When the Law Society of Upper Canada released the results of the bencher elections this spring, it quickly became clear that the profession hadn’t embraced alternative business structures.
Many of the proponents of the idea had gone down to defeat while several lawyers who had openly expressed opposition to it won seats at Convocation. The situation had the potential to be awkward with the law society’s working group on alternative business structures in the midst of preparing a report that could have recommended allowing for full non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Last week, however, it came out with a report that recommended against majority ownership by non-lawyers.
“Based on its work to date, the working group does not propose to further examine any majority or controlling non-licensee ownership models for traditional law firms in Ontario,” the working group said in its report to Convocation this month.
The report will be a disappointment to many proponents who want to see a significant shakeup of the legal profession in order to encourage innovation and new ways of offering legal services. But with lawyers having clearly expressed their disagreement with that idea this spring, it’s difficult to see how that could have happened. The working group’s report does, however, leave open the option of allowing for a minority ownership stake by non-lawyers and talks about exploring “a subset of ABS models which might be applicable in Ontario.”
So the debate over alternative business structures isn’t over, and that’s a good thing. Some opponents will still be unhappy, but the report strikes a balance between respecting the democratic will of the profession and letting the discussions and debate on new business models continue.
Allowing for full non-lawyer ownership was arguably a radical change that opponents expressed legitimate concerns about during the past year. But given the need to spark innovation in the delivery of legal services, it’s appropriate to keep the discussion alive even if in a more limited form.
For more, see "ABS report: Majority non-lawyer ownership off the table."
Many of the proponents of the idea had gone down to defeat while several lawyers who had openly expressed opposition to it won seats at Convocation. The situation had the potential to be awkward with the law society’s working group on alternative business structures in the midst of preparing a report that could have recommended allowing for full non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Last week, however, it came out with a report that recommended against majority ownership by non-lawyers.“Based on its work to date, the working group does not propose to further examine any majority or controlling non-licensee ownership models for traditional law firms in Ontario,” the working group said in its report to Convocation this month.
The report will be a disappointment to many proponents who want to see a significant shakeup of the legal profession in order to encourage innovation and new ways of offering legal services. But with lawyers having clearly expressed their disagreement with that idea this spring, it’s difficult to see how that could have happened. The working group’s report does, however, leave open the option of allowing for a minority ownership stake by non-lawyers and talks about exploring “a subset of ABS models which might be applicable in Ontario.”
So the debate over alternative business structures isn’t over, and that’s a good thing. Some opponents will still be unhappy, but the report strikes a balance between respecting the democratic will of the profession and letting the discussions and debate on new business models continue.
Allowing for full non-lawyer ownership was arguably a radical change that opponents expressed legitimate concerns about during the past year. But given the need to spark innovation in the delivery of legal services, it’s appropriate to keep the discussion alive even if in a more limited form.
For more, see "ABS report: Majority non-lawyer ownership off the table."
