Author: writer

Health and wellness in the legal profession is a growing concern. Megan Seto, an associate at McInnes Cooper in Halifax took to twitter on Bells Let’s Talk Day and exposed some scary truths about lawyers and mental illness:

“lawyers suffer from #depression at a rate that is 3.6x higher than those that share the same economic traits”; “while 4% of the general population suffers from anxiety – 30% of male lawyers and 20% of female lawyers report illness”; “for law students and junior lawyers, fear of stigma proves to be a powerful inhibitor in detection and recovery #BellLetsTalk #depression”; “competition in law school can create #stress, fear, #anxiety and a profound loss of self-esteem. #BellLetsTalk #depression.”; and “why care about depression & law? The illness limits a lawyer’s ability to distribute most valuable asset — talent & knowledge.”

This got me thinking about life as an articling student. I have been fairly successful managing my time as a law student, but articling is a whole other game. First to arrive, last to leave. Nothing looks better than a senior partner seeing you, a lowly articling student, scouring mountains of paper at 10pm – right? That’s the epitome of a solid work ethic, yes? For a long time that was my understanding of how an articling student gained respect at a firm. However, we are the generation of work-life balance. Often criticized for being lazier than our predecessors, we actually may have a competitive edge. We have resources to be more balanced, happy and healthy practitioners long term than any lawyers before us. The stress and anxiety of the legal profession are actually being talked about and better yet firms are starting to make sure that these issues are addressed.

So what does this mean for us? It is unlikely we will be victims of the 80-hour workweeks many of our seniors experienced in their first years. We might put in more hours outside of the office, thanks to the availability and accessibility of modern at home work. We might be at a firm that offers health workshops, or brings in speakers to discuss anything from ergonomics to the benefits of drinking more water. Other firms may provide compensation in the form of fitness passes, or provide more vacation days. In addition it is likely more and more resources will become available to us like the CBA Legal Profession Assistance Centre, offering mental health support programs, training and a 24-hour help line to lawyers.

While the stigma around mental health is still prevalent, this is something that should continued to be talked about. And should you find yourself in a position where your health and career success seem incompatible, remember as a lawyer your most valuable asset is your mental abilities.

In today’s global economy consumers have access to items and services in a way that was never seen prior. This ‘all-access’ pass to consumerism has often been associated with those of us in the ‘Y-Generation’ and our heightened consumer entitlement. However, based on the wide-spread adoption by all ages of people, it seems likely that the changes were tied closely to technological feasibility and in response to years of limited consumer choice.

On May 4, 2015, Expedia founder Richard Barton spoke at the American Bar Association’s National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services on this very issue. Expedia was a response to what Barton saw as information asymmetry in the task of booking a holiday. Prior to the creation of his site customers were reliant on a travel agent making decisions about what they felt best suited their client. Barton recognized the value in giving consumers the power to make their own decisions and removing the barriers that limited their ability to do so.

The fact that clients and consumers have a preference for feeling empowered when dealing with decisions impacting them is not in and of itself particularly ground-breaking. However, the recognition of our traditional consumer structures and the way they have limited such empowerment may be. I always envisioned that a lawyer’s actions would, for the most part, empower the client simply by assisting in the navigation of the legal system and providing info that allowed informed decision-making. However, with the changes we have seen in consumer practice, it may no longer be enough to simply write an opinion letter or have a client meeting to discuss legal options. The same clients that may have been satisfied with such work in the past may no longer feel this is sufficient.

Without a doubt law firms will be looking at options for how to best meet the wants and needs of their clients in an effort to hold or gain market share. While we cannot say with certainty what the evolution of the legal practice will entail, Richard Barton provided 3 “Consumer Laws of a Future Economy” that should guide decisions respecting change going forward. In a time with constant connectivity to an internet we all share, Barton believes consumers will demand the following: 1) if it can be known it will be known; 2) if it can be free it will be free; and 3) if it can be rated it will be rated. I for one will be considering these laws during our LawHacks project and future pitch to the legal dragons.

When I was 5 years old, I would stand at the entrance of my parents’ grocery store and greet the incoming customers by offering them a complementary piece of candy. It has been said that I was the original Wal-Mart greeter, though this claim has never been verified. Working in my parent’s family owned and operated business made me aware of the daily plight of an entrepreneur that fights to survive and aims to thrive.

There is a point to this anecdote – just like entrepreneurs, lawyers have to decide whether they will provide better quality service or lower their cost of service in an effort to be successful. Given our legal system’s current access to justice issue, I believe that the better option is to reduce the cost of legal services as this will benefit both lawyers and clients.

The legal profession is a service based industry and customer service is vital to acquiring and retaining clients. After reading sections of Richard Susskind’s book, Tomorrow’s Lawyers, it became apparent that clients’ needs are not being met, which is largely due to the cost of legal services. Susskind suggests that “[o]ur focus should be on helping our clients to meet their formidable more-for-less challenge rather than obstinately holding on to outdated, inefficient working practices” (28). It is no secret that many individuals do not have the financial resources to address their legal issues, but what puzzles me is why more hasn’t been done to respond to this problem.

There are a number of ways that lawyers can reduce legal fees to attract more clients and Susskind provides valuable insight about embarking on this endeavour. The author discusses his conception of “bespoke” legal work and explains this concept as a lawyer viewing a client’s circumstances as being unique, which requires the lawyer to handcraft a legal solution that specifically focuses on the individual matter at issue. While Susskind believes that some legal issues arise that require “the application of acute legal minds and the handcrafting of tailored solutions…much less legal work requires bespoke treatment” and can be handled with a standardized approach (24). To illustrate his point, Susskind uses the example of an employment contract. He explains that if a bespoke approach was adopted, the contract would be drafted from scratch for each client, whereas if a standardized approach was implemented, a routine process and template or precedent would be used for numerous clients. By using the former approach, the lawyer expends a great deal of time on each contract and each client receives a substantial bill, which excludes a number of potential clients who cannot afford such a service. However, by using the latter approach, the lawyer initially invests time in drafting a contract to serve as a template and each client pays a reasonable bill, which attracts more clients as the service is more affordable.

Susskind’s views on the bespoke and standardized approaches were echoed by a founding partner of relatively new law firm that I had the pleasure of meeting with recently. The lawyer explained that some legal professionals generate money by reinventing the wheel each time a client walks through their door, thus implementing a “bespoke” approach. He informed me that this approach is nearing extinction as the majority of people cannot afford this type of service. He went on to share his method of using templates to generate money by offering his legal services at a reasonable cost to obtain more clients, thus employing a standardized approach. His successful implementation of the standardized approach causes me to believe that it would be better to cast a wider net and capture more people by reducing the cost of certain legal services, as this would result in a win-win situation.

As I was casually looking through Facebook this morning, a friend posted an article from the New York Times called “Abandoning the Work I Hated”. This is an opinion piece about a lawyer who gave up law and became a party clown. He left law because he realized that he thrived in a sphere of creativity and spontaneity and law was not providing him with that.

Confession: years before law school I was a theatre major and took a course on clowning. Yes, I was once a clown… it was awesome. Anyway, I find law school constantly draws on my creative side, albeit in a very different way than being a clown. But as I was reading the article I starting thinking about whether there were larger issues for this person beyond creativity. Did he experience issues with the profession because of its reluctance to change?

In Mitch Kowalski’s book, “Avoiding Extinction” the character Mark joins a new law firm as a “last chance” to see if law is the right career for him. At his last firm he felt, that there was, “no connection between what he did and what was important to the firm”.

As I was reading the New York Times piece I thought whether Mark’s issue was similar to the party clown’s.   What was it that made him leave the profession? The article states that it was the creativity and spontaneity that he lacked in his legal career.

As a naïve student I don’t believe that law lacks creativity and spontaneity. But I believe that the path big law is on lacks these elements. From the readings and discussions in class it is clear that law firms can no longer act as per the status quo. Change is inevitable. The culture of law needs to change to match our society’s needs, whether that is examining the billable hour, commoditizing work or multi-sourcing, as Susskind suggests.   There is room for creativity its whether law is ready for it.

I think the lawhacks assignment is going to be an excellent display of how legal minds can switch on their creative side and develop ideas that could help to progress the profession.  There are issues for the trajectory of law, however, that said as we enter the work force we have to show our ability to be creative in our problem solving, use of technology, and client management.

Each year as law students we ask ourselves – will I be able to secure a legal summer job? Then in 2L we ask ourselves the big question – the one we all stress over – will I land an articling position? In fact, speaking from personal experience, it seemed as though most of my 2L experience was consumed by this question. It’s a stressful time.

Over the past few years the legal job market has shrunk considerably… and there in enters fairly anxious law students. You start to question whether coming to law school was the right decision. Was the risk – financially, personally – worth it?

With supply outweighing demand, economic pressure to fix this problem has been placed, in particular, on law societies across the country. Being from Ontario I am familiar with LSUC’s (Law Society of Upper Canada’s) possible “solution” to this problem. LSUC, in response to changes in the legal profession, introduced the Pathways Pilot Project. Now students wishing to practice law in Ontario may either article or complete the Law Practice Program (LLP), which consists of a 4-month training course and 4-month placement, which by the way, to my knowledge, may go unpaid.

I see a few issues with this pilot project. First, word on the street is that this program is already viewed as a second-tier alternative to the traditional articling experience. Second, this program isn’t free – there is a cost, which isn’t insubstantial, associated to partake. Third, the 4-month placement, as stated above, is not guaranteed to be paid. While I applaud LSUC for taking a step in the right direction, I question whether the pilot project will eventually solve or simply delay the growing problem of oversupply in the legal profession.

Even with these types of programs, if other provinces were to follow suit, would the problem truly be fixed? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I can’t help but wonder whether this is a self-perpetuating problem. In Canada, over the past 4 years, two new law schools have opened, one in Ontario at Lakehead University and the other, as we all know, in Kamloops BC at Thompson Rivers University. Don’t get me wrong, I love TRU Law, I’m just stating the facts. In addition, from what I could find online, law school admission rates are, on average, also increasing. I don’t know about you but this doesn’t add up.

I would argue that the legal profession, as a whole, is hyper aware of the oversupply, under-demand problem we now face but what is being done to correct it? I think I can speak for most of us law students when I say this – as someone about to enter the profession, this worries me.

An online presence is important. This same statement may not have been true ten years ago, but today the internet is so prevalent it seems that professionals ignore its power at their own peril. While it may seem unnecessary for lawyers to be active online (through Twitter, blog posts etc.) this is quickly changing. After all, law is a competitive industry with firms fighting tooth and nail for every billable hour they can get. If a lawyer can increase their client base through online networking they would be a fool not to do so, some say.

However, participating in the online community does come with drawbacks. The informality of the internet encourages off-the-cuff remarks to fast-moving events. This type-before-you-think ethos is of particular harm to lawyers who not only have to worry about their professional reputation but also must be sure to be on the right side of the profession’s code of ethics. An off-colour joke made on Twitter can be devastating to anyone’s reputation, but as lawyers are held to an exceptionally high standard of conduct this type of behavior is especially risky.

I particularly wonder about this for lawyers in the public sphere. While private lawyers may rely on their reputation to secure clients, public lawyers are in a slightly different position as they receive work purely through their position as a government employee. Marketing oneself to the public won’t do much to increase the client roster of a Crown prosecutor, as they don’t have “clients” in the traditional sense of the word. So when public lawyers see little or no marketing benefit from an online presence, the drawbacks of this type of networking come to the fore. All lawyers are held to a high standard, but this is particularly true for public lawyers. They are seen as extensions of the government, and in some cases of the justice system itself. Appearing funny and relatable online may be a benefit for a private lawyer, but the public wants its criminal prosecutors to be serious above all else. Being too accessible online can be a detriment to a prosecutor who needs to appear unbiased at all times.

 In addition to the lack of professionalism that may come from an active online presence, there are also potential safety concerns. This was made very clear by one law professor (who I will not name) who requested that no one record or film his class. This request was not due to the fact that he didn’t like his voice on tape (although he admitted this to be true), but rather because as a BC Crown prosecutor he has had serious threats made against his life. Keeping all current pictures of himself off the web is something that he does to ensure his safety from such threatening individuals. While this is of course an extreme example, it illustrates just how high the stakes can be for some lawyers.

 The internet is a powerful tool. And as such, it must be used carefully. For some, it is an easy and cheap way to engage in online networking and marketing, which is essential to their success as a lawyer. For others, it presents more problems than benefits. It is because of this that everyone must think clearly before diving headfirst into the creation of a professional, online persona.

Let me start by saying this that this is the first time I’ve ever been anywhere near a blog, and that my relationship with technology is tumultuous at best. So please go easy on me.

My post is concerned with Rachel Rodgers’ 21^st Century Lawyer Manifesto. While Rodgers makes some entertaining statements, I found a real point of contention with her number 6 that reads: “we value moral principles over ethics rules”.

I don’t pretend to be an expert; I’ve never worked in a law firm or anything closely relating to a job in the legal profession. In fact, my previous vocations include fixing cars, digging trenches, fighting forest fires (see above), and tackling people. So take what I am about to say with a grain of salt, but aren’t ethics pretty integral to society’s trust in the legal profession?

The term ‘moral principles’ carries with it a level of subjectivity that I’m not really comfortable with endorsing. The thought of relying on an individual’s sense of morality, in a world where people’s (including lawyers’) moral compasses are pointed in a million different directions, is a pretty scary premise. Imagine a situation where a lawyer would circumvent ethical standards in favour of their own moral beliefs.

In British Columbia, lawyers’ ethics are governed by the Law Society’s Code of Professional Conduct. The Code is available to the public, and outlines the ethical expectations of those in the legal profession. Anyone seen to have contravened this Code is brought in front of the Law Society for a hearing. Punishments for unethical behaviour can include fines, suspensions and disbarment. All of the information surrounding these hearings is also available online.

Rodgers claims: “ethics rules represent an outdated way of doing business and have not fulfilled their purpose—to protect the public from bad lawyers and elevate our profession”. I respectfully disagree. The entire purpose of the Code is to protect the public by maintaining the standards expected of lawyers. Any deviations from those standards are met with harsh penalty, which are openly available for any and all to see.

I agree that life as a lawyer in the 21^st century will be different from decades past, I guess, I wasn’t there. But as prospective lawyers there’s a good chance we could one day have significant and consistent impact on people’s lives. I argue that we need to maintain the objective accountability that our legal ethics provide, and that they cannot be substituted or relinquished. Despite the fact the legal profession will need to make some changes in order to maintain relevancy, there are some areas that should be left alone.