The Bencher Elections: an Interview with Monica Goyal and Mitch Kowalski

The Law Society of Upper Canada is holding the election for Benchers in April. For those of you not in the legal profession the Benchers form the Convocation, which is essentially the Board of Directors for the Law Society. Due to the importance of this process, the Youth and Work Blog decided to interview two of the candidates who are running in the election and ask some questions that are important to young lawyers. 


Monica Goyal is the owner of MyLegalBriefcase.com which aims to make the Smalls Claims Court process more accessible for regular people. You can read all about her here and can follow her on Twitter and Facebook as well. Mitch Kowalski is a Toronto lawyer and business owner, check out his Blog, Twitter account, and Facebook page.


Law Schools

1. Lakehead University is preparing to submit a proposal to the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities on starting a law school with a focus on Aboriginal Law, Northern Ontario, and small practitioners. With the vast majority of graduates flocking to large urban centres, is Lakehead University's proposal realistic and does Ontario need another law school?

2. Many graduates are unable to secure articling and/or associate positions. Is Ontario producing more law graduates than the labour market can handle?

3. Does the current Articling system need to be redesign? If so, in what way(s)?

Monica:

There is a gap between the number of articling positions and the increasing number of articling students in Ontario. This is a serious problem. Some estimates I have heard put the deficit in articling positions at around 500 positions. Despite the difficult context for new law graduates, Lakehead University proposes to start a new law school.

However, not all graduates who lack articles come from Canadian law schools. Not all Canadian law graduates seek articles in Canada. New law graduates seeking a law career in Ontario would, however, fare even better if articling requirements themselves were reformed. 

First, it is important not to equate the number of people who are looking to get licensed in Ontario with the number of people graduating from law school.  Many people study law in other countries, and then look to get licensed here.  We cannot control or stop this, nor should we. Ontarians live in a global economy, one where we hope to have the same ability to practice in other jurisdictions.  Many of the people in my graduating class went to practice in New York.  And we should hope that we can attract smart legal talent to Ontario. It would be tragic to place limits on these freedoms.       

Second, Lakehead University meets a need in the Canadian educational and legal marketplace.  Many people who are interested in a career in law are, unfortunately, not accepted into a Canadian school.  They may go to other common-law jurisdictions for their law degrees. Returning to Canada, degree in hand, they add to the surplus of students from other countries searching for articles in Canada. Once Lakehead opens, it will absorb some of these Canadian students. When they graduate, there may be some increase in the current number of students seeking articles, but not in the numbers we at first glance expect. Moreover, Lakehead’s particular focus on the North means its graduates will fill a niche currently without adequate supply: lawyers trained specifically to replace, and perhaps expand, the graying Northern bar. 

In theory, articles are a valuable learning tool in the legal licensing process, but they become merely an obstacle if we cannot create new positions. We can consider replacing articles with a skills-based training program. We may need an even more rigorous bar exam to ensure that those who are called to the bar understand the laws in Ontario. 

I’m not convinced that shortening the articling period and/or enforcing ESA standards are bad ideas. They risk sacrificing the quality of the articling position. Also, shortening the articling period would not be fair for to their principals, who would see little return from the costs they incur in the hiring process.   We may want to consider doing away with articles entirely if these become the favoured alternatives.

Mitch:

While I applaud the efforts of Lakehead in recognizing the need for an Aboriginal Law program, this province should not be creating another law school until there is a greater need for lawyers.  The current cohort of law students already find it difficult to find articling and lawyer positions in this province. Creating a new law school would make job prospects bleaker.

Yes. Law schools and the Law Society can no longer operate in silos; they have to work together.  There has to be a realization that the profession cannot support an unlimited number of graduates. Two law schools in New York State have recognized this and have reduced their class sizes.  Ontario schools should follow suit.

If law schools insist upon keeping their class sizes then the Law Society should consider imposing requires for graduates to practice for a minimum number of years in small Ontario communities where the greying of the local bar is an issue.   

Articling is supposed to be an apprentice-type of experience whereby students are mentored by seasoned practitioners. That design element has never been changed and should not be changed. I have more of a concern with the licensing exams process and its self-study element.  Theoretically students should be studying while doing their articles and using their mentors to help with questions.  I am not sure this really happens and I am not sure that the exams cover as wide a range of topics as the old bar admissions course.

Equity

4. There is a well documented problem with young, female lawyers leaving the profession; particularly, after they have children. Are the current equity strategies being deployed by the Law Society ineffective? What strategies and/or improvements would you bring forward to address this situation?

Monica:

The Law Society has recognized the existence of barriers to gender equity, and has introduced some valuable programs, such as the Judicia Project. 

More can be done. The Law Society’s policies and practices should focus on developing more diverse types of practices. For example, make it affordable for men and women to have work-sharing or part-time arrangements. To make this happen, the Law Society’s should revisit the current fee schedule.

Mitch:

In my view the Law Society does not have a coherent strategy with respect to women and law. The initiatives it created are overly simplistic and not effective. Sadly the Law Society does not even have a way to measure the success of the hodge podge of initiatives that it has created. 

But I am most concerned about the Law Society’s propensity to pit genders against each other.

As a solo practitioner and single father of two children, I fully understand how difficult it is to run a law practice and raise a family.  I have adjusted my practice and have made trade-offs in my life to spend more time with my family. So I find it deeply offensive when the Law Society states that I have an advantage in law because of my gender.

The practice of law is unfair to all lawyers in equal measure.  Each lawyer must choose the sacrifices that he or she is prepared to make, and not make, in his or her career.

The real issue is work/life balance for lawyers who want it.

The greatest enemies to work/life balance are the structure of law firms and the billable hour. It is time for Ontario to follow the lead of the UK and Australia and allow for alternative business models that will change how legal services are delivered thereby permitting greater work/life balance for lawyers.

  

5. What more can be done by the Law Society to support law students and lawyers from historically marginalized communities (ie. persons who are disabled, racialized, recent immigrants, etc.)?

Monica:

The topic of equality and diversity in the legal profession has been addressed numerous times in the past. Several catalysts appear to perpetuate the problem, including but not limited to financial issues and geographical locations. These cause a lack of access to available jobs in the field.  But identifying the problems behind the diversity issue isn’t helping to resolve the situation.  So, what will?

Perhaps the answer lies in the Law Society revisiting their current status quo for minorities. The Law Society should revise the system presently in place for articling law students: make legal education and obtainable jobs, or at least internships, more available and accessible to minorities.  Re-examining the fee schedule to encourage different types of legal practice would also help.

Mitch:

My children are a mix of Chinese and Caucasian, so this topic hits close to home for me. Three things can be done by the Law Society in the near term:

1.      Better recognize the legal training of immigrant lawyers. It is time to end the artificial barriers that prevent lawyers from Commonwealth countries from practicing in this province 

2.  There needs to be recognition of the value of diversity in law firms. The Law Society can drive this through a new program whereby firms that are conflicted out of files agree to transfer those files to diverse lawyers. Conversely those diverse lawyers would commit to a mentorship with particular firms so that firms have a comfort level in giving that work to them; and 

3.      Diverse lawyers must continue to go into their communities and take part in events so that kids are able to see that the legal profession is open to all.  

Access to Justice

6. What are your ideas for increasing access to justice for middle-class and lower income Ontarions?

Monica:

I believe technology has a role to play in making legal processes more efficient and cost effective, thus increasing access to justice for middle-class and lower income people in Ontario.  My company, My Legal Briefcase, does just that. 

Also, consider recent innovations in other jurisdictions.  Colorado has decided to allow court documents to have electronic signatures. By saving time and expense, this decision has streamlined the litigation process. 

In the United States, and now emerging in Canada, there are several services to assist people in preparing certain standard form documents.  These innovations are marketed to the large number of middle income individuals who cannot afford legal fees.  

In Ontario, Pro Bono Law clinics are using technology to help their clients prepare their documents. But we still need to think creatively about the access to justice problem.  These developments are just the beginning, with respect to thinking creatively about how to serve legal needs through technology.  I can imagine we will see even more creative solutions develop in the next 10 years.

Mitch:

We have to stop throwing money at a system that is broken.  More money will not solve the problem, and to be blunt, we will not see more funding.

We have to look at the legal services delivery model itself.  People cannot afford legal services because those services are too expensive. If you reduce the cost of those services they become more affordable.  You reduce the cost of legal services by finding efficiencies, altering billing arrangements, altering lawyer compensation models and creating different business structures.  We need to rethink how legal services are delivered to Ontarians.