Law Times

www.lawtimesnews.com Carol Hartman, nortHeast region I have read the more than 40 responses to the ABS discussion paper that dis- close a range of positions for and against. I agree with the many respondents who asked the law society to undertake further study before making any decisions. We now need to ref lect on framing the issues for continuing our dialogue and pursu- ing our next phase of consultation. The discussion between increasing access to justice and ensuring conf licts of inter- est do not undermine our profession deserves more study. As a member of the ABS working group, I can assure you that no rec- ommendation will be put forward until these discussions and study have taken place." Ben Hanuka, Central east If a profession is owned by outsiders, non- professionals, it is no longer independent. That will be the beginning of the end of self- regulation in Ontario. As with third-party funders, non-lawyer owners can inf luence how cases are litigated. They can indirectly control witness selection and preparation. Their business plans can involve proliferat- ing high-risk claims consisting of frivolous or unmeritorious claims, which they may in turn sell to other third-party speculators. Providing legal services out of a vehicle collision repair shop (for those lawyers so inclined) does not mean that the collision repair shop needs to own the law office. The irony is that proponents of non-lawyer ownership argue that technology has increased the risks to the public posed by un- regulated service providers. Yet contradicting themselves, they also argue that technology is a key driving factor behind law firm success in the future." raj sHarda, Central west I have reviewed the report and I find no conclusive proof that ABS will have any benefit for the public interest and access to justice for the public. In particular, the question must be raised as to what actual problem or perceived problem are we try- ing to resolve. "I am all for innovation in lawyers' practices; however, I cannot agree to giv- ing control over lawyers to non-lawyers. Having discussions with many sole and small practitioners on this point, it is clear to me that the manner in which ABS are currently fashioned may have destructive consequences for sole and small practitioners, particularly in the areas of real estate and criminal law. Therefore, we need to be very cautious to evaluate the intended and unintended consequences of ABS before we decide on whether to implement ABS or not. As bencher, I will only support ABS if it is for the betterment of all lawyers, which currently appears not to be the case." miCHael lesage, Central soutH I stand with Ontario's lawyers and firmly against the adoption of ABS in Ontario. I believe ABS will harm the earnings, career prospects, and reputation of lawyers in this province without furthering access to jus- tice. "Moreover, I fail to see how Ontario's lawyers or the public will benefit from large multinational companies entering the market and advertising relentlessly for per- sonal injury claims and, in effect, monopolizing the market. If the goal is truly to increase access to justice, why not simplify the legal " By yamri Taddese Law Times Prominent among the issues candidates in the Law Society of Upper Canada bench- er elections have been weighing in on has been the question of alternative business structures. The options the law society has been considering include partial or unrestricted ownership of law firms by those who aren't lawyers themselves. With lawyers divided on the question of alternative business structures, Law Times asked several bencher candidates from various regions to offer their views. Bencher candidates weigh in on aBS " " THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA BENCHER ELECTION 2015 Law Times • March 30, 2015 Page 11 Paul Schabas BENCHER 2015 paulschabas.ca RE-ELECT PAUL SCHABAS The Law Society confronts tough issues these days: articling, Trinity Western, the discipline process and competency, diversity, and access to justice. As a Bencher since 2007, I have spoken out on all these issues. A strong, principled and well-informed voice. Untitled-1 1 2015-03-24 7:52 AM process? Why replace duty to the client with duty to the shareholders?" Colin laCHanCe, east Because there is more to addressing client needs than addressing dis- crete legal issues, lawyers should have more op- tions to serve clients in ways that draw on the in- telligence and resources outside the legal profes- sion. "In-house and public sector counsel prove time and again the value of professional collaboration and how neither having non-lawyer co-workers nor working for non-lawyer shareholders repre- sents an unmanageable threat to their indepen- dence or to their ethics. "The range of today's law firm ownership mod- els, including the current and highly constrained multi-disciplinary practices, are insufficient to serve the full scope of public need for efficient and cost-effective legal services. While entity-level reg- ulation of legal service providers may be required, regulation should ultimately focus more on the ob- ligations of lawyers than on the ownership struc- ture through which they practise law. I would be far more concerned by a Bay Street M&A partner handling a custody hearing or an aggravated as- sault sentencing than I would by a local chapter of the Chamber of Commerce offering incorpo- ration and other small-business legal services to their members through a shared legal department, yet there is no regulatory barrier to the former and no ability to do the latter." Harry mann, Central west The more I talk to my fellow licensees of LSUC about alternative business structures, the more I hear how convinced people are both for and against ABS. To determine where the legal profession re- ally stands on this issue, I think this should be a ref- erendum question to the membership at the same time as the voting in the upcoming LSUC election in April 2015." " " "

• Cover