Law Times

Law TiMes • May 7, 2012 COMMENT PAGE 7 Infrastructure Ontario. At other times, he' M also managing director of the Toronto Writers' Centre. He does all of this while maintaining a bustling real estate practice in Toronto. Kowalski can now add law fi rm man- the National Post and a fi ction writer who's Mitch Kowalski offers entertaining insight on the future of law The Dirt itch Kowalski is the mod- ern renaissance lawyer. He is, at times, all blue chip and corporate as a director for instructor at Osgoode Hall Law School. He' s academic and ethereal as a former s a regular blogger on legal aff airs for found myself quickly trying to race through the fi ction to get to the heart of Kowalski' messages but I'm an impa- tient reader and the joys of fi ction have long since been lost on me. Some will enjoy the narrative style Kowalski uses to deliver his otherwise hard-hitting message. Read- ers shouldn't, however, con- fuse the entertainment value of Kowalski' s agement author to his eclectic list of ac- complishments with the publication of his new book with the outrageously long title, Avoiding Extinction: Reimagining Legal Services for the 21st Century. Th e book is a quick read and provides a most entertain- ing view of what the law fi rm of the future — the very near future, according to Kow- alski — is going to look like. Although it' through the American Bar Association since March, the book is only now hitting the shelves in Canada. While I usually write about real estate law in this column, I'm taking the opportunity to write about the book this month as the issues raised aff ect all of us. Th e book is unlike anything else on s been available in the United States the market, perhaps not so much for Kowalski' ture of the practice of law but rather for its delightful narrative approach. Kowal- ski has taken what' s prognostications on the fu- on law fi rm management and written it in the form of a novella complete with a fi ctional fi rm and an imaginary client, partners, and associates. Th e prose and approach make for an unusual read. I s essentially a manual want of conviction in his message. In many ways, much of what Kowal- s prose with any ski proselytizes isn't particularly new. For instance, even old-school lawyers with only a passing interest in progressive law fi rm management techniques are likely al- ready familiar with some of Kowalski' principles: value billing instead of billable hours; greater emphasis on knowledge management and effi cient technology; work-from-home fl exibility and remote connectivity; and professional, corporate- style management rather than traditional management by committee. Th ese con- cepts are familiar to just about every man- aging partner in the country. But Kowalski takes the paradigm fur- s key all know that the accountants have embraced this approach, but I cling to the thought that lawyers need the privacy that drywall provides even if the opposing sheets of it get aw- fully close to each other. In fact, many of Kowalski' Jeffrey Lem more creative ideas involve space. Th e offi ce of Kowal- ski' s yers and paralegals working on sophisti- cated legal issues when not at their on-site yoga classes or the group spinning ses- sions taking place on the stationary bikes placed in the hallways of their LEED-cer- tifi ed premises. Consistent with this atmosphere, Kow- West Coast offi ces of Google Inc. today complete with law- alski paints the lawyer of the future as be- ing dressed far more casually than even the most informal of today' ther with some disconcertingly leading- edge concepts, some of which may raise an eyebrow or two even among junkies of law fi rm management reform. For ex- ample, Kowalski advocates bullpen-style work environments with no private of- fi ces. Really? I've been witness to the ever- shrinking size of lawyers' individual offi ces throughout my career but I really can't see the disintegration of those walls altogeth- er. Some in-house legal departments have gone to the open bullpen model, and we ners. While dress codes have undeniably trended downward in the last couple of decades, I simply can't see my partners or associates regularly walking into the offi ce in spandex and Lululemon gear, especially when seeing clients. Furthermore, I actu- ally suspect that there may be a dress-code backlash already taking place with many lawyers returning to levels of sartorial for- mality not seen for a long time. More radical still are some of Kowals- ki's views on legal outsourcing. Let's face it, s practitio- s world looks more like the them to ensure an operative integration of these support functions. Not only would there be a sea of professionalism issues in managing paralegals on the other side of the world, but the recent backlash by North American consumers against Asian-outsourced customer support and call-answering functions in other indus- tries militates against Mumbai or Manila showing up on North American law fi rm letterheads. For the record, I'm not drinking all of Kowalski's Kool-Aid but I very much ap- preciated the book as it succinctly under- scored and brought home to me the prob- lems associated with the undeniable com- moditization of the practice of law over the last couple of decades, a trend exacer- bated by the recent recession and one that will continue to plague our industry long aſt er the economy improves. As Kowalski has explained to me, while his book can- vasses all of the current leading law fi rm management techniques, "there is no one silver bullet and it is up to the progressive law fi rms of the future to put all the pieces together in a matrix that works for them." Whether you're a young lawyer look- ing to see what a day in your life might look like in the not-too-distant future or a law fi rm manager looking to come to grips with the apparent sea change that is engulfi ng our industry, Kowalski' some outsourcing is already taking place, but I see a disconnect between the occa- sional farming out of a big due-diligence project on the one hand and, on the other, a North American law fi rm maintaining entire branch offi ces in India and the Phil- ippines with mandatory rotations through A Liberal majority looks unlikely J ust when we thought we'd dodged an a position at the Workplace Safety and Insur- ance Board — a move that saw her step down from her Kitchener-Waterloo seat — pundits are in overdrive on the eff ect of the resultant byelection. Some say it' s off er of Tim Hudak for the longest-serving stalwart to take a patronage job just six months aſt er her re-election. Others are calling it a master stroke engineered to give the Liberals a shot at a majority. Currently, they're at 53 seats. Th at' s a slap against Tory Leader Ian Harvey 54 seats required for a majority. If the Liberals win the byelection, they'll have a majority that would make co- operation with the NDP redundant and render Hudak' s one short of the benches impotent. It' s Grits have to win the byelection. Given the Tories' death grip on the riding since redistribution in the 1990s, that' going to be a big challenge. Dutch-born Witmer, a former secondary school teach- the consensus holds that voters express their frustration against the government. In fact, Graham Murray, the respected publisher of the always-informative Inside Queen's Park who has been fol- er, won her fi rst election to the legislature in 1990 and served in several cabinet posts during her time there. It' s possible the electorate may want to seek change, but lowing and analyzing Ontario electoral statistics for more than 40 years, notes that if anything, the odds favour the incumbent party in a byelection. "Th e conventional wisdom holds the odds in such con- Generally, he says, the results favour the status quo in " s a good theory, but there's a fl aw in the formula: the s election, we're going to get one aſt er all. With Tory MPP Elizabeth Witmer tak- ing Premier Dalton McGuinty' Queen's Park that the party that holds the seat is most likely to keep it. "People should really look at the numbers," says Murray. "Witmer has held this riding and its predecessor since 1990." He also says Witmer pulled a bigger per- centage of votes than the Progressive Conser- vative party did on average across Ontario. Furthermore, Murray notes the Conserva- didates in Alberta following a couple of gaff es, anything can happen in an election. Th e stakes, however, are high and this byelection is a tives have consistently won by large margins in the riding. Last fall, Witmer pulled 43 per cent of the vote for a healthy victory over the Liberal rival at 36 per cent. Now as we all know and as was evident from the collapse in support for Wildrose Party can- general election writ small. All three parties will pour massive resources into it and groom and hand-pick their strongest candidates. Th e risk for the Liberals and the NDP is that centrist and leſt -leaning voters will again split the vote between them and leave the right to sweep the riding. Th at' tainly the tactic Hudak will take by reminding folks that a ballot cast for either of his opponents is a vote for the de facto coalition of NDP Leader Andrea Horwath and McGuinty. It' s cer- s also a vote for the litany of problems accumulating under McGuinty's watch. Th ey're not going to play well in a byelection fi ght, even more so because the legislature will remain in session and headlines will continue to blare with each new revelation. I wouldn't bet on an upset, which means we'll still be on tests tend to favour the outs over the ins," he tells me. "Yet 48 Ontario provincial byelections held over the 33 years from 1977 to 2010 do not show substantial evidence of seat turnover. s Park. LT SOME PEOPLE DRIVE FOR A LIVING What is a minor speeding ticket? Zero points? Two points? Four points? The law reform suggestion was rejected. Some driv- u will prove invaluable. Th e book launch is at Ben McNally Books in Toronto on May 9. Is it an alarmist parable or an epiphany for law fi rm management? You be the judge. s book LT uJeff rey W. Lem is a partner in the real es- tate group at Miller Th omson LLP. His e-mail address is jlem@millerthomson.com. CORRESPONDENCE EDITORIAL SPEEDING TICKETS NOT ALWAYS TRIFLING Mr. Shanoff raises a good point about the risk of diminishing respect for the Charter when it is used in trifling matters. However, given that the vast majority of speeding tickets is issued for the prime purpose not of sanction- ing an offence but of generating revenue, perhaps the matter is not so trifling. I would applaud the use of any defence which might curtail the pervasive practice of governments, for convenience, of generating revenue through the abuse of the legal system because the use of the correct historical power given to it for that pur- pose — taxing power — is so politically unpalatable. The electorate hates to pay taxes, so why antagonize it when you can extort the money instead from speed- ers and other criminals and scofflaws with the elector- ate' s tacit, if blinkered, approval? Comment on lawtimesnews.com by M. Arbique about "Charter s. 11(b) shouldn't apply to speeding offences." election alert and far from the solution we need to shake off the current paralysis and dearth of executive action at Queen' uIan Harvey has been a journalist for 34 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political aff airs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. www.lawtimesnews.com ers who drive for a living could lose their jobs because of a ticket. What about their family, their ability to keep a home or look after their family? The Charter does not say certain people are not covered. Maybe we should take away the Charter protection from teachers in media courses who try to find ways to put it to the public at large. Comment on lawtimesnews.com by B.R. Graham about "Charter s. 11(b) shouldn't apply to speeding offences."

• Cover