Category: 2015

Posted on

Technology and Outsourcing – a Change in the Legal Market?

In Blueprint for Change, William Henderson states that the future is bleak for law graduates in the United States because the job market is increasingly uncertain. He writes, “our current legal education is likely to enhance the human capital of our students, but in the emerging economic environment, the benefits of that education are insufficient to pay back its cost […]. The issue is whether the education we offer is able to adapt to the rapidly changing legal industry.”

According to Henderson, the current market is unable to sustain the large numbers of law graduates, and while law schools are having some difficulty filling seats, which ultimately leads to difficulty in finding professional employment for their graduates, they continue to offer attractive financing packages to perspective students, which increases enrollment (and ultimately increases the debt load of graduating students). Additionally, while law schools train students via traditional education models, companies that offer legal products and services (but are not classified as law firms) are becoming increasingly attractive alternatives to hiring lawyers. This in turn decreases the demand for lawyers and leaves many law graduates with an inability to find work in private practice. As Henderson states, “by removing the lawyer from the value chain, cost goes down, quality goes up, and service delivery time becomes faster.”

While Henderson’s research is based on American law schools, I believe that in an era where the legal profession is changing to accommodate self-represented litigants and the entry of ‘do-it-yourself’ products on the legal market, this research adds an extra layer of understanding when it comes to envisioning our futures as lawyers. As my colleague Salman outlined in his blog post “Surviving the Technological Threat,” we have been hearing from our speakers and professors throughout the semester that our current method of practicing law is in danger of changing significantly with respect to new technologies and new methods of outsourcing legal work.

Henderson suggests deviating from the traditional structure and tailoring legal education to fit labour market outcomes, but this does not seem entirely practical for Canadian law schools. While the Canadian legal market is increasingly saturated, we have yet to experience the demise of traditional legal education as Henderson sees it, likely because we have far fewer law schools than the US, and despite our tentative adherence to Maclean’s yearly rankings, our country has yet to implement a tier-based system. As Salman also points out, it is unlikely that the introduction of new technologies will change the legal landscape as a whole. Rather, these technologies will likely assist lawyers to provide more efficient legal services, particularly if lawyers are free to concentrate on more complex legal issues that are outside the scope of these products and technologies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Future Of The Legal Education: Specialization Or Degradation Of The J.D.

As the legal field continues to expand, general practitioners are expected to know more in their respective fields to better assist their clients. A lawyer is expected to enhance their knowledge by keeping up with the evolution of the legal sector. Harry Arthurs recognizes the dangers that future lawyers may face in The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.

He suggests a possible option where “The bar may one day recognize not just one class of members, but many. Members of each class would have different educational credentials…that general practitioners will one day be licensed to appear as advocates in certain tribunals and the lower courts, and to do routine real estate transactions, simple incorporations and uncontested divorces—but not undertake appellate litigation, patent applications or tax planning”.

He further elaborates “They might offer a skills-based one-year degree for paralegals, a stripped-down tow-year ‘basic’ degree for general practitioners, an enhanced four year degree for specialist practitioners, and conversion courses for those who want to upgrade their credentials”.

On the one hand, I can see this as a form of specialization in a specific area for law students. Those that know what area of law they want to practice can choose to study that, right from the beginning while avoiding all the unnecessary courses that they will never use for their chosen area of practice.

However, on the other hand I see this as undermining the value of legal education and hence a J.D. By creating this separation in the legal education, many of the basic competencies will be omitted from one’s legal education. On a basic level many of the different fields of law interact with each other, and competencies in all these areas are crucial for a practitioner to come up with the best solution for their clients.

There is obviously a wealth of knowledge available in studying law. In my opinion, due to the enhanced level of education required to sufficiently practice in each specific area of law, I think in the future, a LLM in the chosen area of practice will be mandatory after a JD, in order to obtain an articling position in the desired field.

With each area of law expanding everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to cut down on the legal education. The only way to keep up with the evolving nature of the legal sector is to increase the education required, and thus satisfying the necessary requirements of becoming a competent practitioner. Of course, this is just my view.  What do you think are some ways our legal education will evolve to better accommodate us in being competent in our areas of practice for the future?

 

 

Posted on

Embracing Change, Innovation and Technology

Recent socioeconomic trends have significantly accelerated the pace of need for change for the legal industry and the law firm business model.  One of the big themes that our firm’s well credited visitors have pointed out is technology.

In the past, the legal sector enjoyed great comfort in the linear nature of progression. Students attended law school for 3 years, then articled, then became associates, then made partner and went down the path of success until retirement, but that seems to have changed now.  There was an understanding between the law firms and their clients that good work costs money, and there was no surprise that billing rates were expected to rise, but that’s no longer the case either. One common indicator that projects the future of this industry is the emergence of technology, and firms which adapt to the changes are ahead of the game and will be industry leaders.

We’re a profession that I would suggest in the last 100 years has not done anything differently than how it has always done, and we are the only industry that is proud of that fact. The legal industry by definition looks to the past for finding ways of the future and that in my opinion needs to change. The comfort that comes with predictability and precedent is perhaps the main factor in postponing the realization of need for change for the industry as a whole.

For us as a profession not to embrace change and innovation, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Posted on

Surviving the Technological Threat

Almost 3 years ago, I started my first year of law school. Since that time, I have been hearing a lot about how the legal profession is changing. Many people have told me that the golden age for lawyers is coming to an end or that it already has. Technological advances are changing the way we practice law in almost every sense. Even as I began law school, the profession has changed from the way it was practiced before. The internet has completely altered how legal research is conducted. Information is at ones’ fingertips and there doesn’t seem to be a need to spend hours in a dusty library searching up case law book by book. At this current point of technological advancement, I’m comfortable with how things are because I grew up with these innovations and I feel fully prepared to integrate them into my future practice.

The problem is that things are continuing to change. The way we are being taught to do things in legal practice is in danger of being out-dated by the time we graduate from law school and are actually ready to practice the law. In this class, we have had many guest speakers talk to us about the constant evolution of the profession and how a majority of core legal work could be handled easier and in a more efficient way by computers. Considering what most of us have spent on our legal education, this is a frightening concept. What if we don’t end up making what we planned to? What if the number of jobs shrinks even more after we graduate? What if our loans pile up and we have to start working at Starbucks to make ends meet? These are concerns I’m sure we all have in the back of our minds and they’re creeping ever slowly to the forefront, especially for us third year students.

While these things do scare me as well when I think about them too much, I still believe that the overall big picture will remain consistent. People need lawyers to help them navigate through their legal issues and, in my opinion, no amount of technology will get them to the point where lawyers will not be needed. I think that technology will make things more efficient in the long run for both parties involved; lawyers and their clients. A program like Knomos for example, will help lawyers in their research efforts. The user friendly way it is organized even means that clients could use it as well to educate themselves on the pertinent legal issues before meeting with a lawyer. The Civil Resolution Tribunal is another example of innovation that helps the profession. While not really a technological advancement, it allows clients to resolve disputes online in cases of small claims and some strata disputes. This saves clients time and helps avoid backlogging the court system with these types of issues.

These are positive improvements that will not take away from the services lawyers offer. Despite the advancement of online resources, I believe that in general, people will always prefer to talk to people. Clients will want to discuss their important problems with an educated person who can respond like a human being. I think the value of this is understated these days. Whatever legal issues the client has, it is almost assured that those issues are of the utmost importance to them and they will not want to be filed through a system by a computer without human contact. It’s the same reason I punch the “0” button somewhere around 15-16 times when the Shaw automated voice comes on. I don’t want to press buttons to hear responses from a machine and I believe that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

So in the end, I believe that lawyers will always have a prominent place in the professional work force. Technology should not be viewed as a threat, but it should be embraced as something that can and will change the way in which we do what we do. We have to learn and grow with it to survive. It is an evolving tool at our disposal that will not take away from what we can offer, but instead open up our options so that we can offer more. We can efficiently manage our time and use the analytical skills gained from our education to better serve our clients. Further educating ourselves on these technological advancements will allow us to maintain our positions in the professional realm for now and in the future.

Posted on

Access to Justice in Canada: Students with high hopes to help the low-income

“[Canada is] increasingly failing in our responsibility to provide a justice system that [is] accessible, responsive and citizenship focused.”

The above was a statement by our Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, about the inability for Canada’s families to obtain affordable legal counsel. The Chief Justice has also stated that “legal-aid funding and coverage is not available for most people and problems, and the cost of legal services and length of proceedings is steadily increasing”, and that “statistics show that people who get legal assistance in dealing with their legal problems are much more likely to achieve better results than those who do not.”

As Canadians, the majority of us believe access to justice is a fundamental right. Contrary to this belief, Canada is witnessing a gap between the fundamental right and the stark reality that the wealthy the are the ones that can afford a lawyer’s legal services. With specific reference to British Columbia, cuts to BC Legal Aid have taken a toll on access to justice, especially for those with low-incomes. A list of cuts from 2005-2010 can be found here.

In 2013 the Canadian Bar Association released the ‘Reaching Equal Justice Report’. The report states that there is a need for more federal funding for civil legal aid. It says that the Canadian Bar Association will reach its goal for Canadians living at and below the poverty line to be eligible for full coverage of essential public legal services by 2020. Additionally, the report puts forth that all law schools in Canada will have a student legal clinic to help low-income people by 2020. The Canadian Bar Association advises that all 31 targets mentioned in the report are expected to be completed by 2030. A video about the proposed legal aid system can be watched here.

It is important to note that change does not fall solely on governments or the bar association. As the report says, law schools and other stakeholders must be involved. It is obvious that “tinkering” or making a few changes here and there will not be enough. The report states that “the civil justice system is too badly broken for a quick fix. People fall between the cracks at an unacceptable cost. Injustice is too deeply woven into the system’s very structure for piecemeal reforms to make much of a dent.”

It is obvious that now is the time to use the resources we have, like our Canadian law students, to help improve Canada’s access to justice for low-income people. With 18 law schools in Canada teaching common law, these numbers have the potential to create a significant positive difference. If that is not motivation enough, pro bono work by law students helps not only those who find themselves facing a legal conundrum, but also the law students involved. The students typically receive training to be more understanding, companionate, and patient, and in turn become more competent lawyers to enter the work force.

From what I could find, only one Canadian law school (Osgoode Hall Law School at York University) has what they call a public interest graduation requirement. If pro bono work by law students is part of the answer, why are we not making full use of this potential resource? Is it lack of resources, lack of incentive, or lack of an enforced requirement?

In correspondence with TRU Law’s Professor Dhand (who is currently the Project Leader on a Law Foundation Large Project Grant for a poverty law clinic), she informed me that the school is implementing the Community Legal Advice Clinic in 2016. The Community Legal Advice Clinic will assist low-income earners in the Kamloops and Interior region with legal problems – initially in the area of residential tenancy law and housing issues – with direct client services. The clinic will run approximately two to three days a week and can be found at the Centre for Seniors Information in Kamloops, BC. Additionally, Professor Dhand advises that TRU Law has the Legal Information Service, located on campus, where she supervises and mentors 60 student volunteers each year, who provide legal information, resources, and public legal education workshops in all areas of law. Lastly, Professor Dhand also teaches TRU Law’s Community Lawyering course where students receive instruction about the substantive and procedural aspects of community lawyering such as client interviewing, strategic litigation, legal research, and ethical issues.

It is clear that TRU Law is taking steps towards improving the ability for low-income British Colombians to access justice, well before the Canadian Bar Association’s goal of 2020. Are there additional steps that TRU Law and other law schools can take to facilitate access to justice for the low-income? Should TRU Law’s Community Lawyering class be a required course for students?

Posted on

More on innovation in law

Here are some interesting bits and pieces for L21C partners.

This blog post by Mark Cohen makes a distinction between legal practice and legal delivery.  Cohen says the practice of law (what lawyers actually do) hasn’t changed that much, but the way legal services are delivered is changing profoundly:

The traditional law firm structure, designed for profit-per-partner but not conducive to competitive pricing for such repetitive work, has fueled the growth of “alternative providers”. Many of those service providers perform legal functions but operate from a corporate rather than a partnership model. Plus, service providers can-and do-often engage in inter-disciplinary practice with technologists, engineers, accountants, and project managers working side-by-side with lawyers. My take: this is the present mimicking the future.

I’ve never really thought about this distinction before, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

The observation has implications for legal education, too.  Cohen argues that law schools are good at preparing law students for the practice of law in the sense that they provide the basic skills a lawyer needs to do legal work.  But:

The bad news is that most law schools, like practicing lawyers, do not seem to appreciate the difference between the practice of law and the delivery of legal services. And that distinction is crucially important to legal education because it affects curriculum and the preparedness (vel non) of graduates to enter a new and different legal marketplace. Law schools continue to prepare students for the traditional law firm model-one with high salaries to help defray education costs and partnership opportunities that have all but vanished– that is rapidly being replaced.

Cohen says that law schools “must be more sensitive to the changes in legal delivery and skills students must have to avail themselves of marketplace opportunities.”  I’m convinced!  It is a real challenge for law schools, because we’re (reasonably) good at doing what we’ve always done, and finding a way to rise to these new challenges is a lot harder, but I think essential.

One more thing: check out the twitter hashtag #cbaleadership15.  Lots of great stuff here!  For example: “This is the best time to practice the law, but only if you’re open to these new innovative opportunities.”  Congratulations – you are entering the profession at the best time to practice the law!  Even if it is a bit scary.

Posted on

The Practice-Ready Lawyer

Harry W. Arthurs, renowned Canadian labour lawyer and law professor, spoke to the University of Alberta Faculty of Law about the future of law schools and legal education in Canada in his address titled “The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.”

Arthurs begins by outlining differing views of the core function of law school, namely the production of “practice-ready lawyers”, of “tomorrow’s lawyers”, and of being a leader in the “creation and transformation of legal knowledge, legal practice, and the legal system.”

From this address there are several points I would like to comment on. First, Arthurs strongly critiques the view that law schools should be producing “practice-ready” lawyers, assuming that “practice-ready” equates to omni-competent. As the legal field is highly specialized and stratified, Arthurs suggests that no law student will ever be “practice-ready” upon graduation from law school. While I agree with the assessment that no law student (or lawyer for that matter) will ever possess all of the substantive knowledge to be competent in every legal field, I disagree that is what is necessary to be ready for practice. While an understanding of general legal principles and substantive law are required competencies  in one’s practice, they are attainable when one possesses the appropriate skills listed in Chapter 3 of the Code of Professional Conduct for BC (i.e. legal research, analysis, application of the law to the relevant facts, writing and drafting, problem solving, etc.). It is my opinion that the possession of these skills and competencies is what makes one “ready” for practice. In addition, I believe that law school is exactly the place where we should be taught these skills.

Arthurs goes on to argue that skills-based training is not enough to prepare students for legal practice, and a “preparation for practice” based curriculum is far inferior to one that emphasizes “thinking skills, theory and inter-disciplinarity”. While intellectual ability is certainly a coveted attribute, it must be applied practically to accomplish anything. Even Arthurs agrees that lawyers must “think like human beings” to avoid harming “themselves, their clients, the reputation of the bar and the effectiveness of the legal system.” Lawyers need to be relevant, relatable, and able to apply their intellectual training practically. It is my opinion that including some form of skills-based training in law schools helps accomplish that.

Finally, I would like to address Arthurs’ proposals regarding changes to the structure of law school. He proposes a model in which general practitioners can obtain a “stripped-down two-year ‘basic’ degree”, and “higher level lawyers” would take a four year enhanced degree. Arthurs’ argues that this would save time and money for general practitioners while fitting the diverse needs of students wishing to practice in more specialized fields. While this restructuring surely has its benefits, I suggest that it might have adverse affects on “access to justice”, an increasing problem. Creating a hierarchy of lawyers may decrease costs to individuals with basic legal problems, but may simultaneously increase the divide between litigants who can afford high-level lawyers. In other words, this hierarchy has potential to further the gap between those who can afford specialized legal services and those that cannot.

In addition, I wonder as to how these changes might impact the servicing of small, rural communities. These communities are already underserved, and those that do set up practice in these areas are typically general practitioners. Why would we make it harder on them to serve their communities by limiting their scope of practice? Canadians are already abandoning legal problems that they cannot afford to address; wouldn’t these changes only exacerbate this problem for rural individuals that would typically only engage with general practitioners?

Arthurs is certainly correct to say there are many changes in store for Canada’s legal paradigm. Subsequent changes to the way we educate future lawyers will certainly be more necessary than ever if lawyers are to remain relevant in society. More than anything, I believe Arthurs is correct to suggest law schools must prepare their students “to think like lawyers, to contextualize and critically evaluate their legal experiences, to adapt to change and, especially, to learn how to learn”. A law student with that education must certainly be “practice-ready”.

Proudly powered by WordPress