Forced Change: Get With It or Get Left Behind

I first started working around real estate law and conveyancing in 2009.  At that time, the Land Title Office had been accepting electronic filing (e-filing) documents for a number of years, which had replaced the process before, physically land filing all documents at the appropriate registry.  There were a number of lawyers when I started who refused to e-file.  They were used to land filing.  I couldn’t understand it.  For a real estate office in North Vancouver to help someone buy a house in Kamloops, you could hit “submit” from your office or you could literally pay someone to go to the Kamloops registry and stand in line to file the application in person.  It seems like a pretty easy decision which one of those is more conducive to making money and not wasting time. But nevertheless, change is hard. A few years after that, around 2013, land filing became obsolete, and some lawyers never practiced real estate law again.

7 years later, I still work in a real estate firm. In March, the Land Title Office advised lawyers and notaries alike who practice real estate law that e-filing (which requires the used of Adobe Acrobat DC) is being replaced by Web Filing.   I have known about this since I returned to work after exams in April.  I knew this was coming. But I have done nothing, until today, to try and learn how to use the new system. I only tried today because I read some of these blog posts and realized I’m being part of the problem. Well that, and our e-filing applications started saying “this version of the form is being phased out” as of Thursday of last week, so I knew the end was near.

Why is it that although I know change is made for a reason, whether that’s to increase efficiency, help solve common mistakes or help make people’s lives easier, I still find it more of a hassle than a help?  I have been using the same process for 10 years and I know that process inside and out. Until that notice on my application that the end was coming, I had been feeling completely fine about not learning the new system. Of the 300 deals we have done over the past few months, only one was done through Web Filing.  So, I wasn’t alone.   The majority of firms were just like us: used to what we were used to with no desire to change until absolutely necessary.

Taking this class has made me realize how many areas of law could be helped by apps and more importantly, how much time could be saved. The number of times I’ve had to answer questions about what types of transactions GST gets paid on, it almost makes me upset thinking there could be a way for someone to find the answer themselves in a few short questions.  COVID-19 has created opportunities for delivery of legal services that were unheard of prior. The Land Title Office, during the pandemic, has allowed for videoconference signing with clients.  There are many additional requirements but it’s still possible where it was not before.

Between applications for easy access to information and lawyers being forced to embrace change and get uncomfortable more often, I think firms with staff and lawyers more able to respond quickly will have an upper hand.  Eventually, it will either be change, or get left behind.

Big Issues for Small Town Law

Bryce Gardner 

Discussions related to access to justice often discuss the unaffordability of lawyers to a regular person,  or the over-complexity of the law to the non-legal mind. These issues become irrelevant though when there simply are not any legal resources available in your area, a problem all too common in today’s small town Canada.

Nationally, only 8.7% of new lawyers (having less than five years of experience) practice in a rural setting. A survey of the Law Society of British Columbia found that most students would leave the province before considering practicing in a rural area. [1] Of those lawyers who do work in small towns, most are nearing the age of retirement. In B.C. the typical age of a lawyer is about 48, but that can skew to upwards of 52 in smaller communities. In Castlegar, B.C. it’s 65. [2] This makes sense. Most law students come from the city, and why would they ever want to leave the bars, malls and restaurants of the big city to live in a town that only has two traffic lights and the only night club is the 24/7 McDonald’s lobby?

On top the lifestyle issues, there are many obstacles that present themselves to a future small town lawyer. Small town law firms do not have nearly as many resources to recruit and hire potential successors compared to their bigger counterparts. Small town lawyers often have to provide much more general advice on a broad range of topics, something that is hard to do in a legal world where people are encouraged to specialize. The biggest obstacle is the financial aspect. Small town firms often have to start from the ground up and law schools do not teach much in terms of practical business operations. Small town lawyers often earn less than a Vancouver or Toronto lawyer but work fewer hours. As with any obstacle, however, all that is needed to overcome these issues is some creative thinking and innovation.

The Canadian Bar Association’s Rural Education and Access to Lawyers Program (REAL) has already tried to fulfill some of the demand for small town lawyers across BC. By helping find summer positions and providing funding, this program helps to give law students a taste of small town law with the hope that they will stay.  In 2010, the Law Society of Manitoba introduced a program to offer a limited number of law students the opportunity to have their student debt forgiven (up to $25,000 per year of tuition and living expenses) if they work in an underrepresented community. [3] These programs do not do enough though, as they often only entice law students who already came from small towns. Enticing those born and raised in the city is much harder.

If the Canadian Bar Association wants to get more lawyers in small towns, I recommend they should try the following:

1)  Use lessons learned from this pandemic about working remotely. So many people have been working from home and so many people will not want to return to their commute once things return to the (new) normal. Many of the small town lawyers I have met work out of home offices and never had a commute to begin with. Additionally, many lawyers have been forced to conduct research online rather than relying on a physical library. Let people know that if they like working from home it is all the more possible as a small town lawyer.

2) Establish a legal incubator within relevant communities that would provide legal and business training to articling students and new lawyers while at the same time providing affordable and accessible legal services to people in rural and remote communities. [4]

3) Better educate law students about the benefits of small town lawyer life, such as more affordable housing and lower living costs, fewer working hours (on average) and generally more meaningful work right out of law school (rural lawyers often have complete control over an entire case).

4) Provide law students with shorter programs (such as one week) to job shadow rural lawyers and see what life is like, without having to commit several months over a summer.

Perhaps I have now convinced you to give small town law a try (though statistically, probably not).  Like any access to justice problem all we can do is think about it and try to figure out solutions. If anyone wants to discuss further I’ll be at McDonald’s tonight having a drink.

Sources:

[1] Tonya Lambert, “Promoting the Practice of Law in Rural, Regional & Remote Communities” (January 7, 2020), online (blog): Law Now <https://www.lawnow.org/promoting-the-practice-of-law-in-rural-regional-remote-communities/>. 

[2] Jim Middlemiss, “Small communities struggle to pry lawyers from Canada’s big cities, despite promise of jobs”, National Post  (Oct 1, 2013) <https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/small-communities-struggle-to-pry-lawyers-from-canadas-big-cities-despite-promise-of-jobs>.

[3] Lambert, supra note 1.

[4] Ibid.

 

 

Big Law Without the Fancy Dinners

I have been thinking about what to write for this blog post since the semester began. I have made a long list of topics to discuss and spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how I would present my ideas in an eloquent way. You would think that all that time and effort would translate to a great work product, but alas, here I am the night before it is due, drinking a glass of wine, and struggling to piece together a coherent piece of writing. Essentially, I have thrown a bunch of thoughts onto the page… hopefully something sticks.

________________________________________________________________________________

The practice of law is very people-centric. On any given day, you may interact with clients, your colleagues, or folks at the courthouse. If you work at a large firm, you may attend a plethora of social events in addition to drinks every Friday. Law students going through recruitment are inundated with hands to shake and people to impress. But COVID-19 has completely changed many of the social aspects of the legal profession. While some of the changes were welcomed (flexible work hours, no commute time, pants optional), the social isolation and added stresses have taken a toll on many. Additionally, firms have had to change the way they do business as they can no longer attract top talent and large clients with fancy dinners and expensive swag.

Recruitment

Before entering law school, I had this preconceived idea that all lawyers were extroverted with large personalities. Knowing a total of zero lawyers, this idea was fueled solely by what I saw in the media. Since coming to law school, I have learned that there are many introverts like myself here. Some are good at presenting as extroverts for discrete periods of time while other have zero desire to do so. This can be a real challenge when navigating the recruitment process, especially for large firms. On top of interviews there are receptions, coffees, lunches, and dinners to attend. It means being constantly “on”. It also may mean that some incredibly talented people are self-selecting out of this process to avoid the social hellfire (maybe some people enjoy it though) that is interview week. The switch to an online recruitment may allow more diverse personalities to succeed in the process and reduce the stress and anxiety associated with it.

A virtual recruit will also level the playing field for smaller firms. Many large firms have a sizable budget dedicated to recruitment of students and associates. This often involves treating people to fancy dinners and sending them home with swag. They also showcase their beautiful and expensive office spaces as an incentive to work there. It is as if to say that all these nice things will make the ridiculously long hours worth it. And honestly, that tactic is probably successful. But this year, it is unlikely that many firms will be willing to incur the risks and liabilities associated with the classic recruitment style, whether they have the budget for it or not. This means that small and medium sized firms, that have a lot to offer students in the way of expertise and mentorship, have a chance to stand out.

Practice

Working from home has presented many challenges, but very few of them are because people cannot perform their work tasks from home. The real challenges have been related to the intermingling of work and home life or the social isolation.

Finding a work life balance is a longstanding issue in the legal field that predates COVID-19. However, COVID-19 and the abrupt shift to working from home has exacerbated the issue for many. Some people are now working in a space shared with spouses, children, elderly dependents, roommates, or a combination thereof. These competing interests make working or focusing on work extremely difficult. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the individuals who are living alone. These folks previously relied on the social interactions they would receive by simply going into the office each day. This can create extreme feelings of isolation for some folks, compounding the stress and anxiety they may be feeling from other sources.

Another issue is the lack of separation between work and home. The work-space and the home-space have become one and the previous lines of separation have blurred. Maybe now it is easier to excuse unreasonable hours if they can do it from the comfort of their own bed. Maybe it is easier to get a few more hours of billable work done after dinner because the office is just steps away. It will be up to senior lawyers and firm leaders to ensure that their associates are not working themselves sick and are encouraging them to set healthy boundaries at home.

While some long to get back into the office, there are also many people who are content to keep working from home once the pandemic has passed. For some people, working from home allows them to set more flexible work hours, make more time for self-care, and gives them geographical freedom. A survey released in September 2020 found that 45% of Canadians surveyed would prefer to work from home at least three days a week. What does this mean for law firms? It is now known that in-office, remote, and hybrid set-ups can be implemented successfully, and it is unlikely to return to a strictly in-office set up. Firms will likely have to offer more flexible work arrangements indefinitely. Lawyers may start demanding the flexibility to work from home part-time, given that their practice is amenable to the it. If a firm refuses to offer this flexibility and balance, it is likely the lawyer can find another who will.

Allowing lawyers more autonomy over their “work location choice” may also benefit the firm financially (and what do large firms love more?). Having a mix of lawyers who work from home full-time or only need office space part-time means a reduced need for expensive office spaces. Offices can be shared by multiple lawyers that use the space on different days or they can be converted into collaborative workspaces.

Client Relationships

Another challenge for firms is how to maintain client relationships and add value to their services. Large firms with large clients rely on adding value to their services by taking them to exclusive restaurants, golf courses, and sports games. Firms are now having to pivot away from this practice while still ensuring their clients do not feel forgotten or uncared for. At the end of the billing cycle, when the client looks at their bill, will they start to question the high price tag when it doesn’t come with all the bells and whistles? Potentially. To avoid this, the work will need to speak for itself. Producing quality legal work has always been an important aspect of bringing in and retaining high-profile clients, but now to an even greater degree. Additionally, it leaves room for lawyers to be innovative and creative in how they approach client relations.

Connecting virtually may allow for more deep and meaningful connections. Children, pets, and housemates have been making surprise appearances in video chat meetings. Clients and colleagues are seeing into your home, which may not be as picture perfect as office spaces. This is an opportunity to embrace vulnerability and humanity by showcasing our perceived flaws. The fact that someone’s office is now the kitchen table and there is a two year old in the background screaming that they hate their mom’s new haircut (inspired by true events) does not mean that individual is a bad lawyer, it means they are human. We are being presented with an opportunity to laugh together, feel humbled together, and rebuild stronger, together.

 

Sources:

Office work could be changed forever by COVID-19. Here’s why that matters, Brandie Weikle, https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/office-workers-home-covid-19-1.5711334

Labour Force Survey, August 2020, Statistics Canada, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200904/dq200904a-eng.htm

How to Connect with Clients in the Time of COVID-19: 3 Tips, Will Hattman, https://www.searchenginejournal.com/client-connection-tips/373125/#close

Incorporating Intersectionality in User Profiles: Accessibility and Inclusion.

The need more for accessible legal services or information is well known and unnecessary to recount, but it is clear that a major problem facing access to these services is the amount they cost; very few people can afford them. This leads to average-income and particularly low-income groups or individuals not having access to justice and many of these low-income groups or individuals are also from other equity-seeking groups, which makes this an intersectional issue.

The transition into offering legal services or information online can help address the access to justice issue by allowing these groups to have access to answers or information regarding their legal problems at low or no cost. However, what about those groups or individuals that are at the intersections of disadvantage? For example, minority groups with none to limited English proficiency that also have low income or disabled people with low income. The impact of A2J initiatives for them will undoubtedly be less unless the online tool can address these intersectional issues.

When making user profiles, it is critical to consider users that may fall outside the majority but for whom the services offered may still be essential. Accessibility, usability, and inclusion are important concepts to address in user-profiles and then work towards implementing solutions within your online platform to help address the needs of these groups.

For example, how will the online service help those groups of people that do have limited or low English proficiency or those that have visual impairments and may not be able to read the text? The need to address questions such as: Is there a way to translate English to another language; is it possible to have audio prompts for those who cannot read or have visual impairments, etc.?

Now, by no means am I an expert in technology. I am only addressing some of the potential issues that may come up as legal professionals or students work towards developing online tools to help people with legal needs – presumably, those who cannot afford to pay for them.

I believe that online platforms can accommodate these groups further by having these added features. For example, web services that enable two systems to interact and share information. Online legal applications can take advantage of these services to deliver new online capabilities, like translating text between two different languages.

This is not to say it is a perfect solution. I recognize there are real challenges with the interpretation or translation of languages that may compromise the accuracy of the information translated. Therefore, preliminary testing to ensure the translation of the text is accurate by an expert is recommended.

Services like screen readers allow visually impaired persons to use the internet by reading a website text aloud. Video conferencing can be a great tool for hearing impaired people when used to provide sign language interpreters, particularly if a firm is using technology to provide services or for rural courts who may need the help of sign language interpreters.

This post was just a friendly reminder to incorporate equity-seeking groups into our user profiles, if possible or applicable, to the legal services online platform to be developed. I acknowledge that some online platforms will be targeted to professionals or users that will not have English proficiency as an issue, for example, “BC lawyers”. However, some online platforms that are directed at the population may face some of these issues. For those of us moving forward in this profession, we should not only be aware of these issues but advocate for solutions when possible.

Technology: Increasing or Restricting Access to Justice?

Let me preface this by saying: I love technology. Truthfully, my life is embarrassingly run by it on all fronts. If technology ever does actually turn on us, I’ll probably be the first to go. Seriously, I don’t know what I would do if you, and I shudder at the thought, asked me for someone’s number or for directions, on one of the rare occasions that I am not holding a device. Ask me what the first thing I do in the morning is, and I’ll struggle with whether the correct answer is “check my notifications” or say “Alexa, start my day”. If you think I’m kidding, I am that person. Even my front door is tech-based. Seriously. I don’t have keys anymore – just codes.

A few months ago, I was reading about the possibility of an eventual complete technological overhaul of the legal profession. By complete overhaul, I mean absolutely everything from communication to documents to meetings and some forms of hearings. “What a horrible and privileged idea!” I thought to myself as I sat on my laptop, phone in hand, silently judging my grandmother who requests help posting photos on Facebook again. I know, I’m also that person. But, hear me out.

To encourage or desire a complete technological overhaul in the legal field is ignorant and a clear demonstration of the privilege we hold. I get it, times are changing- wait, I feel like now is a good time to throw in that I’m 25 and can’t really remember a life without technology, but my point remains the same: times are changing and we need to be technologically competent – it would be ridiculous not to be these days. However, I think that we often forget about those that cannot move through this technological shift with us. And those individuals are likely to be the ones that need our help the most.

A technology-based shift is feasible and affordable for large-scale firms and their clientele. There’s no doubt that it’s a good move for them. But – and hold on to your hats – this is not about them. Yes, you heard me (read me?) right. This is about everyone else.

I’m thinking particularly about legal clinics. These clinics are essential, yet are often understaffed, underfunded, and overworked. And, what about their clients? Some can’t even be reached because they don’t have cell phones or laptops, yet we should respectfully request they… what? Scan items over? Maybe fill out an electronic form, and don’t forget to drop an e-signature on the PDF before emailing it back?

“But wait, accessing a phone or computer is technically possible, even if it means stopping at a public library!”. Okay, let’s ignore the pandemic and board this train for a second. Yes, this is technically true. It may not be easy, but it sure is possible. Okay, but what about the lack of required knowledge and technological competency? You and I both know good and well that half of the professionals we’ve encountered over the years are brilliant and have amazing educational backgrounds and credentials with knowledge and experiences we could only dream of, and yet they struggle to rotate a PDF or turn the volume on for a video. So, how do we justify having higher expectations for individuals whose sole option in obtaining legal assistance is through legal clinics?

This is not to say that tech such as Clio should be avoided – of course it should be encouraged, it allows us to work outside of the office while still maintaining confidentiality. Again, my hesitation is not with lawyers being required to be technologically competent, because this I support. It is specifically the notion that every single area of law could experience a complete and total overhaul that I take issue with. It is unlikely that legal clinics (and even small firms) and their clientele would be able to keep up with the technological shift due to financial, educational and/or accessibility barriers.

So, I’ll leave you with this: I worry that with a large technological shift, we leave behind many individuals who could benefit greatly from our help. I believe online resources and apps are an amazing way to increase accessibility to information, and we should move forward with them, but bring back the paper pamphlet too. And lastly, a question that I find myself wrestling with often: we constantly talk about the importance of access to justice, but who is it that we are really increasing access for?