and serve to further ease the transition to an ABS should the LSBC agree that an ABS could help fill the gap in the provision of legal services.

 

[1] Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9, s. 81 (4); Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9, s. 82.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Legal Services Commission, “What are ILPs/MDPs“, (11 November 2013) online: <https://www.lsc.qld.gov.au/compliance/incorporated-legal-practices/what-are-ilps-mdps>.

[4] Dave Bilinsky, “Multi-disciplinary practice” (23 September 2015), Practice Tips (bulletin), online:< https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2111>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Independence and Self-Governance Advisory Committee, Alternative Business Structures in the Legal Profession: Preliminary Discussions and Recommendations (Vancouver: The Law Society of British Columbia, 2011) at 22.

[7] Ibid at 5.

[8] Ibid at 10.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid at 6.

[11] Ibid.

[12] American Bar Association, Issues Paper Concerning Alternative Business Structures at 3

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/abs_issues_paper.authcheckdam.pdf

[13] Ibid at 9.

[14] Law Society of British Columbia, Code of Professional Conduct for BC at 2.1.

[15] Loughrey, J., “Accountability and the Regulation of the Large Law Firm Lawyer”, (2014) 77 Modern Law Review 5, 732-762, at 749.

[16] What is interesting to note is that by 2011 the Law Council of Australia commented that state level legal services commissioners reported higher professional standards from alternative business models than firms still organized in the more traditional approach. See:

Alexander Ward, “Alternative Business Structures” (Address to Council of the Law Society of England and Wales delivered on 4 October 2011, http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/speeches/20111004LawSocietyofEnglandandWalesSpeech.pdf) at 4.

[17] See: Steve Mark & Molly Hutcherson, “New Structures for Legal Practices and the Challenges they bring for Regulators” (Paper delivered at the 14th Commonwealth Law Conference 2005, September 2005, http://www.olsc.nsw.gov.au/Documents/new_structures_legal_practice_challenges.pdf) at 7-8.

Posted on

Showcasing Student Writing: BC’s Civil Resolution Tribunal

L21C has been an unconventional course in many ways, but the students (partners) did do one pretty traditional assignment: a good old legal memo.  There were a couple of twists, though: the memos were written collaboratively by the student groups, and they were also set up as work product for a client on which all the time had to be tracked and billed using Clio.

All the L21C partners reviewed and commented on one another’s memos, and finally voted on which memo was the best on each of the two assigned topics.

Here is one of the winners: a memo outlining how BC’s new Civil Resolution Tribunal works, from the point of view of a poverty law clinic looking at how this new initiative can enhance access to justice.  For the purpose of this assignment, the (fictional) clinic was the firm’s client, seeking advice on its options for setting up a new consumer law clinic using the Civil Resolution Tribunal – an artificial set-up, but not completely outlandish, as it is not hard to imagine a law firm helping out a clinic on a pro bono basis with this kind of analysis.  As we learned from guest speaker Lawrence Alexander, consumer problems are among the most common legal difficulties people need help with.  And the CRT is supposed to make it easier, faster and cheaper to deal with these small-claims disputes, compared with going to court.

The memo follows.  (Please note that this isn’t legal advice!)

 

November 4, 2015

To: Street Legal Services

Re: Creation of a New Consumer Protection Clinic

The purpose of this memo is to advise Street Legal on the creation of a new consumer claims clinic through the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Following a summary this memo will look at (a) key relevant legal provisions, (b) a proposed structure and (c) ways to maximize access to justice.

 

Summary

The new clinic cannot advise clients on constitutional questions or human rights violations as the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with these matters. Further, before agreeing to represent the client the clinic must ensure that the client is not engaged in litigation on the same matter. Unless a client has impaired capacity or is a minor the client is expected to represent themselves before the tribunal. Where the client is a minor or impaired a lawyer (not a law student) may represent the client before the tribunal. Further, a lawyer must be available to supervise the activities of non-lawyers, the degree of which to be determined by the clinics staff.

The structure of the clinic will be divided into two tiers: case management phase and tribunal-hearing phase. A minimum of two lawyers will oversee operations of each tier. Under the first phase, a student and lawyer will assess the client’s case and based on complexity determine how the file will be handled. If the client’s file progresses to the second tier the client will be prepared for the hearing.

To promote access to justice, it is recommended that the clinic be open twice per week (one weekday and one day each weekend) for appointments and drop-ins. For flexibility purposes, clients may have the option of scheduling an appointment outside of the regular hours. Visible minorities will be given priority. To encourage education on the issues associated with consumer protection it is recommended that the clinic provide free seminars to educate students and lawyers.

A. Legal Provisions

In starting the new clinical program Street Legal must refer to the Civil Resolution Tribunals Act[1] and the Law Society of British Columbia’s Code of Professional Conduct.[2]

The Civil Resolution Tribunal has specific rules on the types of cases it will hear. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional questions (including Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[3] questions) or questions on conflict between the Human Rights Code[4] and another enactment.[5] It is imperative that the clinic takes cases that conform to these rules. Additionally, a party cannot request a tribunal resolution if they are party to a court proceeding on the same matter.[6] The clinic must ensure that no clients are engaged in litigation before agreeing to advise them for a tribunal hearing.

It is expected that the party will represent themselves before the tribunal. However a lawyer may represent a party before the tribunal where the party is a child or is of impaired capacity.[7] For this reason, a lawyer from the clinic must be available. Only lawyers are permitted to represent clients that require representation, a law student cannot represent anyone at the tribunal.[8] As stated above, the clinic will need to have a lawyer available in these instances.

 

The involvement of a lawyer is also required under the Code of Professional Conduct, which stipulates that a lawyer must supervise the activities of a non-lawyer.[9] The amount of supervision required depends on the complexity of the case, and should be determined by the clinic’s legal staff. It is possible for lawyers to delegate tasks to non-lawyers working at a legal clinic, but this should be monitored closely as the clinic is new and will require direct input from lawyers at its inception.

B. Advice on Structure

It is recommended that the clinics lawyers be directly involved in its creation by supervising the work of the clinic staff (as is required by the Code of Professional Conduct[10]). This will increase the likelihood of its long-term success.

As the tribunal is a new venue for resolving disputes the specifics of how it will operate are still unknown. Experienced lawyers are in a better position to address any initial issues of the new tribunal and clinic. When appropriate the supervising lawyers may be able to delegate responsibility to other staff members.

We propose that the structure of the designated consumer claims clinic be divided into two tiers: (1) case management phase[11] and (2) tribunal-hearing phase.[12] We recommend that a minimum of two lawyers be assigned to each tier to oversee its operation. Ideal candidates for these positions would be lawyers with direct experience in dispute resolution and tribunal work to provide big picture knowledge of the tribunal’s operation.

Under this recommendation, when a client enters the clinic he or she would undergo an initial assessment with a student(s) and lawyer from the clinic’s first tier to discuss their case/issue. After the initial assessment the lawyer and student(s) would collaboratively decide whether the student(s) is capable of representing the client on the matter alone, or if the matter is sufficiently complicated so as to require the lawyer to oversee the file directly. This decision would require a discussion of the complexity of the file as well as the student’s experience and confidence level. At this initial meeting it is important to explain that the tribunal is unable to hear constitutional questions (including Charter questions) or issues dealing with the Human Rights Code.

Once it has been determined who will take the lead in overseeing a specific file (student(s) or lawyer) the client would be informed of the decision and work directly with the assigned representative in preparing for the tribunal hearing. If it is determined that the student can take the lead, they will be in charge of interviewing the client, drafting motions and generally preparing the case for the tribunal hearing. In this case a supervising lawyer would directly oversee all work completed by the student and remain on hand to advise whenever necessary.

If the client’s case makes it to the second tier of the clinic’s program, the tribunal-hearing phase, it is recommended that the representative from tier 1 explain the process to the client; including the general expectation that clients represent themselves. If the client is unable to represent themself (age or impaired capacity) a lawyer from tier-two would be informed of their need for representation at the hearing.

It is suggested that the student assigned to the file would not change as the file moves from tier one to tier two to facilitate a smooth transition and provide clients with a consistent contact person. However, since the lawyer overseeing the client’s file may change from tier one to tier two, all representatives must be versed on each cases details. The clinic will hold monthly “case briefing” meetings (law students and tier lawyers discuss tribunal cases) and ensure detailed file progress is recorded.

The monthly “case briefing” meetings would serve two purposes: (1) provide an opportunity for tier lawyers to ask questions about the client file and (2) provide students with the opportunity to discuss each case and receive lawyer feedback.

C. Access to Justice

We recommend that the clinic have flexible hours to accommodate low-income clients who may have difficulty accessing the clinic during regular work hours. To accommodate this we recommend that in a given week the clinic should be open for a minimum of one day during the week and one day on the weekend. The clinic may also wish to offer drop-in appointments, dependent on lawyer and student availability, to increase access to clients who have little notice with their work schedules.

Similarly to other legal clinics, we recommend that particularly vulnerable persons be given priority. This includes, but is not restricted to, immigrants, visible minorities and senior citizens. Lastly, we recommend that the clinic consider providing semi-regular seminars on issues such as self-representation. These discussions would be of value to both the clinic and the community at large. As with all our recommendations, the feasibility of such may be determined once the clinic is running.

Sincerely,

 

New Age LLP

 

[1] Bill 44, Civil Resolution Tribunals Act, 4th Sess, 39th Parl, British Columbia, 2012.

[2] The Law Society of British Columbia, Code of Professional Conduct, British Columbia: Law Society of British Columbia, 2013 [Code of Professional Conduct].

[3] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

[4] Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210 [Human Rights Code].

[5] Supra note 1 at cl 3(2)(a), (b).

[6] Supra note 1 at cl 4(3), 5.

[7] Supra note 1 at cl 20(1), 20(2)(a) – (c).

[8] Supra note 1 at cl 20(4)(a), (b).

[9] Supra note 2 at s 6.1-1 (1).

[10] Ibid.

[11] Supra note 1 at cl 17.

[12] Supra note 1 at cl 2(3)(b).

Posted on

Here Be Dragons: Lessons for Startups

The world of entrepreneurship is rife with clichés.

Fake it ’til you make it. Fail Fast. Disrupt.

While there’s a lot early stage startups can learn from established business principles and the personal experience of industry leaders, much of this knowledge has been distilled down into meaningless soundbites. Which makes it all the more challenging to be genuinely helpful when someone asks you for advice on their startup idea.

Over the past two weeks I acted as a “Legal Dragon“, evaluating law students pitching ideas to improve legal services and increase access to justice for all. The student pitches were the culminating event of a new class at TRU Law called Lawyering in the 21st Century (L21C). I was truly impressed by the effort all the students put in and the caliber of their pitches. As I’ve said before, the opportunity to participate was a rewarding experience on a number of levels. I’ve already agreed to do it again next year!

What’s more, it reminded me of the importance of giving back. Over the past two years, Knomos has greatly benefitted from countless individuals and organizations who have dedicated their time, energy, and knowledge to help us grow. Winning the award for “Most Promising Open Data Startup” wasn’t a solo effort, we worked closely with key stakeholders like the BC Dev Exchange and OpenData BC. While it’s important to thank and recognize all those who’ve helped us get this far, it’s not enough. We also need to give back and help others.

So when Professor Sykes asked me to participate as a Legal Dragon, I jumped at the chance. As soon as I did, however, the nagging questions started to creep in:

What makes me an expert? What do I know about evaluating the soundness of their business ideas? What advice could I give that would be genuinely useful rather than just clichéd?

The best way I could think of to help the students was to treat them like I treat everyone I do business with: by being open and candid, not afraid to ask tough questions, but always with a view towards a positive outcome. I also made an open offer to any student interested in making their idea a reality beyond the class to reach out directly. Seriously, don’t be shy.

Reaching out and sharing your startup idea with others can be scary, and we often come up with seemingly rational reasons for not doing so:

It’s not ready yet, I want it to be perfect before I share it. They might steal my idea.   If I share it and it fails, people will think less of me.

But no matter how good the idea is, you can’t build a perfect solution in a vacuum, and trying to do so may result in solving the wrong problem.

The only way a startup has any chance of success is by sharing the business idea with as many potential customers, partners, and investors as possible. Share early. Share often. Be strategic in your approach and tailor your message to your audience, but by all means (soundbite alert): Do things. Tell People. And then listen really closely to their feedback as you continue to improve and iterate on the idea until it becomes a viable business.

So to all the L21C students, my last piece of advice is this: You’ve got the idea, now go make it happen!

Onwards and upwards,

Adam

Posted on

The Road to (Legal) Innovation

First, I would like to start by congratulating the class on the successful completion of the Law Hacks presentations. I thoroughly enjoyed all the presentations which exposed me to some great ideas regarding legal innovation. I am excited to know that at least one of those ideas, Summons, is already on its way to becoming reality; I hope that more follow. As we look towards our future and the innovation of legal practice, there is a caveat to be considered.

In his article “The failure of legal innovation“, Jordan Furlong introduces the readers to the nature of the start-up market. Furlong points out that we live in the age of start-ups, a phenomenon that brings about significant social and economic benefits, but one which is characterized by the risk of failure. For every successful start-up, there are far more failed ones. As Furlong points out, the reason for failure is not always a bad idea, sometimes its bad execution, or worse still, pure bad luck. The point that he is trying to drive home is that there are immense challenges in the way of start-ups, which we got a taste of by getting grilled by the ‘dragons’.

As we learned during the semester, the legal profession is going through a transitional period as we play catch-up with the technological advancements. As much as it scary, it is a good sign that we have chosen the route of innovation rather than extinction.  It is no doubt that the need of the hour is investment in bold and fresh new ideas. However, I would like to add one caveat to this process: know when to stop. As mentioned earlier, a start-up’s failure isn’t always due to a bad idea; there are numerous other variables that account for success. Therefore, it is important to know when to give up on an idea, lest we end up chasing down a rabbit hole.

As part of the first graduating class of L21C at TRU Law, we are well on our way to start contributing meaningfully to the transition. The challenges ahead of us, as lawyers, are greater in way because lawyers don’t like to be told that they have been doing something wrong, especially when they hold considerable power in terms of regulating the practice of law. However, incremental changes by way of resilience will make sure that we come out stronger at the end of every battle. As Furlong said “[o]ne LinkedIn or Uber is worth many pets.com”; let’s keep trying for our LinkedIns and Ubers.

Finally, I would like to thank Professor Sykes for putting this innovative course together and introducing us to the future of our legal careers.

Posted on

Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Law

I very much enjoy Sci-Fi movies about artificial intelligence, but I am not particularly keen on being replaced by a machine that can spew out better legal arguments in a milli-second based on an algorithm. The majority of our class discussions have focused primarily on technological innovations in the legal field. Artificial intellegence has been hailed as the future of law. It’s all very exciting, until the foreboding feeling sets in and you’re reminded that not only do you have to compete with 4.0 Bobby for a job, but with a machine as well. According to Michael Cross in his article, Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law, “ a computer is as fresh and alert at 2 am as it was at nine o’ clock the previous morning.” Yeah, well, no arguments there. Computers will always be faster, more efficient and accurate at any given time of the day.

The abstracts from the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law sum up the relationship between law and artificial intelligence eloquently. Both fields are involved in the process of creation. AI systems are built, experiments are designed and paradigms are replaced. In law, legislation is drafted, precedents are set and beliefs are balanced. Both fields struggle with the complexity of modeling human behaviour. AI aims to recreate human behaviour, while the law intends to drive human behaviour. The meeting of law with AI was inevitable. But where does that leave the plethora of graduating law students and lawyers?

Throughout this class, we have all been reminded of the concept of the “legal sherpa” and helping the ordinary lay person navigate the convoluted path of the law. A more refined role for AI in law is to provide strategic legal guidance. Programs such as ROSS a digital legal expert, built on IBM Watson helps attorneys with their legal research based on plain word searches. This serves as a valuable tool to help guide lawyers in their everyday research. In the end this will make legal profesisonals more effective because they will be able to complete their tasks more efficiently therefore charging the client less for services.

London firm Hodge Jones & Allen has pioneered a predictive model of personal injury case outcomes to assess the predictability of their current caseload. The program will assist the firm in determining which cases have a greater chance of success, therefore allowing the firm to direct their client towards either settling or proceeding with a claim. This is an example of a legal technological advancement in action and in the future personal injury firms and perhaps others as well, may greatly benefit from using such programs.

This new technology will not hinder or replace legal professionals at all. In fact, I see it helping to make the jobs of lawyers easier and more enjoyable. It will also help them bring a wider array of services to their clients in a quicker and more streamlined manner. These advancements will thrust lawyers into more advocacy-based roles because those types of positions cannot be fulfilled by AI, at least not for now. In conclusion, I do not believe that lawyers will ever fully be replaced by AI but it can serve as a useful tool that can better the practice of law.

Posted on

Money Can’t Buy Me Happiness… But It Can Buy Me a Boat

If you were to play a game of phrase association with a group of lawyers (and law students for that matter) and give them the phrase “mental health”, I would posit that many of the answers would deal with clients. You would be likely to hear many things: not criminally responsible, fitness to stand trial, and other job related answers.

The troubling part of this thought experiment is that lawyers (and law students) have a strikingly high occurrence of mental health issues but would be very likely to point to the mental issues of others. As is pointed out in the New York Times article by Douglas Quenqua, lawyers are over three-and-a-half times more likely to suffer from depression. The reasons and causes for this are unknown but oft hypothesized. The fact that getting into law school (I would argue it starts even when trying to get into law school) results in an immediate spike in the likelihood of developing depression is a scary proposition. I’m sure that many students understand that they are getting into a difficult profession and one that involves a great deal of stress.

There is something to be said for the fact that lawyers are among the highest paid professions. There is an allure, a draw, and something to be said for the idea that lawyers get into the profession to make more money than they might in another field. This is possibly done at the expense of some personal relationships and free time. Most lawyers go into the job with open eyes and decide to do it despite the downsides.

Lawyers are often of a certain personality type, and I would argue that this personality type is also the reason why lawyers have a higher risk of depression. They are less likely to admit there may be a problem, less likely to seek treatment because of it, and more likely to continue trigger behaviours that exacerbate depression symptoms (read: stress out and drink). Too often depression is seen as a weakness instead of the chemical imbalance that it truly is. The chemical receptors in the brain that allow you to feel happiness do not connect as frequently in a person that suffers from depression.

Quenqua’s main thesis of his article was that lower paid lawyers reported being happier than the more well paid legal professionals. He states that lawyers in the public sector (public defenders and legal aid lawyers) were more likely to report being happy. The most likely rationale for this disparity between public and private is that private sector lawyers are far more likely to be working longer stressful hours. One aspect of public sector and in-house counsel legal work that is often touted as a recruitment tool is that of work-life balance. While not conclusive I believe this is because the expectations of both hours and “billable” work is reduced. As a corollary, the public service lawyers drank less than their higher income counterparts; as noted earlier, alcohol is a depressant. The alcohol may be a “chicken or the egg” argument; the higher-paid lawyers drink more, thus resulting in more unhappiness, or the unhappiness triggers more drinking.

I also take issue with the program at George Washington university, when attending law school many students are unsure of what sort of practice they will be in when they graduate. This is true of most students and speaks to the variety of legal work out there; however, the other major factor at work is the uncertainty of the job market. Many lawyers report finding a firm that they liked following graduation and the firm having an opening or a need in one field or another and “ended up doing x”. I would suggest that while giving students a taste for all the different opportunities is noble, it may also result in a student getting their heart set on one potential stream (abandoning a more broad course load), come out of school seeking only one type of opportunity, only exacerbating the problem of finding a job after law school.

Posted on

Great Legal Careers!

Friend of the Firm Adam LaFrance drew my attention to this great blog post by Colin Lachance entitled “Make Legal Careers Great Again.”  I really urge you to read it, especially as we come to the end of this semester and the sometimes scary, often exhilarating journey we have been on together.

I hold a strong belief – one of the convictions that drove me to create this course – that people go into law because they want more than just a stable way to earn a decent salary.  You want to use your brains, creativity and eloquence to do intellectually interesting things that have a practical application.  You want to figure out solutions for the problems that confront individuals and social institutions.  You want to serve the public good (and also get paid for it).  You want to be participants in the important events of your times and leaders of society.

These things are what a life in law has always promised.  And it still does.  The catch is, you have to find your way there.  When you step off that stage after you get your law degree, you’re not going to step onto a conveyor belt that takes you straight to your goals.  You have to figure it out.  To pick up a metaphor I started out with, it’s another journey with not much by way of maps.  Maybe you think you’ve been challenged enough and had to jump over enough hurdles in order to get onto that stage and get your hands on that degree.  But, sorry, nope, you haven’t – there are many more challenges and hurdles to come.  And certainly the nature of the challenges that new lawyers face is changing profoundly, and sometimes in quite troubling ways.  But for all that, becoming a lawyer is still a gateway to an exciting, fulfilling life.  Take Colin’s advice to heart; it is excellent.  And allow yourselves a moment of self-congratulation for picking a great career.

Posted on

Technology and the Aging Client

Much of the conversation has been on the impact of technology on the delivery of legal services and the changes that the profession will undergo in the coming years. Extremely relevant points have been made and discussed in both the partner meetings and blogs, demonstrating that the firm is live to the evolution that the profession is undergoing. One aspect that has been somewhat more on the periphery has been the societal changes behind the push for transformation.

I had the opportunity to attend and speak at the Canadian Elder Law Conference this past week and gain a better understanding of the practical realities that are facing the profession in light of a shifting demographic. For the first time in Canadian history, the percentage of the population over 65 is greater than the population under 15. While we have been focusing largely on the increase in technology that the profession has at its fingertips, there are a growing number of potential clients that will inevitably need our services but may not understand the technology we will be employing. This requires those of us that will be working with elders to appreciate the impact of technology on this growing demographic.

I do not dispute that a willingness to innovate is going to be essential, nor do I suggest that those 65+ are incapable of using or appreciating technology. I do think, however, that as we seek to integrate new methods and technologies that we take into consideration the impact that may have on our clients. Creating more affordable services will greatly benefit our senior clients and, as the baby boomers get set for retirement, this portion of the population will be facing a society that is increasingly more tech savvy.

We must be sure to balance our reliance on technology with the very personal service that our aging clientele has become accustomed to. It cannot be our approach to either assume our client understands technology or require them to familiarize themselves with it in order to benefit from an affordable service. Nor should we assume that technology will be able to replace the personal aspect of our profession, such as the interview in which a lawyer conducts an assessment for testamentary capacity. It is this personal interaction that sets us apart from machines such as IBM’s Watson. And it is this interaction that clients appreciate, along with getting the job done for a fair price.

How can we balance our growing use of technology with an aging population?

Posted on

“More money, more problems?”

As future lawyers, about to embark on a legal career, there is concern that we may be focusing on the wrong rewards…

 

The New York Times article, Lawyers with the Lowest Pay Report more Happiness, written by Douglas Quenqua, suggests that individuals entering the profession are concerned with wealth, status and stimulating work. However, recent research has found that high income and partnership track positions have no correlation with a lawyer’s happiness and well-being. In fact, lawyers in public service positions reported greater happiness. This research study was based on a psychological model of human happiness called “self-determination theory”. The model is based on competence, autonomy and connection to others.

Young Associates in Trouble, a research paper by David Zaring and William Henderson, concludes that most new lawyers are attracted to working for large, prestigious law firms despite their reputation as difficult places to work. The research conducted by Zaring and Henderson suggests that compensation, partnership and resume value are among the reasons these leading firms remain a fixture for new graduates. The authors accept that some young lawyers may see their experience working at an elite firm and the prestige associated with these institutions as a jumping off point into a more enjoyable career path. However, the author’s data indicates that individuals who remain with large firms over the long term do not show higher satisfaction in partnership than they do as junior associates. This is due to a work-life balance that does not necessarily change as the employee moves up the hierarchy.

An explanation for the unhappiness exhibited by young lawyers may begin at law school. Here, students are pushed towards mainstream, elite firms. Large firm marketing, “OCI’s”, and competition among colleagues may be to blame for this.

The articles above suggest that law students do not appreciate what they are signing up for when entering a new firm. Better information from school career centers, depicting “firm life” in large and small firms and urban to rural centers could solve this problem. My view is that there is a general lack of alternatives to big name firms. Schools do not provide students with the necessary explanation of alternatives to firm employment and students lack the knowledge of replacement options.

We have all been told that the profession is changing rapidly and how this may affect our employment opportunities in the near future. It is time for graduates to turn their mind to careers that fall outside of the institutionalized model. Pursuing innovative legal careers may be a solution to the happiness and work life balance young lawyers seek, without sacrificing both lucrative and stimulating work. By taking the approach that change means opportunity, the transformation of the legal landscape should be viewed with excitement rather than fear.

Proudly powered by WordPress