Tag: law

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

“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.

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

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”.

Posted on

tradition

 

In Chapter 6 of Richard Susskind’s book “Tomorrow’s Lawyers”, he discusses the status quo of how law firms have operated historically, and just how risky these traditions may be in the current global economic and social markets.

In working for a medium sized full service law firm this past summer, I absolutely agree with the concerns surrounding the sustainability of the traditional model of law firm operations. Considering costs associated with the practice in addition to the “extras” which the large firms consider to be a part of the basic “necessities”, it is clear that the amount of money being generated and spent goes beyond what can reasonably be sustained in the current economy. These include corporate lunches, dinners and parties. Although my firm is a medium sized firm, the partnership was always keen on ensuring that the lawyers felt appreciated by hosting lunches, dinners, marketing and networking events in addition to an annual retreat.

It would be a lie to say that I was not happy to receive such generosity and appreciation by my superiors and colleagues, however, I have to be honest in admitting that these “extras” are not as “necessary”7427c23ab949b2e020dae43a6a58a053 as we’d like to think they are.

When I think about where the money comes from to provide such gifts to the lawyers at the firm, I always end up with one source; the clients. It seems problematic to use funds allocated and paid for legal services towards personal expenses in house. However, this has always been “the way”.

Susskind notes that “lawyers have for many years performed routine work for which they have been overqualified and for which, in turn, they have been overcharging”.

Does the above statement explain why the traditional model has become entrenched in firm culture? I would argue that the compensation received from clients for legal services must cover the special knowledge, understanding and reassurance that a lawyer provides their client. Namely, clients pay to have a lawyer deal with their matter in order for them to feel as relaxed as possible with their predicament. The specialized and privileged access to information granted to lawyers is also a chargeable service in my view. Considering the average law school education amounts to sixty or so thousand dollars excluding undergraduate or postgraduate studies, it seems understandable why young lawyers are eager to join a firm where they will have the potential to grow into a gainful practice that follows the traditional model.

Susskind is correct however in stating that “to survive and thrive I suspect most will need to [make] changes to enable the changes from their current approach to a new, sustainable, longer-term business model.”

Personally, I think the primary issue is that clients are able to access plenty of information online through a variety of platforms, including digital lawyer substitutes. These substitutes offer users an online, self-serve options in drafting routine documents such as leases, powers of attorney, etc. Other sites offer legal advice, etc.

If law firms perceived these substitute services as legitimate threats to their business then change would likely arise. However, law firms, specifically the large global firms, do not recognize the threat and therefor are not motivated to change. Maybe this is the root of the problem?

History tells us however, that giants can be defeated by the “little guy”.

Proudly powered by WordPress