1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Regulating the competence and integrity of the members of the legal profession in a manner that comports with the public interest in the administration of justice.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The Law Society must engage in cost-benefit analysis when considering new regulations. We must consider both the risks of over-regulation and under-regulating. The burden must be on those proposing burdensome regulations to establish with clear evidence that the particular policy in question is both necessary and reasonable.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

At every level of decision making the Law Society should consider how new regulations would affect those who will be affected the most -- usually sole practitioners. If implemented, there should be follow-up reviews on the effects of these regulations on every segment of the bar (including solos and smalls) within a relatively short time period. Repeal of regulations that have severe unintended consequences should always be on the table.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I would make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in the legal profession and that those who seek to obtain greater cultural competency have access to all the resources they need for their practice.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

These principles have yet to be developed, but my grounding principle is that AI functions should be restricted until it can be demonstrated that when they are performed under the supervision of a lawyer that they allow the profession to serve the public interest in both the short term and the long term.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I would start with the position that any legal service that must be done to the standards of competence, integrity, and diligence imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct must be considered lawyer services.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I would support bringing in business consultants to the LSO to identify efficiencies, and indeed possible redundancies. Cost savings would translate into lower fees.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes, especially virtual client verification.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Closer cooperation with the judiciary and soliciting ideas for efficiency from our stakeholders.

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

1. The LSO must stick to its core statutory mandate for the regulation of lawyerly practice as traditionally understood: standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct.
2. This regulatory function must be undertaken in the interest of the public, accepting that lawyers have legitimate concerns to be free of excessively burdensome regulations. Excessive regulations ultimately fall on the shoulders of clients inf the form of increased fees and impacts on access to justice. So, balance is required.
3. Maintaining a stance that is ideologically neutral. For example, the LSO as a regulator should neither support nor oppose EDI. The rules of conduct are already broad enough to deal with improper behaviour.
4. The Inclusivity Index is part of the Challenges Report. I would allow the LSO to publicly rank firms of 25 lawyers or more in terms of EDI. This is abusive of the rights of lawyers and gets the LSO into the business of picking and choosing which lawyers are 'best' in relation to criteria that are arbitrary. This is so because the criteria not rationally capable of comparison. There are innumerable contexts for which the LSO can give no rational account in developing the rankings. For example, if a firm serves a particular ethnic or linguistic group then there may be valid reasons why it may less diverse. In the end it is arrogant to think that one can identify what is fair across the entire Province.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The SCC has ruled that lawyers have a constitutional role to play, not for their own sake, but for the sake of protecting the rights and liberties of their clients. In my view some new AML rules are excessively intrusive. The requirement to ask clients and record their answers to a question about the sources of funds intrudes into the inviolability of the solicitor client relationship. It engenders mistrust between the solicitor and client and leads the client to wonder whether his lawyer is trustworthy. It forces the lawyer to act for the state and the client at the same time. Other less intrusive measures could have been applied.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Just as an example, I would insist that the client have the sole burden of identifying the ownership of discretionary trusts. The lawyer can explain the legal concepts and the client can then apply the concepts. A discretionary trust typically has many discretionary beneficiaries, sometimes spread across different nations. Say a family trust that is buying a $700K cottage. The cost and complexity of identifying potential beneficiaries is excessive, slows down the progress of the client's work and unnecessarily adds to costs. As to questions about sources of funds, lawyers should simply be required to give blank information return forms to their clients together with instructions on how to submit information to the government. The AML rules as they existed before the new rules, were sufficient.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Lawyers are not unthinking uncaring professionals. They already know the barriers such as they may exist. No new initiatives are needed, except to ensure that applicants have equal opportunity. For example, proctored bar exams having a single set of questions ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This state of affairs is just erupting.

The first principle is that no matter who does the work, whether a clerk or a student, a law abridgement, case report or AI, the lawyers is responsible for the product of the work.

AI is basically a computerize source of information, like a fast-learning abridgement of the law. The lawyer must always assess the validity of the output by researching what courts are actually saying. Some areas are unkonwn because the courts have not yet issued rulings. In these cases, the lawyer best serves the client by alerting the client to uncertainties.

The second order of business is for lawyers to study and comment on the evolving area via CPD programs.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

Except for the measures stated in 4 a, above, it is too early to tell except to say that the LSO must be ready to deliver the CPD programs that lawyers will need in short order.

The LSO must be ready to write new rules of conduct as the landscape becomes clear, together with any practice guidelines that may be appropriate.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

The first order of business is to eliminate programs that do not add regulatory value in the public interest for the regulation of lawyerly practice as traditionally understood: standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct.

Other programs ought to be eliminated. For example, the Human Rights Monitoring Group has absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of lawyerly practice in the Province of Ontario. That program, cherished by some, ought to be taken up by others, say the OBA. It is a good program, but not something a Provincial regulator ought to be doing.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support virtual identification, with enhancements as necessary.

As to litigation, first let me say that I am not a litigator. My associates tell me that Caselines is beneficial and the online filing of materials makes good sense.

Also, we need a set of clear reasonable rules that determine whether or not documents are acceptable for filing. I understand that there are arbitrary rules that are applied unevenly in different judicial districts.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Eliminate all the bumpf in annual returns. If a lawyer has the right to refuse to answer a question then it means that the question ought not be asked in the first place.

Simplify the rules by eliminating those that are already covered by other rules.

Standards must be clear and unambiguous. Rules that are broadly stated are sometimes needed, for example, the rule about integrity. But these ought to be relatively rare. Lawyers frequently are presented by rules that allow the LSO to second guess the lawyers with the benefit of hindsight. Such a state is unfair.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Regulating competence and ethics; reduce and discipline unethical behaviour such as dishonesty, fraud and, uncivil behaviour by lawyers and paralegals; supporting access to justice; supporting lawyers and law firms in practicing competently and ethically; effectively regulating but not overregulating; maintaining a relevant lawyer licensing process (licensing and CPD); supporting freedoms; supporting diversity and non-discrimination; being accountable & transparent to lawyers, paralegals and to the public.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

We must ensure that lawyers and paralegals have high standards of competence and ethics. There must be due process where there are allegations of breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We must ensure that those who breach the Rules must cease doing so or cease to practice, yet we must also ensure that those who we discipline have the right to defend him/herself in fair proceedings. We uphold the right to be heard and we must ensure that this is available for ourselves. There can be no compromise on regulating competence and ethics due to costs alone, especially where there are allegations of money laundering. We must also ensure that there are appropriate audits to reduce cases of money laundering.

Questions when deciding on whether or not to implement a regulatory requirement:

1. What is/are the aim/goal of this regulatory requirement ("RR")?
2. Does the RR deal with competence or ethics?
3. Does implementing the RR achieve its intended goal?
4. What, if any, impact would implementing the RR have on individual lawyers and/or firms and/or both?
5. Would implementing the RR infringe freedoms or would it be a slippery slope for infringing freedoms?
6. Would implementing the RR be discriminatory toward any group?
7. Have we heard from interested parties about this RR? If so, what are their views? If not, why not?
8. What, if any, are side effects and costs of implementing the RR?
9. What is the position of other jurisdictions on this RR?
10. How would the public perceive this RR?
11. What are the overall salutary and deleterious affects of the RR? As well as the affects on lawyers/paralegals and the public?
12. Are there alternatives to the RR? How do they compare?
13. Is there an opportunity to review this RR after implementation?

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I would ask for transparency of where and how much money the LSO is spending on activities. This should be available to all benchers (and in many cases to all members and the public). Consideration should be given to reduce spending where the spending is ineffective, does not deal with competence and ethics of lawyers and paralegals, or is not a service valued by lawyers, paralegals, or the public. We must ensure effective but not overregulation to achieve the purpose of having competent and ethical lawyers and paralegals.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I would ensure that the Rules of Professional Conduct such as 6.3.1-1 in relation to non-discrimination be enforced. This will ensure equality for lawyers and the public of Ontario when dealing with lawyers.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

In my view, at present, AI should be available to assist lawyers in providing legal services. Legal services and the practice of law should be provided by licenced lawyers only.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

At present, I believe that AI should function to assist lawyers in providing legal services. Legal services should be provided by lawyers.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

Funding for regulating competence and ethics (along with due process) must be provided. Activities that support these goals should receive funding (i.e. lawyer licensing programs, relevant CPDs, law libraries, etc.) The law society should function efficiently and effectively. Projects that are not within the mandate of the LSO and do not benefit lawyers, paralegals, and the public should not be funded by LSO.

I would ask for transparency of where and how much money the LSO is spending on activities. This should be available to all benchers (and in many cases to all members and the public). Consideration should be given to reduce spending where the spending is ineffective, does not deal with competence and ethics of lawyers and paralegals, or is not a service valued by lawyers, paralegals, or the public. We must ensure effective but not overregulation to achieve the purpose of having competent and ethical lawyers and paralegals.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Where an equivalent level of security and authentication can be achieved, yes. I am open to new ideas and hearing from all interests parties in this regard before making a decision.

In principle, I agree with a secure version of virtual client identification, electronic signing, electronic closing of real estate transactions, electronic use of court filing and hearings (such as an improved version of e-filing and Caselines). I would like to see a central electronic depository for wills and POAs.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Technology should be used to assist in compliance. Rules should be developed in consultation with interested parties and experts to achieve effective and appropriate compliance. Lawyers in the area should be consulted with an opportunity to be heard before making new rules. We should effectively regulate and not overregulate.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The Law Society of Ontario's mandate is to protect the public interest. I consider the issue of lawyer and paralegal competency to be one of the most important roles of the LSO, whether it be through continuing legal education, ensuring that lawyers are supporting and mentored, and the complaints/investigation/tribunal process.

Further, the LSO has the mandate of Access to Justice. This goal can be achieved with committees and consultations focused on rapidly advancing technologies, research and consultations on A2J gaps, and understanding what community groups are being served or underserved across Ontario.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The principles that I would rely on would be sound policy reform, consultation with stakeholders, research and development, and debate with committee members. Every voice must be heard at the consultation table and all issues must be debated and discussed in order to ensure a fair outcome is acieved.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

At this time, it is too early for me to answer this question as I do not have the input of stakeholders or the right research to have a cogent answer to this question. I look forward to investigating this further.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

We need to highlight and raise up voices of diverse members of the bar across the province. This could mean more CPD or special events where we actually have members of different equity groups sharing their experiences.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

We need to improve our understandings of the strengths and frailties of AI. We are at the starting line of AI interventions in legal practices, and we need to understand that we have robust information.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

Since we are still at the initial stages of AI, we would need to have a complete understanding of the capacity of AI before we can discuss initiatives.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

As a small firm owner, I know what it is like to go through boom and bust. Recent inflation and rising costs of living have impacted small firms. I am used to rolling up my sleeves and looking at budgets, line by line. This will be my approach to looking at the LSO's budget and how fees are determined. We need to encourage consultation with stakeholders and with the audit department to understand the balance between fiscal responsibility and appropriate spending.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes, absolutely. The virtual signature and ID processes have changed my small practice in a rural setting for the better, we have been able to bridge an Access to Justice gap that has existed to clients in our region for decades. We also love Zoom Courts and virtual filings.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

We are on the correct trajectory with the identification processes, we need to push for paperless and virtual work in order to best serve rural and remote communities.

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

In accordance with its mandate, I consider that one of the most paramount activities that the LSO is engaged in is ensuring that both licensed lawyers and paralegals meet the requisite standard of competence, ethics, and professional standards and must do so by being fiscally responsible inter alia by earmarking funds towards library resources and legal aid initiatives.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The LSO is mandated to regulate the profession in the public interest. As an overseer it must not act as an overlord but must work with the profession to ensure that those licensees over which it has authority conduct themselves in a manner which is both competent and ethical. It is delicate balance which must be achieved and preserved so that the scales are not tilted which over burdens the profession. The LSO must protect the public from the practice of law by unlicensed professionals, from incompetent professionals, from unethical professionals who do not uphold their fiduciary duties and thereby bring the profession into disrepute, etc. but are the measures taken by the LSO proportionate to achieving its mandate. Continued learning by way of CPD and EDI at no cost to licensees is balanced approach. Public complaint processes currently employed by the LSO should remain. I also encourage the LSO to encourage all lawyers to participate in the mentor and advisory network programs. Many lawyers practicing law are not part of big law firms and therefore this resource invaluable. These programs, however, are only as good as those who participate in them. The LSO must ensure that they have qualified and currently practicing lawyers engaged as part of the programs.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I support the existing rules that preclude licensees from distributing or receiving funds to or from a person or party unrelated to the subject matter of the licensees retainer. It is our practice that should a client need to receive or distribute funds to an unrelated third party they can do they own banking in this regard thereby eliminating any unnecessary burden on the licensee and to some degree provides protection to the licensee from being a party to any such illegal activity as the source of funds must clear the banking systems who have anti terrorist money laundering schemes and are better positioned to assess the source or trace monies into bank accounts.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

As lawyers were are uniquely positioned to be aware that our conduct must be of such which recognizes the rights and protections afforded to every citizen under our constitution and human rights legislation. If elected, I would not only support these existing rights but would also advance that in an era of an ever changing landscape it is the spirit of the human rights legislation that is to be protected. I also believe, support, and would advance gender parity in the profession, respect and civility amongst our peers in the profession which recognizes our unique backgrounds, religious beliefs, tearing down the underlying biases towards those educated overseas. Our revered profession has advanced remarkably from its historic patriarchal roots however work still needs to be done. In addition, the country as whole has made remarkable headway in recognizing indigenous rights of self determination and that progress must continue. With respect to cultural competence as previously noted within the profession, for example those of the Muslim faith are currently observing Ramadan, and we must be mindful of our colleagues and encourage respect towards our colleagues but also as lawyers we have the opportunity to lead by example to encourage our clients to be respectful and mindful of these cultural, religious, sexist, ageist barriers. In terms of cultural competence when dealing with clients, it is incumbent on each of us as lawyers to recognize our individual biases and educate ourselves as to why those biases exist in order to better understand how to break down those biases and be better able to represent our clients. The Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) programs offered by the LSO are a good start but they do not go far enough to ensure that the profession is advancing and protecting the rights and protections afforded under humans rights laws are observed.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This is a topic which is increasingly on everyone's radar these days with ChatGPT dominating the airwaves, with the speed at which technology is advancing, and with service providers and block chain technology encroaching into the legal field. Unfortunately this is a loaded question which I feel requires empirical data on the subject as to what can be performed by artificial intelligence and what must be performed by a lawyer as once that doorway is opened you could then have a floodgates argument that all things could potentially be performed by way of artificial intelligence. We must be mindful, that lawyers have a keen eye of looking at their clients situation both holistically and examining the totality of their client(s) particular circumstances and in doing so can craft sometimes very unique ways of addressing, negotiating, and resolving their clients matter. I do not feel that this unique and innovate approaches and resolutions could be made through AI. AI algorithms will produce the same result based on a set of facts or information given to it but will fail to recognize the uniqueness of client matters which require alternative approaches. Although I am a proponent of using technology to improve efficiency in the workplace, I do not feel that AI technology is a suitable substitute for any function of a lawyer!

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I refer you to my response in 4(a) above. At this moment in time, I do not know enough of the subject matter, I am however acutely aware that although AI technology is not new, ChatGPT has within a very short span of time entered the scene and has accelerated from its infancy at an alarming rate. How does one distinguish proprietary rights when everything can be duplicated through AI technology, how do we advance innovative thought when the thinking is removed via AI techology, how do we distinguish which functions a lawyer does that no longer should be done by the lawyer? I myself am a whole person and when acting for a client and considering best practices and approaches to the matter at hand, one of my thought processes cannot be removed from the analysis!

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

If elected, I would support transparency of the LSO's finance, and would require an audit and approval by licensees of where funds are being allocated by the LSO. I would take a look at the usefulness of the 12 hours of CPD credits with respect to improving competency and would support that the requisite CPD hours/programs should come at no cost to licensees. In this way, competence through continued learning is ensured and would have not impact on funding as the funds are not going to the LSO anyway but to those presenting the particular course. The question then becomes would those preparing and presenting the CPD courses continue to do so if there were no financial incentive? The answer to this I feel would be yes and could be approached from a LAWPRO liability perspective which would allow the presenters a reduction on their liability insurance as they have demonstrated a level of competency which would lessen the risk to the insurer. Win-win situation!

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes I support the continued application of these initiatives, namely remote "virtual" meetings with client and presumptive remote court hearings.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

The discussion of the 3 "R's" has faded but the impetus behind it still exists. We still have a public duty to reduce, reuse and recycle wherever possible. With that in mind, the new client ID verification form is an over zealous unnecessary waste of paper. The crux of the new form was what was the source of funds related to the client matter. This could have easily been incorporated into pre-existing client ID and verification forms without the need for a complete overhaul and unnecessary pages. A modern approach, although may add a further step in the process, could be that lawyers through their respective LSO portal would click they have complied with identifying and verifying their clients thereby eliminating paper in the same manner as they do for their LPIC/law society levies.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

1. ensuring licensees are at the top of their game professionally and ethically
2. ensuring licensees comply with the law
3. ensuring the public is protected
4. fostering innovation
5. improving a2j
6. improving diversity in the profession
7. providing legal education
8. improving the the profession's image
9. making Ontario a global leader in legal regulation
10. censuring those who don't abide by the rules.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

I would increase the regulatory and administrative burden in this regard. Sure, it results in overhead, but we're also globally notorious for money laundering. Self-regulation is a privilege. How can we expect to keep it if we don't actively work to promote society's interests over our own? Currently, public protection isn't being achieved.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Informed input from the public, especially the lay benchers. What is 'unnecessary' should be driven by our job - to regulate in the public interest.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Education is usually the best. I would continue to advocate for and promote diversity and EDI initiatives, including EDI CPD. I think the implementation could do with some changes, but the intent is good and the effects are pretty good too (and I say this from my own experience, having participated in this kind of CPD).

Nobody wants to bring the SOP back, but I didn't think it was as awful an idea as is made out. The sample wasn't that different to the UN declaration of human rights. Lawyers all swear an oath when we join the profession - we begin our entire career with compelled speech. It's right that we got rid of it in the form it was, but the idea of acknowledging our obligations under the Human Rights Code as a whole? It wasn't a bad one. It's a shame we rejected it so violently.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

Mainly: the distinction between legal information, and legal advice. It's one thing to say: this is the law. It's another entirely to say: here's what you should do about it. The latter should be a human job, because AI cannot understand human motivation and goals, nor can it protect against its own biases. Humans can to greater or lesser degrees.

Beyond that, I take a laissez-faire approach. We say a lawyer who represents themself has a fool for a client - what does that make the 60%+ self-reps? In most cases, any help is better than none.

I'd also beef up the technological competence rules. The public can't be protected if lawyers (a) don't know about AI and how to use it, and (b) don't know about its issues. We need to be, all of us, well educated about legal technology in order for the public to really be protected.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

None. We have a good framework in place already. UPL provisions exist and can and must be enforced.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

What's appropriate? What's underfunding, and what's key? This isn't really an answerable question because it means everything to everyone. Here's what I propose:

1. let's have transparency; sunlight disinfects. We should voluntarily give the public exactly as much transparency or more as if we were not self-regulated. anything else isn't really protecting them.
2. let's ensure people who aren't practicing, aren't paying, if it's possible.
3. let's assess what's actually a key regulatory function, and how we can ensure we stick to that. We shouldn't be worried about regulating legal AI, we should be worried about enforcing the rules we've had for years.
4. let's determine how we can improve coffers without increasing fees; where there's a will, there's a way.
5. Get rid of and replace articling with something like the LPP for all candidates, or a bar admission course.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Everything. Seriously. We are on the right path - working to innovate. We can't go backwards. We can't reduce a2j just because it's easier for us.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Given my background in innovation, if elected I would take a design-thinking based approach to figuring out what effective and efficient ideas could be, that could have actual impact. It isn't helpful for me to speculate without doing the actual innovation ground-work needed to innovate.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The most important activities of the LSO are:

1. To ensure that licensing candidates meet minimum standards of competency to be admitted to the bar;
2. Ensuring that investigations about licensee misconduct are investigated and dealt with in a timely manner; and
3. Ensuring that licensees are provided with reasonable support and resources to assist them with meeting their professional obligations such as providing support by way of the Coach and Advisor Network (CAN) program, for example.

    

   2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.
   
   (a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

   As an incumbent bencher who has been on the Professional Regulation Committee for the past 4-years, I have a great appreciation of why this requirement had to pass. Ask your colleagues, and many will tell you that someone has tried to use them as a vehicle to commit fraud. Perhaps someone tried to use you for such purposes. The Government of Canada is concerned about this and already took one (unconstitutional) attempt to regulate in this area. As a result, the Federation of Law Societies developed a model code to address this issue. That model code was implemented by many law societies. The LSO was one of the last despite the LSO being the biggest legal regulator in the country.

   (b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

   At the end of the day, I will support and advocate for the continued review and examination of these requirements. If they are too onerous we must continue to look for ways to reduce the burdens while still meeting the objectives. In order to do so, we need to consult our stakeholders and partners, like the Ontario Bar Association, to collectively find ways to address any concerns.

   3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

   As the only Indigenous incumbent, and the current Vice-Chair of the Equity and Indigenous Affairs Committee, I am well versed on the importance of this work. We must continue the very low burden EDI requirements. The LSO should continue to offer free programming so that members of the profession has opportunities to learn. As for Indigenous cultural competency, we must acknowledge that one cannot become competent in all the unique indigenous communities in Ontario or Canada. We can certainly raise awareness and identify opportunities to learn more. There should be a mandatory component as part of the bar admission process to help achieve the calls to action in the Truth of Reconciliation Final Report.

   4. Legal Technology and Lawyers
   
   (a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

   AI is not new. It has been around for a long time already. We are, thankfully, seeing a wave of really interesting and useful tools now, though. I think it is wonderful as this will help level the playing field for solo and small firm lawyers. What we need to do is remind licensees that if they are going to use such tools they must be mindful of their professional obligations. At the end of the day, lawyers must exercise their skill and judgment before signing off on anything the AI may produce for them. Just like they have to if someone is produced by support staff or an articling student. It should never be a defence that the AI produced something and therefore they should not be accountable.

   (b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

   We must be realistic about how far the LSO should go in trying to regulate legal technology service providers. Can the LSO really keep up with them? Look at the explosion of technology services that resulted from the rollout of ChatGTP in the past few months. Should you, the licensees, be funding the efforts to try to regulate technology companies or should the government be footing the costs if this is something that is really in the mandate of the LSO?

   Frankly, it is not fair to expect you to fund the costs of trying to regulate something that may, at the end of the day, be ungovernable. Our financial resources would be better spent on educating and informing the public about the risks of using these service providers over the services of a lawyer or paralegal.

   If the LSO is to get into the business of approving legal technology service providers (which I do not support), the tech companies should be footing 100% of the costs associated with getting any such approval by the regulator. At the very least, any such approval should require a vigorous examination and assessment, by expert and competent professionals, that can provide some level of comfort that the service offered will not cause harm to the public and will protect and secure the confidential information that is shared with them. Finally, any such service provider should be subject to the same insurance and regulatory requirements that are expected of lawyers and paralegals.

   The most important thing to do, immediately, is to warn the public of the harm these unregulated services can cause.

   5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

   This can be accomplished with a deliberate and pragmatic approach to finding efficiencies rather than through arbitrary cuts. We also need to be mindful of the costs of new initiatives. It appears that every new initiative comes with a substantial cost. For example, the cost to develop the new (burden) business education course that will be mandatory for those wanting to set up a solo practice is not a minor cost. Similarly, the costs to set up and implement the technology sandbox were not minor costs. I did not vote in favour of either of these new initiatives.

   Modernization. The LSO needs to continue to modernize its systems so that human resource time is not wasted. For example, any form associated with the LSO should be automated. The data from those forms should be compiled with automation. We must continue to push for and implement automation where feasible. There is a technological transformation underway at the LSO. I will continue to support that and encourage the LSO to always do better and stay modern. Modernization should result in reduced investigative times, and human resource costs.

   6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

   • Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law
   • Citizenship and Immigration Law
   • Civil Litigation
   • Construction Law
   • Corporate and Commercial Law
   • Criminal Law
   • Environmental Law
   • Estates and Trusts Law
   • Family Law
   • Health Law
   • Indigenous Legal Issues
   • Intellectual Property Law
   • Labour Law
   • Municipal Law
   • Real Estate Law
   • Taxation Law
   • Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

   7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).
   
   (a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

   Virtual Client Verification is acceptable in all cases except where funds are being handled. While the exemption to use the virtual method has been extended until next year for those cases as well, they are planned to come to an end. With that said, if there are other ways to ensure that identification can be verified to prevent money laundering, I am all ears and open to considering it and perhaps championing it. I don't want to see our colleagues overwhelmed with burdens.

   I support a modern approach to doing everything. I try to keep my office and practice modern. For example, I hate receiving paper. I hate receiving faxes. I get annoyed when someone doesn't make their email address readily available.

   (b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

   We must look at all work we do from different lenses. An important lens is one that looks at compliance from a modern approach. We must encourage the staff to have this as a prevailing principle when working on initiatives.

   I also believe we should always consult meaningfully with our stakeholders (i.e. you) on what they think of initiatives and carefully listen for and embrace opportunities to modernize.

 

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Among the most important activities are:

1. Supporting lawyers to provide competent legal services (by way of the practice management helpline, CPD, the Coach and Advisor Network, Member Assistance Program and law libraries, among other supports).
2. Licensing pathways
3. Enforcement - proportionate and speedy discipline, spot audits
4. Improving access to justice - the LSO should continue to play a central role in coordinating efforts to secure proper LAO funding; explore legal, technological and regulatory innovation to reduce the costs of legal services to the public and of regulation to licensees

    

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Regulatory measures must be necessary to protect the public interest. The more significant the risk of the targeted activity to the public, the higher the priority of the regulatory requirement.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Necessity is determined with data.

Periodic reviews of initiatives and rules are needed to ensure proportionality and effectiveness.

Apart from evidence-based decision-making, consultation with affected constituencies is critical for buy-in and to identify where efficiencies can be gained.

The use of technology (digital forms, automation) in administrative processes, while expensive to devise at the outset, will save costs and time in the long run.

 

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Meaningful EDI CPD (at least one hour per year). We can target the content to particular kinds of practice to ensure utility.

Continue to develop resources/guidelines to assist licensees serving Indigenous and diverse populations.

Regularly consult with community representatives to see which barriers are affecting their members.

Work with law firms to develop recruitment and retention initiatives aimed at increasing the diversity of the legal profession.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

Any legal task that requires judgment or a legal opinion must be performed by a lawyer.

Some routine tasks can be facilitated with AI and result in less expense to both the lawyer and the client. For example, AI can streamline research, due diligence and drafting. Ultimately, however, the work product must be reviewed by a lawyer before it is provided to the client.

Client counselling, especially when it requires a trauma-informed approach, is predicated on human interaction and should not be replaced with AI.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

The LSO can play a role in educating lawyers about the limitations of AI and the possible biases it replicates. The LSO's Technology Resource Centre might be a the most appropriate vehicle by which to provide lawyers and paralegals with professional guidance about AI usage and access to AI resources.

Both guidelines and CPD can target the challenges and opportunities of AI.

Public education will also be needed to ensure people do not rely exclusively on AI for their legal needs (ie: educate the public about the limits, etc).

 

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I am well aware of the impact of fees on new lawyers and on those who practice in public interest settings or primarily with LAO clients. I cannot, however, predetermine what level of fees is "appropriate" without first engaging in the budget process and understanding the LSO's fluctuating expenses (for ex, what amounts are needed to sustain the Compensation Fund vary from year to year).

I do not support a blanket fee reduction. Not only is such a reduction irresponsible without knowing how they will impact the LSO's core services and licensees' practices, it is also potentially more expensive in the long run. For example, cutting resources to support lawyers may lead to a higher incidence of complaints and disciplinary proceedings, which are more costly on every metric.

Where there can be cost savings without impacting the LSO's ability to meet its statutory objectives, those savings should absolutely be implemented. Greater transparency of the budget process is also desirable.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

I understand the CSP is under review. All constituents (including those lawyers who currently have the CS designation) should be part of the review. Before I arrive at a definitive opinion, I would want to know what criteria are used to determine that someone qualifies as a Specialist and what measures are in place to ensure continuing specialization. Assuming there is a principled approach to the designation, I would support the CSP as a useful tool for people seeking a lawyer.

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support any initiative that creates efficiencies for lawyers and their clients with no appreciable increase in risk to the public (eg: virtual identification and relaxed rules around will meetings).

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

I need to study this area further, but I suspect AI can be harnessed by the LSO in its compliance and monitoring functions.

Continued consultation and/or collaboration with other Law Societies may help identify new and better compliance programs. In other words, we don't have to reinvent the wheel or pay for bespoke products when existing products may be available and used by other regulators. This may seem obvious to most, but having worked at a large institution for the past 13 years, I am aware of the cost savings that can be generated by consulting with similar institutions.

The LSO should digitize all its forms and ensure its own internal processes are automated where possible. I understand there is a major computer systems update taking place at the LSO. I would need to learn more about the project before making specific proposals for modernization.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

I believe that licensing and regulation is one of the most important activities of the LSO. It is imperative to have properly trained lawyers and paralegals who can serve our communities. It also feeds into another important activity and that is access to justice for Ontarians. Access to a lawyer or paralegal is access to justice but it is of little use if the lawyer or paralegal is not properly trained.

There are other important activities as well including, but not limited to, discipline and educating the public about the justice system.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

As a small business owner, I understand how over regulating can get in the way of conducting business. However, I am also cognizant that ours needs to be a regulated profession as the justice system is an essential service. The principle is simple: minimal regulation to achieve the objectives being sought by that regulation.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Regulations should be tailored to the lawyer(s) and paralegal(s) being regulated and for the goal that is being achieved. One-size-fits-all regulations rarely work well.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

EDI requirements currently exist and the question is whether or not they are providing effective cultural competency for lawyers. I would like to see a study of the effectiveness of the current system to understand the need for any adjustment to it.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

I think that this question is part of a larger issue of AI in our profession. I believe that in order for Ontarians to be properly served, the services have to rendered by a lawyer or paralegal who are ultimately responsible for the them being provided to the general public, whether they are generate through AI or any other means.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

As mentioned above, lawyers and paralegals should be ultimately responsible for AI functions.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I believe that the creation of a transparent ground up budget, that is commenced at the committee level and makes is way to convocation, ensures that each budgeted dollar has a meaningful pursuit. Openness in both developing budgets and spending engenders accountability. Accountability means that everyone can understand why fees are set at the level they are and where every dollar is assigned and spent so that if there is any concern it can be voiced at the appropriate time. This will keep fees at appropriate levels and underfund the LSO's mandated functions.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I believe that lawyers can continue to accept virtual ID verification and administer oaths and commission affidavits virtually. They should also be allowed to continue to sign wills virtually with the appropriate precautionary methods.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

The LSO should consider the data analytics of risk/loss ratio to understand where compliance needs to be improved, but again, with the least possible regulation to achieve that goal. Also, AI can be utilized as one way to assist lawyers with virtual compliance with limited cost by providing compliance techniques to reduce risk.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The most important activity of the LSO is the regulation of lawyers in the public interest. This requires that complaints be promptly investigated and resolved, which the LSO is currently failing to do all to frequently.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

While necessary, regulation must be proportionate to the value of the transaction, and like with Civil Transaction Levies, should generally be user (i.e. client) rather than lawyer pay. So, for instance, if the LSO wants to require real estate lawyers to adopt some poorly thought out virtual verification rules from 2007, that will take a certain amount of time for lawyers to comply with (for the benefit of the public), then lawyers should be permitted to pass on such charges to the beneficiaries. In general, prior to implementing new regulations, the LSO should determine (and publicize) the anticipated regulatory burden, in both time and cost, and allow lawyers an opportunity to be heard on such issue (and I previously brought a motion to this effect).

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

As indicated in the motion I previously brought, available at https://twitter.com/michaelsfirm/status/1597238753273475073/photo/1, I believe it important for the LSO to consider the impact, both in time and money, of new proposed regulations, and to seek input from the profession, before implementing such regulations on the profession.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Lawyers, like other Ontario residents, should comply with applicable Human Rights legislation. As many minority lawyers end up working in small and mid sized firms, initiatives that are helpful to such firms will likely help to promote such goals.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

AI is growing exponentially, as illustrated by the performance leap between GPT 3.5 and GPT 4, so at this time, it's hard to come up with clear principles that will not seem hopelessly outdated in 6 months time (and many of these developments are happening well outside of geographical areas where the LSO has any influence or authority, i.e. California). Ultimately, I suspect that the counselling function will remain within the domain of lawyers, while a lot of the writing and review of documents will become automated.

On a hopeful note, it would be wonderful if at some point in the not too distant future, CHAT GPT or some other AI could make minor revisions to documents that the MAG has pointlessly rejected, and refile same, so as to not needlessly waste lawyer time on pointless (and arbitrary) administrative burdens.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

At the current LSO, it is hard to consider AI when the bar exam effectively tests lawyers on whether they understand the concept of how to use a phone book. I'm not aware of any use currently being made of AI at the LSO, and have been informed that our computer systems are so hopelessly outdated that management needs about 20M to 'mostly' fix them (without any definition as to what 'fixed' means or what the deliverables from spending that much money are). One place where existing AI could be used would be with complaints, specifically helping filter out the roughly 3,000 complaints filed per year that are unwarranted, but that doubtless chew up a lot of employee time (and hence money).

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

As mentioned above, it's important to set targets as to an appropriate level of fees, and then to determine how to best perform the LSO's key functions given that level of funding. Most certainly, that will involve doing things more efficiently than is currently the case.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support all or virtually all modernization initiatives that arose out of the pandemic, and along with Joseph Chiummiento, helped lead the charge against restoring the LSO's onerous 2007 era virtual verification rules (which would have made it much harder for lawyers, specifically real estate lawyers, to do business via Zoom).

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Initially, the LSO must look at, and aim to reduce the burden on licensees of regulatory compliance (i.e. how much time per year do licensees spend jumping through LSO hoops? What about Law Pro hoops? How do we go about reducing the amount of time and money spent? Can we reduce it further. Like other things, this needs to be measured and publicized on the LSO's website.

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

To protect the public interest in accordance with its statutory-mandate as set forth in the Law Society Act. And I believe that the advancement of the public interest is enhanced by a legal profession that is independent, financially sustainable and a source of pride for all of our members. Or put another way, I do not consider the protection of the public interest and the advancement of the legitimate concerns and interests of the practicing bar to be in any way inconsistent with each other.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

I intend to exercise my judgment based on my careful analysis of the relevant evidence in play. And in so doing I will be very sensitive to the costs, financial and otherwise, that administrative burdens place upon our members. As someone who started practicing back in 1981 in a two lawyer and one part-time support staff office, I remain acutely aware of how regulatory burdens render the practice of an already challenging profession even more so. That being said, the protection of the public requires some measure of regulatory oversight of us all--despite our sometimes resentment thereof.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I am not an incumbent Bencher. Therefore I am not as familiar as my incumbent colleagues with the minutae of the committee and related work which ultimately culminates in the decisions taken at Convocation. But if elected I will work to ensure that my decision to support (or not support) any specifically proposed initiative is not made until extensive consultation has taken place with all relevant stakeholders; and to always include both my careful consideration of the ostensible merits of the proposed initiative per se, but also of the practical implications of its implementation. P.S. In my own experience as a licensee lawyer, the LSO's record of consultation with interested and impacted stakeholders has often left something to be desired.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

During the course of my campaign I have come to conclude that this is an issue with respect to which many people seem somewhat misinformed; with their perspectives and opinions seeming to depend on which side of the generational divide they occupy. This is a generalization of course and subject to no doubt numerous exceptions. But stated simply, I believe that the Law Society of Ontario, as a corporate leader in our province, has both a statutorily-mandated and moral duty to ensure that its staff and members have a full appreciation of the unique characteristics of not only our Law Society members, but of society at large, and to work to ensure that our members' actions, as opposed to their beliefs-(which are entirely their own)- are consistent within our profession. So--before supporting any specific initiative I would need to fully understand its cost, its details, and the practical implications of its implementation. But I wholly reject the notion that the Law Society's advancement of social justice constitutes forcing people how to think.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This is an extremely challenging issue;(not only for the legal profession (in Ontario and elsewhere)) but for society as a whole. I begin by distinguishing functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer --through an "access to justice" lens. By that I mean by considering the service, the extent to which that service is being actually provided by lawyers (as well as by at what cost). It goes without saying that the range and scope of services provided by lawyers has changed over time and will continue to do so. But at the end of the day the protection of the public interest includes protecting the public from substandard, incompetent and ineffective legal representation --and from the sale of substandard legal products.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I would work to make the LSO more transparent about the A2I project and work to require it to publish timely information about applications that have been submitted for review. I also believe that all Ontario legal organizations, licensees and stakeholders with expertise in a specific area should be consulted prior to the LSO approving an applicant into the "sandbox". And finally, I will work to uphold consumer protection and the independence of the legal profession by opposing non-lawyer ownership of law firms and any technology-driven innovation that may compromise these values.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

Firstly, and in the most general of senses, I would bring a strong sense of fiscal responsibility to this task . (Being a self-employed lawyer and partner in a (presently) twelve lawyer law firm for the past forty-plus years has embedded the habit of fiscal responsibility into my bones I can assure you)! No sensible Bencher would want our fees are any higher than is absolutely necessary. That being said, irresponsible proposals to reduce fees without firstly carefully considering their impact on the LSO's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate are equally unhelpful. But I would also support our members being given a full and precise breakdown of the specific functions and uses to which their fees are being specifically allocated.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes. I support any and all initiatives which will render access to justice less expensive. And speed up the civil litigation process.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

The pandemic "tore back the curtain" so to speak and revealed just how antiquated, particularly from a technological perspective, our justice system was in Ontario. So I will support any and all technologically- sound (and financially viable) proposals which render peoples' interactions with our justice system less expensive and less lengthy; (subject of course to ensuring the public's continued access to competent legal representation) and the just adjudication of whatever issue or circumstance gave rise to their interaction with the justice system in the first place.

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

1. 1. Assure that new licensees demonstrate sufficient knowledge and practical skill to practice law. This cannot be done with the standard simply being the passing of two exams. The Bar Admissions Course must be re-introduced.
2. Incompetent or unethical licensees need to face elevated discipline which would include an increased use of disbarment.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The new AML regime is too onerous and needs to be rethought and simplified. Overall regulatory compliance should be manageable for licensees, and harsher discipline can be introduced as a balance to a potential lightening of the regulatory burden.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

See above.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I assume that lawyers and paralegals have an advanced understanding of human nature and behaviour and there is no need to regulate or enforce belief, behaviour or speech.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

The LSO should actively develop or assist in the development of legal technology including the use of AI if the intended result is an expansion in access to justice and a reduction in the cost of legal services. I am not against the LSO undertaking this as a profitable venture from which revenues can be used to reduce fees.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

In time they should be accretive to each other.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

It depends what is determined to be underfunded. I support introducing a Bar Admissions Course, expanded discipline and funding local law libraries. Spending money on expanding Diversity, Inclusion and Equity is not a core mandate and should be discontinued, along with the payment of diversity commissars.

I favour a robust cutting of fees. I would suggest a 25% reduction by 2025.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

If they improve efficiency and cut costs, yes.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Focus on where compliance is needed and enhance it with the use of technology.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Ensuring licensee competence, promoting access to justice and adjudicating complaints, all in the public interest.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Decisions to ensure regulation is necessary and proportionate must be evidence-based and evidence-driven. Decisions must also consider multiple perspectives. Weighing the cost-benefit to different groups will require robust debate at Convocation. Therefore, respectful and robust debate and consultation is an important principle to adhere to in making these decisions. Consultations with broader stakeholders and affected parties must also be part of the evidence considered by Convocation in making decisions.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

This is a difficult question to answer in the abstract, without specific initiatives on the table. I would be guided by the principles enunciated above.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

As a representative to the Equity Advisory Group (EAG), I support continuing and bolstering EAG to advise the Equity and Indigenous Affairs Committee of the LSO. In terms of any future initiatives, it is difficult to answer in the abstract but I will be guided by principles of proportionality, evidence, consultation and robust debate.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

Legal technology is an important issue that requires careful consideration. It is not possible for one person to have the answer to this very weighty question. Rather, the answers will emerge after consultation, debate and review of evidence. That said, some of the questions to be considered are, how can AI be leveraged to promote access to justice? What are some competency/disciplinary issues that may arise? How will AI disrupt the profession and lead to more self-represented litigants using AI?

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

Same as 4(a) above.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I would support a review of the budget to see if there are areas of efficiency without compromising on items such as Law Library funding. I would also support an analysis of fees in law societies across the province as well as their statutory mandates and how they compare to the LSO's mandate to provide a comparison to LSO fees.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

The Certified Specialist Program is something that needs additional consultation and debate. I'm not in a position to indicate whether I support continuing it in any particular area.

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes, we should be leveraging modern approaches. I support virtual client verification, virtual commissioning of affidavits and virtual proceedings where appropriate (e.g. case conferences, simple motions).

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

This may require a task force or working group to provide suggestions for Convocation to then debate.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The most important activities of the Law Society of Ontario are:

Licensing and Regulation: Ensuring that lawyers and paralegals in Ontario meet high standards of professionalism and competence, and taking disciplinary action when necessary to protect the public.

Complaints and Discipline: Investigating complaints against lawyers and paralegals, and taking appropriate disciplinary action when members breach ethical or professional standards.

Access to Justice: Promoting access to justice for all Ontarians, particularly those who are marginalized or vulnerable.

These three activities are crucial to our mandate of protecting the public and promoting the integrity of the legal profession in Ontario. While other activities such as professional development, public education, and support for pro bono legal services are also important, they are secondary to our core responsibilities of licensing, regulation, complaints, discipline, and access to justice.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

To ensure that regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden are necessary for and proportionate to the public protection achieved, the following principles can be used:

Risk-based approach: Regulatory requirements should be based on an assessment of the risks to the public and the legal profession. This would involve identifying the most significant risks and tailoring regulatory requirements to address those risks.

Proportionality: Regulatory requirements should be proportionate to the risks identified. This would involve ensuring that the burden of compliance is not excessive and that requirements are tailored to the specific risks identified.

Transparency: Regulatory requirements should be clear and transparent to lawyers and law firms. This would involve providing guidance on what is expected and why.

Accountability: Regulatory bodies should be accountable for the regulatory requirements they impose. This would involve monitoring the effectiveness of the regulatory requirements and making adjustments where necessary.

Consistency: Regulatory requirements should be consistent across jurisdictions to avoid creating unnecessary barriers to the provision of legal services.

By applying these principles, regulatory requirements and administrative burden can be kept in check while still achieving the necessary public protection.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

There are several specific initiatives that the Law Society of Ontario should advance or support to ensure that its regulations are tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden. Some of these initiatives are:

Regular review and evaluation of regulatory requirements: The Law Society of Ontario should conduct regular reviews of its requirements to ensure that they are still necessary and effective in achieving their public protection goal. This would involve assessing the effectiveness of current requirements and identifying areas where requirements could be streamlined or removed.

Simplification of regulatory requirements: The Law Society of Ontario should simplify its requirements to reduce the administrative burden on lawyers and law firms. This could involve reducing paperwork requirements, providing clear guidance, and using plain language.

Harmonization of regulatory requirements: The Law Society of Ontario should work with other regulatory bodies to harmonize their requirements across jurisdictions. This would help to reduce the burden on lawyers and law firms that practice in multiple jurisdictions by creating consistent requirements.

Use of technology: The Law Society of Ontario should leverage technology to streamline its regulatory requirements. This could involve using online portals for compliance reporting, implementing electronic filing systems, and using data analytics to monitor compliance.

Education and training: The Law Society of Ontario should provide education and training to lawyers and law firms on its regulatory requirements. This would help to ensure that lawyers and law firms are aware of their obligations and can comply with them more easily.

By advancing or supporting these initiatives, the Law Society of Ontario can ensure that its requirements are tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

As the Law Society of Ontario's mandate is to protect the public and increase access to justice, initiatives aimed at ensuring the legal profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province must fall within this mandate. They must also be consistent with Human Rights Legislation and the Trinity Western University Supreme Court decision. Some of these initiatives are:

Continuing Professional Development: The Law Society of Ontario should offer voluntary training on diversity and inclusion as part of the continuing professional development (CPD) program, with a focus on how to address barriers to equality and increase access to justice.

Engagement with diverse communities: The Law Society of Ontario should engage with diverse communities to understand their legal needs and the barriers they face in accessing legal services. This would involve reaching out to community organizations and conducting consultations with members of diverse communities, with the goal of identifying ways to increase access to justice.

Inclusive Workplace Culture: The Law Society of Ontario should promote an inclusive workplace culture within law firms and legal organizations, consistent with Human Rights Legislation and the Trinity Western University Supreme Court decision. This would involve promoting diversity and inclusion policies and practices, and providing training and support to address any barriers to equality that may exist within these organizations.

Recruitment and retention initiatives: The Law Society of Ontario should work with law firms and legal organizations to develop recruitment and retention initiatives aimed at increasing the diversity of the legal profession, consistent with Human Rights Legislation and the Trinity Western University Supreme Court decision. This would involve encouraging law firms and legal organizations to adopt inclusive hiring practices and creating a more welcoming environment for diverse legal professionals.

Research and data collection: The Law Society of Ontario should conduct research and collect data on diversity in the legal profession, consistent with Human Rights Legislation and the Trinity Western University Supreme Court decision. This would help to identify areas where progress is being made and areas where more work needs to be done to increase diversity and promote cultural competence, with the ultimate goal of increasing access to justice for all Ontarians.

By advancing or supporting these initiatives, the Law Society of Ontario can ensure that the legal profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province, consistent with its mandate to protect the public and increase access to justice.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

In order to ensure the public is protected, the following principles could be used to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer:

Complexity and unpredictability of legal issues: AI can be used for routine legal tasks that do not require complex legal analysis or interpretation. However, legal services that involve complex legal issues and require the exercise of professional judgment and interpretation should be performed by a lawyer.

Robust involvement and review by lawyers: While AI can be used to assist with legal services that have a high risk of harm to the public, such as those related to criminal law, family law, or immigration law, lawyers should be involved in reviewing and analyzing the results generated by AI to ensure that they are accurate and do not pose a risk to the public. This would help to ensure that the benefits of technology are balanced with the need to protect the public.

Personal interaction and communication: Legal services that require personal interaction and communication with clients, such as counseling or advocacy services, should be performed by a lawyer who has the interpersonal skills necessary to communicate effectively with clients.

Professional obligations and ethical considerations: Legal services that require compliance with professional obligations and ethical considerations, such as confidentiality, loyalty, and avoiding conflicts of interest, should be performed by a lawyer who is subject to the Law Society's rules of professional conduct.

Accountability and liability: Legal services that involve potential legal liability, such as providing legal advice or representation, should be performed by a lawyer who is accountable for the advice or representation provided.

By using these principles to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer, the public can be protected while also taking advantage of the benefits of technology in the provision of legal services. The Law Society of Ontario can play an important role in ensuring that these principles are applied effectively by providing guidance and oversight to legal professionals who use AI and by ensuring that the public is aware of the limitations and benefits of using AI in the provision of legal services.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

If re-elected, there are several initiatives that I would advance or support to ensure that lawyers remain the bridge to AI in the delivery of legal services, and that AI does not replace or supplant the role of lawyers in the provision of legal services. Some of these initiatives are:

Regulatory guidance: The Law Society of Ontario should provide clear guidance on the use of AI in the provision of legal services. This guidance should emphasize the importance of lawyers as the bridge to AI and provide guidelines for ensuring that lawyers are involved in legal services that require the exercise of professional judgment and interpretation.

Continuing Professional Development: The Law Society of Ontario should require mandatory training on the use of AI in the provision of legal services as part of the continuing professional development (CPD) program. This would help to ensure that lawyers are able to use AI effectively and responsibly in the provision of legal services.

Oversight and monitoring: The Law Society of Ontario should establish oversight and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that lawyers are using AI in a manner that is consistent with the regulatory guidance and professional obligations. This could involve regular audits of law firms and legal organizations, as well as investigations into complaints related to the use of AI in the provision of legal services.

Public education: The Law Society of Ontario should engage in public education campaigns to emphasize the importance of lawyers as the bridge to AI in the provision of legal services. This would help to ensure that the public understands the role of lawyers in the use of AI in the provision of legal services and the importance of ensuring that lawyers remain involved in legal services that require the exercise of professional judgment and interpretation.

By advancing or supporting these initiatives, the Law Society of Ontario can ensure that lawyers remain the bridge to AI in the delivery of legal services, and that the use of AI in the provision of legal services is consistent with the Law Society's mandate to protect the public and increase access to justice. This approach can promote the importance of lawyers in the legal profession and ensure that AI is used to augment and enhance the services provided by lawyers, rather than replace them.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

If re-elected, there are several initiatives that I would advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions. Some of these initiatives are:

Comprehensive review of fees: The Law Society of Ontario should conduct a comprehensive review of its fee structure to ensure that fees are set at an appropriate level to fund key regulatory functions. This review should take into account the cost of providing regulatory services, the needs of the legal profession, and the ability of lawyers to pay fees.

Transparency and accountability: The Law Society of Ontario should be transparent about how fees are set and how they are used to fund regulatory functions, including staffing costs. This would help to ensure that lawyers understand the value of their fees and that the Law Society is accountable for how it uses those fees.

Alternative fee arrangements: The Law Society of Ontario should explore alternative fee arrangements that could reduce the burden of fees on lawyers. This could include fees factored to revenue/billings.

Continuous improvement: The Law Society of Ontario should continuously review its fee structure and regulatory functions to identify areas for improvement. This would help to ensure that fees are used effectively and efficiently to fund key regulatory functions.

By advancing or supporting these initiatives, the Law Society of Ontario can ensure that fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions. This approach can promote transparency and accountability, reduce the burden of fees on lawyers, and ensure that the Law Society is able to provide high-quality regulatory services to the legal profession and the public.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Continued Virtual ID verification. Continued virtual commissioning and taking of oaths. Continued electronic court filing and virtual attendances for non-contentious matters. Continued virtual execution of Wills & Powers of Attorney.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Digitalization of compliance processes: Digitalization of compliance processes can reduce the administrative burden of compliance by automating routine compliance tasks, such as reporting and record-keeping. This can be achieved through the use of technologies such as blockchain, smart contracts, and electronic signatures.

Data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI): Data analytics and AI can be used to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement. By analyzing large datasets, AI can detect patterns and anomalies that indicate non-compliance, and identify areas of potential risk. This can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of compliance monitoring and enforcement, and enable proactive measures to prevent non-compliance.

Risk-based compliance frameworks: Risk-based compliance frameworks can enable regulatory bodies to prioritize their compliance efforts and resources on the areas of highest risk. This involves identifying and assessing the risks that are most relevant to the legal profession and the public, and developing compliance programs that focus on those risks.

Collaborative compliance: Collaborative compliance involves the sharing of compliance resources, best practices, and expertise among regulatory bodies, legal organizations, and other stakeholders. This can help to reduce duplication of efforts, improve coordination, and enhance the effectiveness of compliance programs.

Continuous improvement: Continuous improvement of compliance programs involves ongoing evaluation and optimization of compliance processes and systems. This can be achieved through regular assessments of the effectiveness of compliance programs, the identification of areas for improvement, and the implementation of changes and improvements.

Education and awareness: Education and awareness programs can help to enhance compliance by promoting understanding of compliance requirements and best practices among lawyers and legal organizations. This can be achieved through the provision of training and resources on compliance obligations, as well as the development of outreach programs that promote awareness of compliance requirements and the consequences of non-compliance.

By adopting these strategies, the Law Society of Ontario can modernize compliance and enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. This can help to promote a culture of compliance among lawyers and legal organizations, and enhance public confidence in the legal profession.

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

1. entry (set standards, and license)
2. competence (set standards, monitor, educate, and correct)
3. access to justice (monitor, analyze, and set and influence policy)
4. information and guidance

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

1. evidence based policy design
2. continued adoption of only administrative burdens advancing the LSO’s mission (e.g. financial transactions forms) or shielding licensees from other regulators (e.g. anti-money laundering) who may act without regard to the objects of the Law Society Act

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

case-by-case assessment – no initiative, per se the danger is administrative burden becoming a barrier to entry and, thereby, reducing access to justice: where associated costs cannot be recovered from clients, exactly where the burden will land must be assessed – if recurring cost is created, any benefit may not be worth the cost

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

the current EDI CPD initiatives should be continued, assessed, and improved – current LSO initiatives (e.g. discrimination and harassment counsel) which help gather information should be preserved

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

the LSO should continue monitoring technological advances affecting the practice of law and the provision of legal services I would need better information to comment upon what functions, if any, should be performed without AI: as a starting point, only a licensee should deliver the service

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I would need better information to comment, but it would seem that improper use of AI legal product creates liability risk, and those who insure Ontario’s legal professionals must measure that risk; those assessments would feed into policy options to best manage the risk.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

the existing initiatives are adequate and should be continued

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support all of them except:

1. online licensee examinations
2. less than 10 months articles

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

stay the course: constant incremental improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

If elected, I have 3 goals to achieve as Bencher:

#1 To address the public’s Access to Justice problems in Family Law
#2 To preserve and protect the Law Society of Ontario’s Certified Specialist Program for the benefit of the public
#3 To protect the mental health of lawyers & paralegals and thereby the public interest

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

At present, the LSO has a huge budgetary problem. The LSO is over-spending to regulate and govern the profession. Indeed, the LSO is spending more than most professional regulators. I was the past Treasurer of 3 large organizations including Access For Parents & Children in Toronto, the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Ontario and Humewood House. I know how to read, manage and control budgets. I wish to make this a priority at the LSO so that we lower our budget and therefore avoid further expenditures and rate hikes to lawyers.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

We have a serious mental health crisis in the legal profession.

In “The Litigator and Mental Health”, past Chief Justice Strathy stated that success in the practice of law is correlated with depression and anxiety in lawyers.

His Honour stated:

“feelings of isolation, uncertainty and stress experienced by Black, Indigenous, racialized, LGBTQ2S counsel, women, those with different accents and internationally trained lawyers are too frequently viewed as an individual issue rather than understood as the result of subtle acts of exclusion.”

In my small law firm, I am doing my part to mentor and train my team of junior lawyers, paralegals and clerks to better manage the stress of practising law and to take their mental health seriously.

Lawyers and paralegals can no longer suffer from high levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse and other forms of psychopathology.

The LSO and its Benchers must prioritize the mental and physical health of its licensees, which is also in the public interest.

Protecting the mental health of licensees is protecting the public.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

#1 Benchers are influences and must demonstrate civility, tolerance and a commitment to EDI and stop the in-fighting over this

#2 The LSO must offer more CPD hours on EDI towards the annual licensee requirements that are free

#3 EDI must be communicated by the LSO to law students to establish a deep-seated and early commitment to diversity

 

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

AI, CHAT GPT and machine learning is here. We must understand it and then develop rules on how to incorporate it into our practices while resting the duty of care to clients upon lawyers. This will be a significant growth area that will require lawyers like me that are open to adoption and consumer protection.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

As I stated above, the LSO will not be able to regulate robots. But it will be able to regulate lawyers who use robots, no different than lawyers using computers, email, portals, social media, CHAT bots and many other IT advances that have improved access to justice and the internal efficiencies that the profession has experienced.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

We lawyers need a steady hand from a group of intelligent, balanced and collaborative Benchers that can examine the books, identify waste, review expenses and exercise good judgment. The time has come for this to be done by a group of fresh eyes.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

In litigation, Zoom and Caselines have been a game-changer. Virtual hearings and the use of IT to streamline litigation is a must. More can be done. I look forward to joining the Rules committees to expand the role of IT in litigation. I will listen to the experts in real estate to advance the use of IT in that area.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

We have a major problem to solve in family justice.

2 out of 3 separating spouses are not retaining lawyers. The courts are backlogged with self-represented litigants. The LSO is granting licences to paralegals to appear in court instead of lawyers. Canada’s Department of Justice is funding the School for Family Litigants so they can represent themselves on their own. Many rural areas have few or no lawyers, with no prospect of more coming soon.

Neither our federal government, provincial government nor Legal Aid has solved the problem.

The LSO and the Benchers must address this important public issue.

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Those set out in s. 4.2 of the Law Society Act. Facilitating access to justice. Maintaining standards of learning, professional competence, and professional conduct. All in service of the public interest.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

I’d want to consult widely in considering any regulatory requirement because the burdens may not be felt by all licensees equally.

I’d want to think about the long-term costs as well as the short-term costs. Superficial cost-cutting measures may appear attractive in the short-term but may actually increase costs in the long-term. Cutting funding for local law libraries is one such measure. It may reduce the expenses in the next LSO budget. But if the result is to deprive lawyers of an important informational resource, the competency of the bar will suffer and the public will be harmed. More discipline may be required to address these competency problems and that will be more costly for the profession in the long run.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

The specific initiatives that would be most helpful will be context dependent. I think it is more helpful to think of guiding principles at this stage (see answer to 2(a) above) and to formulate specific initiatives only after careful and extensive study of the specific regulation at issue and evidence of how it impacts licensees.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I would strengthen the connection between the LSO and equity groups like the Roundtable of Diversity Associations (RODA), AJEFO, Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers (FACL), Canadian Association of Black Lawyers (CABL), South Asian Bar Association (SABA), Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association (CMLA), etc.

As past president of FACL, I know how much work these organizations do to bridge the gaps between the legal profession and minority and racialized communities. The LSO should leverage their expertise and provide them with support. The LSO should consult with them regularly through mechanisms like the Equity Advisory Group (EAG). Rather than dismantling EAG (as some Full Stop members have suggested), the LSO should strengthen EAG and its ability to propose solutions on equality and cultural competence.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

AI has tremendous potential for access to justice. If emerging AI tools can review documents efficiently, to give one example, that could significantly reduce the cost of legal services.

At the same time, we have to guard against the fallacy of infallibility. ChatGPT still “hallucinates” and studies have shown that existing systemic biases can be baked into AI tools.

Beyond reliability issues, there are ethical concerns. Lawyers must ultimately be responsible for the legal services that are provided to the public because they are the ones who are governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The challenge is to strike the right balance—to leverage the power of AI tools to reduce the cost of legal services while ensuring that legal services remain subject to the standards of ethical and professional conduct that govern lawyers.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

The LSO already has a Regulatory Sandbox for Innovative Technological Legal Services. Instead of recreating the wheel, I’d want to use the Sandbox to assess potential AI services to ensure that we are properly balancing the competing principles discussed in 4(a) above.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I would carefully scrutinize the budget to ensure that the LSO is meeting its statutory mandate in a financially responsible manner and operating efficiently. In doing so, I would draw on my years of experience as a board member and president at FACL Ontario where I managed a budget of an active non-profit organization.

In addition, see my answer to 2(a) above.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

First, in answer to #6 above, I did not check off any boxes because I don't think that is a helpful way of approaching the issue. I note that the Certified Specialist Program is currently under review at the LSO. I am aware that concerns have been raised about the low uptake among certain bars and about the lack of an ongoing evaluative component. I am also aware that the program serves a valuable educational function for clients--in some areas more than others. I would explore ways of improving rather than eliminating the program and would guided by what's best for the public interest.

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

n response to 7(a), the pandemic forced all lawyers to become more comfortable with technology and its ability to improve the efficiency of our practices. That is a welcome development. At the same time, we need to be careful to balance efficiency with other concerns, such as the need to ensure robust compliance with the anti-money laundering regulations (to give just one example). Each initiative will have to be examined in light of the evidence with this balance in mind.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

See 7(a) above.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Job 1 is ensuring the public has access to competent and professional legal services. If we cannot do that, nothing else matters. As we strive to achieve that goal, we must honour our duties to advance justice and the rule of law, to facilitate access to justice, to protect the public interest and to be open, timely and efficient in our relationship with the public. But...

Our first challenge is the meanings of "competent" and "professional" and even "legal services" are evolving. We need to keep pace.

Our second challenge is the affordability of those legal services. Who cares how competent or professional a lawyer is if the public cannot afford him or her? The cost of legal services is the single biggest barrier to the actual justice system.

Perhaps both of these challenges can be met in part by the proper deployment of technology and AI. See #4 below.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

There are two things at work here - proportionate regulation v. costs to a law firm. They are related to my answer to #1 above concerning the cost of legal services.

It is simple - legal services are expensive because it is expensive to deliver the service. Running a law firm administratively - big or small - is work that is done AFTER the actual legal service has been provided. In small and even midsized firms that is work often done in the evening or on the weekend by the lawyer. That cost is passed on to consumers in our fees. The LSO should observe a Principle of Proportionality. If the LSO asks a lawyer or law firm to do anything, then there must be a direct connection to Job1 above - competent, professional and affordable legal services.

An example can be found in the recent $10.3 million hit the Compensation Fund took because of just three lawyers. That cost each lawyer in the province $89.00 in an increase in our fees. Focus on the problems that make legal services expensive.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

1. Undertake a review of existing regulatory requirements along with a survey of firms. Q.1. on the survey? How can we make your life easier without increasing the risk to the public?
2. Require application of the Principle of Proportionality to any proposed new regulatory requirement.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

The LSO dropped the ball on this important evolution in our work. (See my answer in #1 about the evolving meanings of words.) No one ever accelerated evolution. It is by nature incremental. For example, our judicial appointments evolved and improved incrementally. That led to a consideration of cultural competence. The same should have been true with respect to the LSO's attempts to evolve the meaning of a competent professional. Understanding barriers to equality and cultural competence should begin in law school and in paralegal/ law clerk programs and carry on as a component of regular CPD. The current backlash was entirely avoidable.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This is the biggest issue we face. Principles to distinguish functions? Right now, we don't know what we don't know. A legal service has traditionally meant the application of legal principles and legal judgment with regard to a circumstance or objective of a person. Is AI capable of exercising judgment? Where is the AI coming from? The cloud? Another country? This must be a priority before the profession is sideswiped by alleged "unauthorized practice of law by AI."

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

Establish a high priority task force made of key stakeholders to make short- and long-term recommendations for the profession on AI.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

Something does not add up: Lawyers want lower fees, yet in 2022 the LSO had a $16 million deficit. In 2023 the deficit is projected to be $8.3 million. The LSO wants to spend $20 million on a technology transformation. It was suggested in the recent Audit Report that the LSO may need "to borrow from a financial institution" to fund it. In the current situation I would oppose such borrowing.

But lawyers want lower fees....

We need to have an open and frank discussion about the meaning of "key regulatory functions."

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

All of them. We should survey the profession regularly on these initiatives and determine, among other things, if savings are being passed on to consumers.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

See my answer to 4 (a) and (b) above concerning technology. I don't think we have any idea about what is coming but a high priority task Force is a good start.

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The two core functions of the LSO are to regulate the profession and to ensure the competence of its members. Both of these functions are performed in the public interest.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

If elected as Bencher, my approach to balancing regulatory requirements and the resulting administrative burden against the public protection achieved would be guided by a number of principles including: the application of a risk-based approach, imposing the greatest controls on the riskiest activities; the use of evidence-based policy making relying on data as opposed to anecdote to determine what regulation was needed in what areas; the importance of consultation with the profession and public on issues affecting different practice areas and groups; and the understanding that regulations must adapt to changing conditions. Ultimately the goal should be regulations that protect the public while also allowing lawyers to go about their practices with the least burden as reasonable in the circumstances.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

If elected as Bencher, I would support active and meaningful consultation with the profession and members of the public to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve public protection without unnecessary administrative burden. In so doing, I would leverage the experience of lawyers who know what works and what doesn't, while taking into account the needs of the public. I would also support the active review of existing regulations with the purpose being to simplify those regulations and ensure they remain current, effective and minimally burdensome.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

My approach to EDI in my current role of President of ALOC has been to create space for equity-deserving folks to tell us what they need, and then to support them and champion their initiatives. I have also relied on expert assistance. I’ve approached equity this way because I don’t pretend to have the answers or lived experience to come up with solutions without that engagement. This approach has led to material and meaningful change.

My approach, if elected Bencher would be similar. I would support continuing engagement with the profession and public. I would also support continuing programs including the discrimination and harassment counsel at the LSO as well as the continuation of EDI CPD requirements. These, among other initiatives, came about as a result of consultation with the profession. I would also support active engagement with legal associations to build competency.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

In order to ensure that the public is protected, I would start my analysis from the position that legal services must be provided by lawyers and that AI is a tool that lawyers can potentially use to assist them in providing legal services. Lawyers are bound by professional regulations, have insurance and are accountable. Legal services should be provided by lawyers who can exercise good judgement, ensure that ethics are applied and who can enter into a solicitor-client relationship with the requisite obligations and confidentiality that relationship demands. Again, AI can be a tool used by lawyers to assist them in their practice, but should not be the provider of legal services absent lawyer supervision and control.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

If elected Bencher I would support the establishment of a working group made up of experts and lawyers to consider the issue and to establish regulations which demarcate the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services. I would ensure that the working group consult with the public as well.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

If elected, I would ensure that the LSO is an efficient and transparent regulator. I would support a critical review of the LSO budget to find savings and efficiencies which do not affect its ability to perform its regulatory function. This is the approach I have taken at ALOC - continually looking for ways to save money while continuing to deliver a high level of service. I would also support a review of whether lawyers who are not practicing law should be obligated to pay fees. A lawyer who is ill and who cannot practice, should not be required to pay high fees simply to maintain their license. I would also be interested in a jurisdictional review of how other legal regulators structure their fees and whether alternative models make more sense than the model currently used.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

The pandemic led to significant change in the way lawyers work and where. Many of these changes, including the increased use of virtual technologies, have been positive and should remain in place. I support for example the continued application of virtual client verification though I think enhancements should be considered to ensure proper controls are in place. Similarly, the enhanced use of teams and zoom for CPD should remain. I do not think though that licensing exams should be conducted online. The LSO should also move back to printing licensing materials for students.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

We should not be afraid of change or of asking ourselves if there is a better way to do the things we are currently doing. Technology presents an opportunity to modernize systems and procedures in a way that wasn't previously possible. We should leverage these technologies to increase efficiencies, lower costs and reduce administrative burden. We should also reduce bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. The process for example to get an LSO identity card should be made easier than it is currently - an example of bureaucracy that doesn't make any sense and which causes undue frustration.

I want to end this survey by thanking the OBA for conducting it and thanking those of you who have taken the time to read these responses.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Discipline and bar exams

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Common sense. The LSO’s habit is to adopt the buz-word of the day. For example, “right-touch” has been thrown around. What’s does that mean? More? Less? These sort of obfuscations are used to justify more regulatory burdens on small-solo practitioners, not less.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

We don’t need anymore regulations. We could reduce them, for example, we can eliminate sections of the annual report that ask personal questions about one’s sexual preferences that have nothing to do with the practice of law.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Please give me an example of one barrier to equality? I don’t consider educational requirements a barrier. They are necessary for public protection. As for cultural competence, I agree, I think we are not teaching the basic principles of our common law traditions. Clients don’t care what their lawyer’s skin colour is. Clients care about whether you can keep them out of jail, get custody of their kids, or complete their real estate deal.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

AI is not our enemy, but our friend. We should allow each lawyer to decide how that lawyer wants to use AI.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I think we should be promoting the benefits that lawyers bring to the table for clients.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

We should hire a third party auditor as suggested at the February 2023 Convocation, but voted down by the Good Governance Coalition.

I would put a freeze on employee bonuses.

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

All of them

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Updating LSO hardware and software to accommodate new initiatives. We can’t modernize compliance before doing that.

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Regulation of competence and integrity of licensees in the public interest.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Law Society decisions must be evidence based, requiring prudence on what results are being sought, relative to an assessment the burden imposed. That requires serious due diligence on either side of the equation, and judgment on reaching decisions in the public interest. We have seen too often instances of advancing particular policy objectives on faulty evidence, or methodological errors, at significant cost, leading to the abandonment of the particular proposal or the reversal of the policy decision at a later date.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Any proposal requires a review of objectives, an assessment of needs v. wants, and a fair expectation of costs. I have proposed that any policy proposal come with a cost expectation from staff, whether on licensees or as part of the LSO budget prior to implementation. Following any implementation, a review of those objectives and costs would be undertaken within 3 and 5 year intervals, at a minimum.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

This question includes several premises or preconceptions which are themselves misleading. This format does not allow for a proper assessment of the studies on which such conclusions are drawn. We have discovered many flaws in the methodology of studies on which prior decisions were made.

We stand for equality of opportunity, as opposed to equity of outcome. The latter incurs a host of propositions which are counter to merit - such as quotas, re-education demands, and unfair treatment. We should work to reduce race based disparities, by working to maintain high standards of competence and integrity. Serving the people of Ontario requires nothing less.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

The question engages in a broad hypothetical inquiry on the types of legal services that should be limited to lawyers or paralegals (not included in your question). Any assessment would be based on whether the public is served by a limited or broad variety of options, and what limitations may be needed to assure consistent quality of services.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

The same obligations of competence and integrity would apply. The reality is that the advance of AI initiatives are fast approaching, and are not limited by provincial or national borders. AI will pose a challenge to all regulators to meet the demands of serving and protecting the public. We are already seeing some hesitation from AI developers of problems unique to their industry. A close collaboration will be required to make the best evidence based decisions.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

The Law Society has already taken measures to adapt to technological demands, with the implementation of technical upgrades, some of which will be rolled out in the near future. We have also seen that dues reached an apex in 2019, and can be lowered with some effort at restraint. We also work in a real time environment affected by global pressures of inflation and economic uncertainty. Having said all of the above, I believe further cost savings can be found, without adversely affecting our regulatory obligations. A chunk of those savings will come about by reducing the ideological impulses of the LSO in favour of a neutral regulator.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I favour continuation of virtual client verification, with upgrades as necessary. We will need to re-assess the anti-money laundering demands adopted in the past year, as it may be a cause for improper questioning of our own clients in breach of human rights obligations.

I favour continued use of Caselines in litigation files.

I favour online registration of materials, and/or issuance of pleadings and other court filings. That has proven efficient rather than requiring in-person attendances.

I favour an enhanced promotion of case conferences and pre-trial matters through virtual hearings where possible. Having said that, there is often a need for in-person trials, as virtual examinations may not be sufficient in our system to achieve justice.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

I am open to new ideas, to consider new options that may reduce burdens and enhance access to justice. Adoption of technological enhancements was needed in our system, and many changes have been achieved in a relatively short timeframe. But we have also learned from our mistakes. It will be a continuing process. We need to work with our partners in the justice system to find solutions to areas where improvements are needed. I am particularly mindful of the delays in our entry level courts, where those of modest means need to find a method to a fair result in a short timeframe, often without legal representation. The LSO can be a bridge of partners in the system to reach those goals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The LSO mandate to ensuring that the legal profession is regulated in the public interest requires it to wear several hats. Professional discipline is obviously well within its jurisdiction but it is in those areas where it assists members in avoiding such proceedings that the LSO plays its most vital role. To that end, high-quality education & the setting of reasonable professional standards is where the LSO plays its most active and important function.

The LSO also has a vital role to play in the area of access to justice. Permitting paralegals to function in areas where lawyers have proven ineffective in addressing Ontario's legal needs has been a welcome development in recent years. Now, with the advent of artificial intelligence engines primed to tackle the legal space, it is vital that such professionals, in tandem with lawyers, continue such innovation in order to provide meaningful and affordable representation to Ontarians such that they turn to our membership to tackle their litigious and solicitor based legal needs.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

I have run large, small and solo practices. Their needs and regulatory requirements are vastly different. I have always strongly felt that a regulatory body that adopted regulations to suit the firm size would be an optimal way of reducing administrative burdens and would bring better checks and balances to the overall administration (and burden) of such oversight.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I currently practice in the real estate space. Let make share two examples of refined regulatory enforcement in that area that would benefit our profession.

1. 1. I am presently a sole practitioner. I alone have access to my trust account. In spite of this, every time I move money from my trust to general account I need to fill out form 9D precluding me from using my bank app to simply transfer such money. There is good reason for the 9D. It allows you to track who moved what money for tracing purposes but, for a solo like me, it makes ZERO sense. I know who moved the money as I am the only one with that access. Removing the 9D requirement for solo practitioners would make our lives far easier and would not, in any way, have deleterious effect on public protection.
2. Previously, I grew a small consumer based law firm into a large one. Speaking from experience, the existing minimal trust reconciliation requirements of once a month make sense for a small/medium firm but make no sense for a large one dealing with volume based transactions. In a true volume based shop, in the time a month has past, a lot can happen to trust funds if a problem creeps up. Firms of over 50 conveyance transactions a week should be required to do weekly, not monthly, reconciliations. Good firms already do weekly (if not daily) reconciliations. The others, as a matter of good practice, simply should. This type of attenuation is a necessity for their every firm's benefit as much as the public who we serve.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

In tech, there is a concept called the "long tail". The long tail stands for the idea that, if you aggregate enough people, eventually it makes sense to service certain niche clusters in a way that, in the absence of such aggregation, would not have been profitable in the past. Technology has extended the long tail to legal services and to see that in action, consider my area of practice: Real Estate conveyance. Virtual signings and lock-box delivery of keys has meant that lawyers in highly competitive and clustered areas like the GTA can finally service Northern Ontario with the same pricing and service quality as in the downtown condo market. Pricing is now competitive in that area and service options plentiful.

Technology has the ability to continue to breakdown barriers in other areas of legal practice. Wills, Notarial Services and other services can continue to innovate and find virtual solutions that permit Ontarians to broadly access legal services regardless of where they are located. I intend to push hard to see those regulatory changes, once approved by our working groups, take effect.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

There is no way to fight technology - it is here and AI is real. AI can provide meaningful tools to Ontarians and the legal profession and we, along with every other professional designation, need to consider and accept that reality.

Notwithstanding the above presupposition, lawyers are in an enviable position. Particularly with respect to adversarial advocacy, AI is not the boon it appears to be on first glance. Successful negotiation is found in the nuance and an understanding of human emotion and motivation - things AI is not proficient in. Put another way, two AI advocates could have the most rational and intelligent discussion between them but that would not resolve 90% of adversarial disputes that involve human emotion like pride, historical memory etc.

When it comes to solicitor-based work, AI does present a challenge but, similar to advocacy, there is value in understanding human nuance that makes a lawyer's oversight a vital component of the use of such software. Consider my field of real estate conveyance. We have software that generates all of the documents required to perform a real estate transaction. If that was the sole role of a legal professional, we would be out of work tomorrow. The role of the lawyer in a real estate transaction, quite apart from the vital role of handling client expectations, is to guide a client through difficult and even adversarial circumstance.

Based on the above, AI's role in law is similar to our conveyance software. It can construct and create templates and even generate responses to queries. The lawyer's role, however, remains what it always has been. A lawyer's job is to adapt base outputs to suit the nuance of every situation leading to a successful outcome for all involved.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

For the reasons I just set out, I see AI functions and lawyer services as hugely different things. AI cannot be allowed to provide insured legal services to the public. It can generate sophisticated documentation for all which documentation can be sold to the public as templated form-based software does presently (see lawdepot.ca).

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

With respect, this is a difficult question to answer as a first-time bencher. It requires a detailed and nuanced analysis of the existing budget which I have not performed and it is far better that I therefore provide a high level response which, I admit, lacks the nuance that comes from having previously explored the LSO's line-by-line budgetary items.

High level then, I will let my record speak for itself. I have proven diligent at cost cutting within large organizations in a manner that minimally affects core functions. It is my experience that there is almost always a way to spend money more efficiently. I am adept at asking "why" and questioning existing dogmas. I look forward to showing how I employ that skill set when elected.

Similar to my answer above, proper budgeting requires an analysis of trade-offs and requires a nuanced understanding of budgetary line items. As a first time Bencher, I do not feel it prudent to answer this question in the absence of that same experience which will present itself only once elected.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes. All of them. In full disclosure, I acted as a registered government lobbyist to push virtual commissioning through the Ontario legislature. It is vital that virtual client verification continue though, per the below answer, there are ways to modernize the virtual process for the benefit of all.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

There is now software and large entities that are available to verify virtual client identities. That identification comes at a cost (usually about $25 or so) but, I believe that the savings of virtual practice FAR exceed that cost which, I see, as the basic cost of competence for virtual practitioners.

Now that verification systems exist, I am wholly in favour of the LSO mandating that such third party verification systems be employed when conducting a legal transaction.

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The LSO performs a wide range of crucial functions to ensure the effective regulation of lawyers and paralegals in the public interest. I consider the following activities to be the most important:

1. Governance and Administration
   • Setting strategic priorities
   • Establishing and updating policies and procedures as required
   • Ensuring transparency, accountability, and good governance practices in the management of the LSO
2. Licensing and Regulation of Lawyers and Paralegals
   • Administering the licensing process and licensing examinations
   • Setting continuing professional development requirements
   • Setting rules of professional conduct
   • Conducting investigations, hearings, and disciplinary proceedings
   • Taking disciplinary action when necessary
3. Professional Development
   • Providing professional development resources
   • Providing practice management tools and support
   • Providing guidance on ethical issues
   • Providing mentorship and networking opportunities
4. Advocacy and Policy Development
   • Advocating for the interests of the legal profession and the public
   • Advocating for improvements in the justice system to enhance access to justice
   • Engaging in policy development and law reform initiatives
5. Public Legal Education and Outreach
   • Providing information, resources, and education to the public
   • Promoting public awareness of the role and responsibilities of lawyers and paralegals
   • Engaging in dialogue, consultation, and collaboration with diverse stakeholders to ensure that the regulatory functions of the LSO align with the needs and expectations of the public

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

By adhering to the following three principles, a balance can be struck between safeguarding the public and minimizing undue administrative burden on lawyers and legal workplaces:

• Risk-based Approach: Regulatory requirements should be based on careful consideration of the risks involved, keeping in mind the potential impact on the public and the legal profession.
• Proportionality: Regulatory requirements should be proportionate to the level of risk and harm identified. They should not be overly burdensome or onerous. Thus, something considered high-risk should be subject to stricter regulatory requirements than something that carries a lower risk.
• Evidence-Based Decision-Making: Regulatory requirements should be based on sound evidence and data. They should be supported by evidence of their effectiveness in achieving the intended public protection goals.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Here are a few initiatives that I will advance and support as a bencher to ensure regulations are tailored to achieve public protection goals without unnecessary administrative burdens:

• Conduct thorough risk assessments to identify areas that pose the highest risks to the public and craft regulatory requirements accordingly.
• Exempt low-risk activities from certain regulatory requirements or implement simplified requirements that are proportionate to the level of risk involved.
• Conduct regulatory impact assessments to evaluate the potential administrative burden of proposed requirements on lawyers and legal workplaces.
• Create regulatory sandboxes or pilot programs to facilitate testing and experimentation with new approaches to regulation in a controlled environment.
• Conduct periodic reviews of existing regulations to remove redundant or unnecessary regulatory requirements.
• Engage in meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including lawyers, legal workplaces, members of the public, and other relevant parties, to gather feedback on regulatory requirements and encourage buy-in.
• Offer training programs, guidance materials, and technical assistance to lawyers and legal workplaces to facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements and reduce administrative burdens.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I will advance and support the following initiatives to promote cultural competence and understanding of barriers to equality within our profession:

• Proactive outreach and engagement with underrepresented communities, including Indigenous communities, racialized communities, LGBTQ2S+ communities, persons with disabilities, francophone linguistic minority communities, and other marginalized groups.
• Establishment of mentorship and sponsorship programs that connect legal professionals from underrepresented communities with experienced practitioners who can provide guidance, support, and opportunities for professional growth and leadership development.
• Training and educational programs in cultural competence, unconscious bias, and systemic barriers that may impact representation in the legal profession.
• Provision of tools to mitigate bias in decision-making processes, including hiring, promotions, file allocation, assignments, client interactions, and business development.
• Collaboration with equity-seeking organizations and other stakeholders through joint initiatives, partnerships, educational campaigns, and knowledge-sharing to leverage expertise and resources for greater impact.
• Collection and analysis of data on representation within the legal profession to (i) identify trends and gaps, and (ii) ensure that initiatives aimed at promoting cultural competence and addressing barriers to equality are evidence-based and effective.
• Advocacy in support of policies and initiatives that address access to justice issues faced by underrepresented communities, including those related to discrimination, systemic bias, poverty, and other barriers.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

In determining which tasks can be performed by artificial intelligence (AI) as opposed to those that require a human lawyer, important principles to consider include professional competence, human judgment, ethics and professional responsibility, client communication and counselling, legal accountability and liability, complexity, and protection of the public interest.

To illustrate, lawyers should provide the following types of legal services:

• Legal services that require the exercise of human judgment, critical thinking, and reasoning, such as assessing legal risks, evaluating evidence, and developing legal arguments.
• Legal services that require empathy, the human touch, or a nuanced understanding of the client's needs, emotions, and concerns, including advocacy, negotiation, counselling, and client communication.
• Legal services that involve ethical considerations, such as conflicts of interest, confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and the duty of loyalty.
• Legal services that involve legal accountability, liability, and responsibility, such as providing legal opinions, legal advice, legal representation, and handling trust accounts.
• Sensitive legal matters that are essential to protect the public interest, such as criminal defence, immigration, and human rights.
• Complex legal matters that require skills, experience, and legal expertise, such as litigation, negotiation, legal analysis, interpretation, strategy, and court representation.
• Legal services that require professional competence and ongoing legal education, such as legal research, analysis, and statutory interpretation.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

If elected, I will focus on advancing and supporting the following initiatives:

• Development of regulations or guidelines governing the use of AI in the legal profession, with a particular emphasis on data privacy, fairness, transparency, bias mitigation, accountability, and human oversight.
• Implementation of educational programs and practice resources on AI-related topics, including permissible and non-permissible uses of AI in the legal profession, and ethical considerations associated with its use.
• Establishment of a robust monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the regulations or guidelines, including periodic audits, inspections, and assessments of AI systems and practices used by legal practitioners and law firms.
• Collaboration and engagement with various stakeholders, such as legal practitioners, legal technology providers, and legal academia, to promote a multi-disciplinary approach in addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with AI in the legal profession.
• Public awareness campaigns to educate the public about the use of AI in the legal profession, including its benefits, limitations, and ethical considerations.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

If elected, I will actively pursue the following initiatives:

• Review and align fees associated with key regulatory functions, such as licensing, compliance, enforcement, and administration, based on a thorough cost analysis.
• Implementation of cost-effectiveness measures within the LSO to streamline operations, reduce unnecessary expenses, and optimize resource allocation.
• Identification and diversification of alternative funding sources for the LSO beyond licensing fees to supplement revenue and ensure adequate funding for key regulatory functions.
• Establishment of a differential fee structure based on factors such as practice area, firm size, or revenue to ensure fees are proportionate to the resources required to regulate different segments of the legal profession.
• Consultation and dialogue with members of the legal profession and other stakeholders to gather feedback and input on the appropriate level of fees.
• Establishment of fee waivers or discounts based on financial need to ensure that fees remain affordable and accessible to all members of the legal profession.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

• Virtual Client Verification: The use of technology and online tools to verify the identity of clients has reduced administrative burdens, increased efficiency, and improved access to legal services.
• Online Continuing Professional Development (CPD): The expanded use of online platforms for delivering CPD programs and networking events has increased accessibility to professional development opportunities, particularly for lawyers in remote or underserved areas.
• Remote Hearings and Mediations: The use of virtual platforms to conduct remote hearings and mediations has improved access to justice, reduced costs associated with travel and accommodation, and increased efficiency in dispute resolution processes.
• Remote Notarization and Commissioning: Remote notarization and commissioning of documents through videoconferencing has improved access to legal services, reduced travel costs, and increased efficiencies, particularly for sole practitioners.
• Digital Court Filings and Case Management: This has allowed for remote access to court services and reduced the need for in-person interactions while ensuring compliance with court rules and procedures.
• Virtual LSO Audits and Practice Reviews: Virtual audits and practice reviews offer several benefits, including reduced travel costs, increased efficiencies, and improved accessibility for law firms and legal practitioners in remote locations.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

 

• Use of AI and data analytics to automate compliance monitoring, risk assessment, and regulatory reporting.
• Use of blockchain technology to enhance trust and transparency in legal transactions and compliance processes.
• Development and implementation of online compliance training and education programs for legal professionals and legal workplaces that are easily accessible and user-friendly.
• Establishment of regulatory sandboxes where legal professionals can test innovative compliance solutions in a safe and supervised environment.

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Regulation of competence and integrity of licensees to ensure they serve the public interest. The LSO needs to serve as a neutral regulator. The LSO is a platform that provides the basis for lawyers to practice law and serve their clients.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Decisions from the LSO must be evidence based. That requires attention to detail and a removal of any ideological lens applied to the issue.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

1. Transparency of where and how much money the LSO is spending on activities. This should be available to all benchers .
2. Reduction of spending in cases where the cause is social engineering. We should spend on regulation not over-regulation via compelled speech initiatives. We saw this in the past. How much did that 2014 Stratcom report cost? There are other such initiatives at the LSO that have been proposed as policy but have not been fully implemented yet. I support removing those and focusing on the core mandate of the LSO (see answer #1).

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

I support the right of all interested people to go to law school and get called to the bar. Those new lawyers can then work on whatever "barriers to equality" and "cultural competence" issues they want to. It is not up to the LSO to do more than its mandate as a neutral regulator. Again, see Answer #1.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This question will take a disertation-length answer to do it justice. In short: Law is to "practiced" in the province by those with LSO licenses. Any and all tools should be used by lawyers to assist the public. Anything less is not legal advice.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

See answer 4(a)

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

We should remove the focus from ideological projects and focus on the core mandate of the LSO (neutral regulator, competence of lawyers - again, see answer to #1). I would keep elements like inflation in mind. Retooling the LSO from a financial perspective should be surgical in approach. If we do that the "patient" will live and be healthy.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

1. Online hearings, in some circumstances, have proven to be a great way to reduce transportation time, save on carbon emissions and so play a role in useful "green" initiatives.
2. An online central electronic depository of wills and POAs.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Because technology is what will modernize compliance and because it is difficult to see or predict the shape that will take, my recommendation is that the LSO be flexible and operate with an open mind in navigating this issue. Consultations with those lawyers and other businesses already forging these paths will go some way to learning and avoiding mistakes. Money spent on that would provide worthy results by way of sensible practice rules.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The LSO’s most important activities are those that (1) ensure professional competency; (2) shield the public from professional misconduct; and (3) support access to justice. This includes assessing licensing requirements and CPD requirements to ensure they are addressing core practice competencies, addressing allegations of misconduct in a serious but procedurally fair manner, and supporting initiatives that allow for more accessible legal services for low-income Ontarians. This also means supporting the well-being of lawyers so that they are empowered to act ethically and competently, and to support professional retention.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The pandemic has taught us that processes can be streamlined, forms can be shorter, and tasks can be carried out virtually. The LSO must always ask whether a particular requirement is necessary, and whether it can be carried out in a more efficient manner. Any analysis should take into account (1) the incidence rate of actual harm; (2) the magnitude of actual and potential harm; (3) the risks to the reputation of the profession; and (4) the overall administrative burden on the LSO and individual lawyers. The occurrence or risk of harm cannot always bet determined to outweigh the actual administrative burden in undertaking such a proportionality analysis.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

In all policy discussions, the LSO should be ensuring that there is time dedicated to debating the proportionality of the desired outcome to the administrative burden on lawyers. There must also be a one-time assessment of the administrative burdens of all regulations, with a view to decreasing these burdens, followed by ongoing reassessments as practical realities change and technology develops.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Discrimination leads to inefficiency and erodes access to justice. One step is ensuring that foreign-trained lawyers who are competent to practise law in Ontario do not meet any unnecessary roadblocks to licensing. Another step is ensuring that diversity issues are approached with proven methods of discrimination reduction, such as anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

To ensure that the provision of legal services continues to be appropriately regulated in Ontario, any person offering such services, including corporate entities, must be licensed within Ontario. This includes the provision and receipt of legal advice and representation at legal proceedings. To the extent these services are offered by individuals (including through AI platforms) not licensed to practise law within Ontario, they must not be allowed. We must also ensure that lawyers are using these technologies responsibly and not assigning their fundamental duties to a computer program. The output of a machine must be supervised as strictly as, if not more strictly than, the work product of human non-licensees.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

AI must be seen as a tool that, when wielded appropriately by lawyers, can enhance access to justice by reducing practice costs and the associated administrative burdens. The LSO must continue to assess what further work must be done by committees and task forces to continually assess novel AI-based technologies. This means asking questions like whether or not we are comfortable with AI creating summaries of documents or creating a first draft of a document for a lawyer’s review. It also means assessing the extent of customization available within the programming to ensure that the LSO’s competency requirements are met.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

Ultimately, all LSO initiatives that do not further the aims of ensuring professional competence, professional conduct, and access to justice, should be regularly reviewed by either a cost-saving committee or a special task force on cost-saving. Assessing these initiatives with the specific purpose of reducing or maintaining fee levels would ensure that appropriate attention is paid to the cost burden on licensees.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support all initiatives that streamline administrative processes including client verification, commissioning affidavits, and other tasks that can be done better, or more efficiently, by embracing technology.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

There must be an ongoing modernization committee to ensure that all technological developments, including past developments that have not yet been implemented, and novel technologies that continue to emerge, are considered for implementation in the LSO’s compliance procedures. Modernization can also allow for the reduction of administrative burdens such as through standardized online forms and standard (free) practice software.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

Redgulating the legal professions in the public interest with input from its members, and with a view to this being a time of rapid change where the regulator needs to adapt to that change.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

I would like to read a well prepared fulsome report as to best practices in other jurisdictions. The LSO should protect the public without the regulations being overly burdensome--if they are too burdensome, people won't comply. The origin of these rules comes from international agreements to combat money laundering and tax evasion--there are also new rules that put burdens on corporations as well as on lawyers. It will be exceedingly difficult to reverse the main thrust of these rules.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

Benchers are directors on the LSO's governing board. Respectfully, this question seems more appropriate for someone running for political office with a political platform. Board members has to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the organization and in doing so they must meet the standard of care--the latter means listening to management and to each other with an open mind, and then engaging in respectful and civil debate. If elected, it would be wrong to have fettered my discretion in advance with an answer on a survey without having gone through that process.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Same answer.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

This is going to be a critical emerging issue. However, my answer is again the same.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

Same answer.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

My answer is again the same but I would add that it would be important to have data comparisons to other jurisdictions to assess if the LSO fees are "market."

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I am surprised that the gist of these questions asks candidates to have a political platform that fetters their discretion in advance, without having heard pros and cons and engaging in respectful discussion and debate--a good board does that and good board members haven't made their minds up in advance. This is not the legislature and benchers are not MP's with a party platform.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

Same answer. (This also explains why I didn't check any box for the certified specialist program--I would want to do my job and perform the required due diligence including listening to others.)

 

 

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The most important role of the LSO is to ensure the competency of the licencees. This is foundational to protecting the public, and to fulfilling the statutory function of maintaining and advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law. Without competent licensees who understand their integral role in providing access to justice for the public, and protecting the public interest in holding government powers accountable, the democratic system crumbles.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

Part of the function of the LSO is to ensure that licensees comply with legislative/regulatory requirements. I appreciate that when new requirements are imposed by government entities, they can feel oppressive and burdensome. There are two obvious ways that the LSO can help.

The first is to be actively engaged with the legislators when new regulations are being proposed to ensure that they are reasonably proportionate to the harm that the regulation is meant to address. The second is to help licensees understand the purpose and reasoning for the regulations and provide guidance on how to comply. Practice management tips and training can be particularly helpful.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I'm not sure that this question can be answered in a vacuum. The responses of the LSO to legislated regulatory changes will need to be tailored to each particular situation, but should all involve engaged discussions with the legislator.

If the question was meant to be directed to the Law Society's own regulation of its licensees, then I believe that broad consultation is an important tool that the LSO can use to great effect to ensure that it is hearing from licensees of all walks who are affected by proposed changes.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Maintaining compulsory EDI CPD is a start to this very difficult issue. But not all EDI programs are created equally. I would suggest that the LSO CPD should create more accessible and free EDI CPD training that is of high quality.

In AB, the LSA made taking The Path mandatory EDI training. The Path is excellent training, and a step on the path to Indigenous reconciliation. I am not sure if the LSO should mandate taking the program, but it could make it more transparently available for licensees to access. Similarly, many organizations, such as universities require service providers to complete accessibility training. Including this training as qualifying for EDI CPD would be helpful. This is all superficial, I appreciate. But given what we are seeing in the general rhetoric and commentary, education is a necessary first step. There are too many people who deny these barriers even exist. Some objective demonstrations might help get to the root of the problem.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

The value of AI is its speed and relative efficacy in processing data and providing answers from that data. That can be harnessed to good effect to assist with tasks that do not require in-depth legal analysis that has to take into account the client's particular needs, desires, motivations and circumstances.

Accordingly, AI will be very beneficial for document processing.

It will revolutionize e-discovery, as it will be able to review and synthesize documents in a fraction of the time that a lawyer requires. For now, I would limit AI's roles in the practice to these sorts of assistive roles.

However, technology is changing so rapidly that the profession will have to make this issue a super-priority to ensure that technology providers are not overstepping into areas of legal practice that actually require reasoned judgment and personal understanding of clients' complex needs.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I am not sufficiently versed in this area to provide an opinion as I am unfamiliar with what initiatives are being proposed. This will require careful review of each proposal and a balancing of the need to provide access to justice, particularly in underserviced areas, with the need for protection of the public.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I believe in careful and conservative fiscal management.

I do believe that the LSO is also very budget conscience, and that prior Convocations have worked hard to keep fees at a reasonable level.

We cannot simply demand a reduction in fees blindly, but licensees are entitled to have the Benchers carefully review all line items to make sure that they are appropriate. Staff need to provide responsive answers to these questions.

I think the profession might benefit from more transparency about how fees are spent, and why the costs are considered appropriate.

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

For # 6 below, it is not a yes or no answer. The issue is under review and without knowing all the pros and cons of continuing the designation I cannot answer this.

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

Yes, all of the advances that have been made in leveraging technology should be continued, so long as they have not demonstrably failed to protect the public. I am unaware of any that fit that description. The profession needs to embrace technological changes or risk becoming redundant.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

TBD.

1. What do you consider to be the most important activities of the LSO?

The LSO was created to regulate the profession to protect the public interest. This is stated in section 4.2 of the Law Society Act. This mandate includes facilitating access to justice and ensuring the competency of its licensees.

2. The LSO By-Laws and Rules of Professional Conduct have requirements and restrictions (eg. the anti-money laundering regime requirements) that have a public protection goal but also add to the regulatory burden of lawyers and law firms, thereby increasing the costs of providing legal services.

(a) What principles would you use to ensure regulatory requirements and resulting administrative burden were necessary for, and proportionate to, the public protection achieved?

The LSO is responsible for regulating the profession for the public interest. However, it is also important that the benefit to the public of regulatory requirements justifies the costs of such regulation. In order to maintain proportionality between the burden to the LSO and the level of benefit to the public, we should ensure that the initiatives the LSO undertake are effective and accomplish what they were designed to accomplish.

(b) What specific initiatives would you advance or support in order to ensure regulations were tailored to achieve the public protection goal without unnecessary administrative burden?

I would support the monitoring and transparent reporting of how different regulatory practices impact the public interest, licensees, and the LSO’s administrative burden.

3. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure the profession has the understanding of barriers to equality and the cultural competence necessary to effectively serve the people of our diverse province?

Though helping licensees with cultural competence is important and should be continued, I believe the Law Society can do more to ensure that we effectively serve people from diverse backgrounds.

I believe the LSO should ensure that its lawyers and paralegals are as diverse as the public they serve. To that end, I would support initiatives that begin early, such as those that encourage people from all backgrounds to enroll in law school and paralegal school. As an example, one could look to the Black Future Lawyers program at the University of Toronto, which supports and offers engagement opportunities to Black undergraduate students who are interested in going to law school.

4. Legal Technology and Lawyers

(a) In order to ensure the public is protected, what principles would you use to distinguish functions that can be performed by AI versus legal services that must be performed by a lawyer?

I believe that technology and AI are invaluable resources that lawyers should not shy away from. While AI can be useful to lawyers as a tool in their toolbelt, the same way that email or docketing software is just one tool in our toolbelt, many functions of a lawyer or paralegal cannot be replaced by AI. Client-facing tasks, for example, still require a human to perform. The same can be said for negotiating a settlement or mediating a dispute, or brainstorming big-picture strategies in an advisory role. This is because to be performed well, these functions require a human to understand and navigate the complex emotions that motivate a person’s decisions and instructions.

(b) If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support in order to enforce the distinction between AI functions and lawyer services?

I would support initiatives that help lawyers and paralegals strengthen their mastery in those areas mentioned above that only humans can perform. For example, emotional intelligence is a huge component of our jobs. The most effective lawyers will not only have a thorough understanding of the law, but also of the emotions and motivations of their clients and other stakeholders.

I would like the LSO to support the development and refinement of these crucial skills that only lawyers and paralegals can perform.

5. If elected, what initiatives would you advance or support to ensure fees are at an appropriate level without underfunding key regulatory functions?

I would support the following initiatives:

• Professional Competency: Since COVID, Caselines and presentations before the Court with Zoom require refinement and, in some circumstances, new training for those who require it and thereby encourage the Law Society to put mechanisms in place to ensure, lawyers and paralegal receive effective and efficient training as needed.
• Resources for professional development and health: The Law Society should continue to assist lawyers and paralegals in their professional and personal development. To that end, extra resources for that support should be increased as needed.
• Transparency for the public and the profession: I am committed to ensuring that the Law Society conducts its affairs with transparency for the public and the profession, including Law Society activities and policies and industry related matters, including salaries, firm composition and career prospects.

   

6. Do you support the continuation of the Certified Specialist Program in the following practice areas (check all that you support)

7. A number of modern approaches to compliance were developed during the pandemic (eg. virtual client verification).

(a) Do you support continued application of these initiatives? Which ones?

I support the continued application of initiatives such as virtual client verification. Such initiatives have streamlined processes that used to take a lot more time. In doing so, they’ve made it easier for us to provide timely, cost-effective service for our clients.

(b) What are your ideas for modernizing compliance?

It is unclear what compliance this question refers to. With respect to virtual client verification, the LSO should ensure that lawyers, paralegals, and staff are adequately trained in using automated processes to verify clients’ identifications, and are educated about potential red flags of fraud or other illegal activities by reading resources such as those provided on the LSO website “Practice Supports & Resources” webpage. The same principles should apply in the use of other digitalized or automated compliance mechanisms. >