Canadian Law Blog Hall of Fame

2015 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

2014 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

2013 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

2010 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

2009 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2008 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2007 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2008 InnovAction Awards



  • Categories
  • Archives
    Archive for May, 2022
    Light at the End of the Tunnel…
    Monday, May 23rd, 2022

    ♫ There’s a light at the end of the tunnel
    There’s a chance that it ain’t gonna rain
    There’s a light at the end of the tunnel
    And for once it ain’t a fast moving train…♫

    Music and Lyrics by Don Cook, Keith Whitley, recorded by Keith Whitley.

    On May 12, 2022 the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued reasons in the case of:

    Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 163.

    The case concerns the establishment of British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal and in particular, its jurisdiction over ‘minor’ injuries in motor vehicle accidents.

    The history of the case is summarized in the headnote:

    In 2019, legislation came into force that granted to the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) jurisdiction to decide liability and damages for minor injuries (a statutory category) resulting from motor vehicle accidents. Aspects of this jurisdiction are exclusive and others are shared with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In brief, the CRT was given exclusive jurisdiction to classify an injury as a minor injury. This triggers a presumption that the associated damages are below the tribunal limit amount ($50,000). The CRT has presumptive, but not exclusive, jurisdiction to adjudicate the liability and damages when the presumption that the damages will be below the tribunal limit amount has not been rebutted. The legislation directs the Supreme Court to dismiss or stay matters that are within the jurisdiction of the CRT unless it would not be in the interests of justice and fairness. Parties may apply for judicial review of decisions of the CRT, with decisions relating to liability and damages being reviewed on roughly the appellate standard of review.

    The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia and several plaintiffs in motor vehicle claims challenged the scheme, arguing in part that the grant of jurisdiction to the CRT offended s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They argued that the scheme impermissibly granted to the CRT a jurisdiction that was dominated by the superior courts at the time of Confederation. The challenge was successful, with the judge declaring the relevant provisions of the legislation to be of no force or effect.

    The Trial Lawyers were successful at trial before Chief Justice Hinkson of the Supreme Court. On appeal, The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman stated:

    In a summary trial before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he concluded that the Province’s scheme offended s. 96. He struck down certain provisions in the legislative package.

    I have concluded that he erred in doing so.

    In so doing, concurred by The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler (with Dissenting Reasons by The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett), the majority of the court has resuscitated the ongoing experiment in access to justice represented by the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal in the area of automotive injury resolution.

    A bit of an explanation is required. The CRT – or Civil Resolution Tribunal – is a creature of statute. The CRT is Canada’s first online tribunal. It is part of the British Columbia public justice system and it represents an example of moving public justice out of the ‘bricks and mortar’ world into the ‘clicks and order’ world of the Internet and Online Dispute Resolution. It represents a growing body of thought called Court-related dispute resolution.

    What is court-related dispute resolution? The National Center for State Courts (https://www.ncsc.org/odr/guidance-and-tools) states:

    Court-related Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is a public facing digital space in which parties can convene to resolve their dispute or case.

    Three essential components differentiate court-related ODR from other forms of technology-supported dispute resolution:

    The first is that the program operates exclusively online. In contrast to other court programs that provide an online interface with which to accomplish discrete tasks (e.g., e-filing, video hearings), ODR users do not otherwise interact with the court for traditional in-court procedures or events.

    The second is that the program is explicitly designed to assist litigants in resolving their dispute or case, rather than a technology platform to support judicial or court staff decision-making. Dispute resolution inherently includes the potential to challenge the validity of claims or to raise affirmative defenses; court-related ODR is not merely a platform for defendants to negotiate a payment schedule to satisfy debts.

    Third, the program is hosted or supported by the judicial branch. It is not a form of private ADR, but instead integrates and extends dispute resolution services offered by the judicial branch into digital space to serve citizens efficiently, effectively, transparently, and fairly.

    Chief Justice Bauman summarized the challenge to the jurisdiction of the CRT as follows:

    [1] Canada’s Constitution creates a division of legislative powers between the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures.

    [2] In respect of the judicial system and the judiciary, by s. 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the provinces “may exclusively make laws” in respect of matters coming within the subject: “The Administration of Justice in the Province.”

    [3] In the language of the cases there is a “subtraction” from that exclusive power reserved to the federal executive by s. 96:

    96 The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

    [4] Again, in the language of the cases there is much more to s. 96 than first meets the eye. It goes beyond a mere power to appoint judges to effectively preclude the provinces from creating courts or administrative tribunals with powers that parallel or mirror the “core jurisdiction” of the Superior Courts described in s. 96.

    [5] Here, the Province of British Columbia has vested an administrative tribunal, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (“CRT”), created by the executive branch, with a certain jurisdiction over the resolution and disposition of so-called “minor injury” claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents in the Province.

    [6] The question before us is whether it has done so within permissible bounds given the jurisprudence that has developed around s. 96.

    In essence the question became: Are the courts tied to the format of the courts as outlined in 1867 in  s. 96 or can a province create an administrative tribunal (the CRT) that represents an ‘experiment’ in access to justice that can exist as part of the Justice System?

    The Court recognized the broader implications raised by the challenge to the CRT and the Chief Justice stated in his reasons as follows:

    Important Societal Objective

    [147] I will deal with each of these factors in turn but I will begin with the last factor—an important societal objective. It is likely error to give any one factor predominance in the analysis but to my mind this factor is a very significant one when one accepts Chief Justice Wagner’s concern with not interfering “with the ability of the provinces and territories to experiment with new forms of access to civil justice.”

    [148] The need for “experimentation”—for innovation—in access to civil justice for victims of minor injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents in British Columbia is self-evident in light of the EY Report. That report makes clear that the existing system of compensating for minor personal injuries in tort is threatening the viability of the public insurer, ICBC, and equally the actual compensation recovered by the victims of these minor injuries. In this latter regard, “In BC today, claimants receive less than 60% of their premium as benefits, with the remainder going to scheme costs including legal costs and disbursements. Best-in-class schemes around the world return approximately 80% of premiums as benefits to claimants”: EY Report at 54. I note that the EY report does not break this down specifically for minor injuries. It highlighted that more was being distributed as legal costs (24%) than to minor injuries (20%) or non-minor injuries (17%).

    [149] In light of the EY Report, one can only conclude that there were serious issues facing British Columbia with the tort regime in place before the legislative action before the court was taken.

    [150] If my tone suggests that I have concluded that the concerns identified by the EY Report and the executive branch are well-founded, I hasten to say that this judgment is not the remit of this Court. It is for the legislative branch to so conclude. I am concerned only with determining if there is a rational basis for the concern—a rational basis for the societal objectives evidenced in the legislative reforms before the Court. On the basis of the evidentiary record, and in particular the EY Report, there most certainly is. It is not for the Court to pass on whether the legislature “got it right” with its reforms. It is not for this Court to say whether the Civil Resolution Tribunal will actually perform as promised. In this regard the evidence of Professors Daly and Susskind provides a rational basis for the legislature believing it to be so. With respect to the judge below, it is not for us to require the appellants to prove the efficacy of the “solutions” the legislature is applying to the problems it has identified.

    The Chief Justice goes on and then states:

    [167] In my view, the legislative scheme before the court represents an integrated, comprehensive effort at reform directed at a social mischief starkly identified by the other branches of government.

    By no means do I advocate that the CRT is a perfect solution or that it does not have faults. It represents a new way of dealing with legal disputes and as such, it can, and indeed should, be modified, changed and adjusted to address perceived shortcomings. The world is watching the CRT and waiting to see if the concept can be applied to other courts and proceedings in other jurisdictions. It would be a major setback for access to justice innovators to see the CRT’s jurisdiction erased and the experiment stopped.

    The decision may, and most probably will,  be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. I for one hope that the Supreme Court of Canada follows the lead of Chief Justice Bauman. For those of us who advocate for greater access to justice, who advocate for innovative approaches to addressing injustice and providing cost-justified solutions to everyday legal problems, who advocate for solutions that take advantage of all the barrier-breaking power that technology developed in today’s information age can provide, and for solutions that are not hide-bound by the structure of the justice system prevailing in 1867, the words of Chief Justice Bauman represent a light at the end of the tunnel…

    (Full disclosure: the writer is a Fellow of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts https://odr.info and has written and presented on Online Dispute Resolution worldwide).

    © 2022 David J. Bilinsky

    (Concurrently published both on http://slaw.ca and this blog.)

    Posted in Technology | Permalink | No Comments »
    How Successful Law Firms Really Work
    Monday, May 16th, 2022

    How Successful Law Firms Really Work

    ♫ Nobody does it better
    Makes me feel sad for the rest
    Nobody does it half as good as you
    Baby, you’re the best…♫

    Lyrics and music by: Marvin Hamlisch, Carole Sager, recorded by Carly Simon.

    I haven’t done a book report in a good long while.  But I am going to make an exception this time.

    A book has come along that every lawyer who wishes to run a firm at its peak should not only have on his/her shelf but it should be well-thumbed, stained from coffee spills, its cover torn from constant use and sitting on the corner of their desk within arm’s reach for quick reference. I am speaking of “How Successful Law Firms Really Work” by David L. Ginsberg and Robert A. Feisee, published by the American Bar Association, Law Practice Division (“HSLFRW”)

    A few books have been written that outline how to run a law firm. “How to Start and Build a Law Practice” by Jay Foonberg, now in its 6th edition, is perhaps the grand-daddy of them all. But Ginsberg and Feisee have taken all the collective wisdom of running a law practice and condensed it into 332 pages of sage advice. Is it the bee-all and end-all of law practice management books?  No – but it is an excellent compilation and overview from a 50,000 foot perch, of the things that you should consider in keeping all the balls of legal management in the air.  From here you would be well-versed into jumping into any number of books that address the specific needs of law firm management for greater in-depth knowledge.

    Who is it aimed at?  HSLFRW focuses on the operation of a small to medium sized law firm. It is designed to aid you in the step-by-step creation of your customized business plan by addressing the issues raised in each successive chapter. But it is more than that. It integrates and builds on each chapter by illuminating and then integrating concepts so that you come out of the process with an appreciation of how each pillar upholds the operation of a law firm works and with its companions.

    The book starts with a chapter “How to Use This Book” which starts a reader off on the right foot in terms of how to make the most of what is set out in the subsequent chapters.  The premise is that lawyers, no matter how brilliant, may lack basic business skills; and it seeks to help lawyers of all levels master and implement proven business strategies.

    The book starts with questions of ownership and how to structure your team for maximum effect. Since all firms rise or fall by their people, human resources comes next. Moving on to training, it deals with issues of how to mold your staff and professionals into an efficient and productive team.

    Managing your time is next, since you will have to be able to schedule management tasks as well as legal work into your daily schedule and keep all pots, so to speak, on a constant simmer.

    With the fundamentals taken care of the book moves to clients:  Who are your ideal clients and how do you market to them and then manage them.  What does your legal product look like and how do you deliver services within a clearly defined scope of work.  What is your role relative to your clients?  Emphasizing that ethics underpins all that you do, a chapter on how to stay out of trouble is next.

    Then we jump to more of the nitty-gritty of running a firm.  Finances, budgeting and managing money is next; followed by technology and systems. Since firms run on procedures, there is a chapter on how to develop procedures customized for your firm.

    Next is your office environment – how does your firm look and how does it operate?  Which one are you – a business or a profession – and the implications of viewing your firm each way and what is your definition of success?

    Strategic Planning – both short and long term – are included as are emergency planning and wellness: how to care for yourself.

    Lastly the book concludes with the statement that you are now ready to run your own firm.

    Whether for lawyers just starting out or for lawyers seeking to make partner or better yet, managing partner and desiring knowledge to take them to the next level, this book is a tour-de-force. At $85 for non-ABA members, $68 for ABA members (all USD) it is a steal. You can order it online from the ABA here.

    This book is so good it makes me sad for the rest.  I have but one regret with regards to it…I wish I had written it.

    © 2022 David J. Bilinsky

    (Concurrently published both on http://slaw.ca and this blog.)

    Posted in Budgeting, Business Development, Change Management, Firm Governance, Issues facing Law Firms, Law Firm Strategy, Leadership and Strategic Planning, Technology, Tips | Permalink | No Comments »
    Are the Courts Slip-Sliding Away?
    Monday, May 9th, 2022

     

    Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

    ♫ Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
    You know the nearer your destination, the more you’re slip sliding away… ♫

    Lyrics, Music and Recorded by Paul Simon.

    Something extraordinary is taking place in Ontario.

    Family law lawyer Russell Alexander of Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Law Lawyers of Toronto and six other locations in Ontario, Canada has started an online petition on Change.org entitled: “Petition to Amend the Requirement For In Person Court Attendances.”

    What are they petitioning for, you ask?  Good question:

    “We, the undersigned lawyers and paralegals who practise family law, hereby petition to the Attorney General of Ontario and to the Regional Senior Justices, that there shall be immediately put in place an overriding direction that all court attendances shall be presumptively virtual unless the parties and their counsel agree otherwise or if the court for good reason orders that a particular attendance shall be in person or hybrid (ie. some may attend virtually and some may attend in person).”

    They state the issue as follows:

    “The Issue

    1. The Chief Justice and Regional Senior Justices at both Ontario court levels (Ontario Court of Justice and Ontario Superior Court of Justice) have issued Notices to the Profession that stipulate revised practices and standards to determine whether various types of court attendances shall be in person or virtual.

    2. While the directions are not always consistent, there is a disturbing trend to emphasize the necessity for in person attendances as opposed to virtual attendances.”

    Their petition has garnered 987 signatures as of the date of writing.

    It seems that many people agree with Russell that the move to virtual hearings has has a number of benefits and increased access to justice.  A selection of the reasons for signing the petition highlights many of them:

    • Diego Cariaga writes: “Virtual hearings will continue to spare lawyers and clients of unnecessary stress and costs since for the vast majority of litigation matters it is not necessary or helpful to appear in-person (as COVID-19 has demonstrated)”
    • Catherine Haber: “I am a practicing family lawyer with many years of experience.Virtual hearings are far more cost effficient for the public.There is little advantage to more costly in person hearings.”
    • Tom Dart: “Virtual appearances lower costs to the client where they are represented. We need to look at the attendances from the client perspective. Where clients can’t access the internet, in person may be the only method. In person should be reserved for such cases. I agree with the other reasons submitted as well.”
    • Rachelle Laforge: “Prior to the pandemic, the court system was operating with technology and resources from the 90s at best. The court system has not been at the forefront of innovation but was forced into it during the pandemic.One of the positive outcomes of the pandemic has been that the court system was catapulted into present times as far as technology goes.Innovation is about solving real problems. Virtual court hearings provide:- More access to justice (anyone with a phone can have access…no need to drive, fly, cab it to the court house and pay for parking)
      – Costs have been significantly lowered for clients (no need to pay lawyers to drive to court houses and wait around on running lists)
      – Ease of presentation of documents – which sometimes need to be voluminous in cases of coercive control (I had a case where I needed the judge to consider 117 messages from a dangerous self-rep where he wrote emails with Bold lettering, coloured text and coloured highlights)…
      – Zoom hearings provide for opportunities to have break out rooms where parties and lawyers can quickly jump in and out of…cant do that quickly in person;
      – French speaking parties can get counsel from anywhere in the province to attend without incurring prohibitive costs;
      Clients in northern Ontario and other small communities are limited for representation due to conflicts…virtual proceedings provides for clients to be able to go outside their community for representation without the prohibitive costs of travel.”

    Russell Alexander sets out the case for keeping virtual hearings as well:

    The Case for Dropping the Presumption

    This risk is remedied by the use of remote/virtual case conferences, because it actually improves access to justice and the expeditious resolution of disputes in several ways.

    First, let’s revisit the odds of settlement: If only 10% of cases resolve at the first case conference, it may be a fair inference that these same 10% would also resolve their matters via a Zoom case conference. This renders the in-person experience to be arguably unnecessary.

    Second, the costs savings of Zoom conferences are significant. No travel, no parking, no traffic. Court security line-ups, confrontations, and courthouse conflicts are all eliminated. There is no more sitting around for several hours or the entire day. Legal expenses each of the lawyers representing the parties are also significantly reduced.

    Third, access to justice can only continue to improve. Clients can choose their preferred lawyer from anywhere in the province. Lawyers will be more readily available for the currently under-served northern and rural communities. Clients with legal aid certificates will be more likely to secure a lawyer.

    Fourth, technology and the internet heighten accessibly to the justice system, as compared to having to travel several hours to the courthouse and back. Most people can access a case conference through Zoom – even if its with the assistance of a friend, family, or employer. Justice “hubs” can be set up at libraries or the SCJ’s family law information centres, or in empty SCJ courtrooms, for parties who cannot access the required technology. There are many other innovative ideas to address the issues of technology and connectivity.

    Fifth, the court can implement procedures to screen and assist victims of domestic violence who are involved in family court matters. This will also help to regulate and prevent litigants who perpetrate domestic violence from using the litigation process to exact further harm, harassment, and psychological damage on their ex-partners.

    Sixth, the toll on peoples’ mental health of going to court in-person, confronting their ex-partner, dealing with conflict and potential health risks lingering from the pandemic can be remedied by via Zoom case conferences. Parties can conduct their hearing from the safety and privacy of their own homes.

    Seventh, the rise of self-represented litigants is a problem that plagues the Family Court system. Remote hearings by Zoom have stymied this, somewhat. It has helped those who would otherwise have to resort to self-representation, by freeing up more Family lawyers. Those lawyers could keep practicing and serving clients remotely, despite health concerns, daycare, and other needs. For example, clients in rural and northern communities were retaining lawyers with legal aid certificates from the GTA and other larger centres.

    If in-person hearings return to the old norm, many Family lawyers will simply no longer practice family law. That is the benefit of a law degree: We can choose to practice in any area of law that does not require in-person attendances. (And the list is endless: Wills, estates, real estate, corporate, tax, business and so on). An exodus of Family lawyers will result in fewer lawyers accepting legal aid certificates, and increased time and expense associated with in-person hearings.

    All of this will result in alarming spikes in the number of self-represented litigants.

    Plus, self-represented litigants often require greater time and resources to adjudicate their matters. They may be unable to focus on the legal issues. They may not understand the law, fail to comply with the Family Law Rules, and be unaware that there are rules of evidence and court-issued practice directions that they need to follow. They can sometimes be vexatious. All of this often results in mental and emotional strain on the judiciary, and can lead to burnout, inertia and the justice system’s slide to entropy.

    To emphasize the point with the court, Russell and his crew are holding a virtual press conference May 10, 2022:

    Panel of Ontario Family Lawyers to Hold Virtual Press Conference Calling for Courts to Continue Remote Hearings
    Lawyers say so-called ‘Zoom divorces’ save clients’ time and money and should continue

    Their press release states as follows:

    WHAT:

    A panel of veteran Ontario family lawyers will host a virtual press conference to discuss the recent Notice to the Profession from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordering the return to in-person court attendance. The thrust of these pronouncements is that many court hearings will revert to in-person from virtual, which will mean less access to justice and higher legal costs for many clients.

    The panel recently started a petition that has received over 900 family lawyer signatures thus far in attempt to reverse the decision.

    The media is invited to attend the press conference to learn more about what this means for family lawyers in Ontario and those seeking divorce. There will be an opportunity to ask questions.

    Registration is required to attend via Zoom by completing the sign-up form below.

    WHERE:

    On Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zw6hCGIlT36zQ-7vGpAPBQ

    WHEN:

    Tuesday, May 10, 10 a.m. ET

    WHO:

    The Ad Hoc Committee for the Preservation of Access to Justice consists of:

    • Russell Alexander-Founder and Senior Partner at Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers, practicing for 24 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 1998)
    • Gene C. Colman-Founder of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre, practicing for 43 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 1979)
    • Natalie Derbyshire-Partner at Stanchieri Family Law Professional Corporation, practicing for 16 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 2006)
    • Brian Galbraith-Owner and Founder of Galbraith Family Law Professional Corporation, practicing for 32 years (since 1990)
    • LisaGelman-Founder of Gelmanand Associates, practicing for 27 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 1995)
      Gary Joseph-Managing Partner and Chair at MacDonald & Partners LLP, practicing for 44 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 1978)
    • Karen Kotansky-Managing Partner at Gelman and Associates, practicing for 28 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 1994)
    • Nafisa Nazarali-Managing Associate Lawyer at Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers, practicing for 12 years (Called to the Ontario Bar in 2010)
    • Ram Shankar-Founder of Shankar Law Office, practicing for 28 years (Called to the Bar in India in 1994. Called to the Ontario Bar in 2014)

    I will be watching the press conference with interest this coming Tuesday. The move to virtual court hearings, in my opinion, was a positive one and should be continued for all the reasons noted above and more. It remains to be seen if this novel approach to achieving change in the profession will ultimately be successful. But it is certainly aimed at keeping the changes that have occurred in the courts from slip-sliding away…

    © 2022 David J. Bilinsky

    (Concurrently published both on slaw.ca and this blog.)

     

    Posted in Change Management, Issues facing Law Firms, Law Firm Strategy, Leadership and Strategic Planning, Technology | Permalink | No Comments »
    Changing Methods in Legal Education – Something New is Coming
    Monday, May 2nd, 2022

    Law

    License details
    Creator: Daniel Kulinski
    Copyright: Daniel*1977, 2009

    ♫ Something new is going on tonight
    I like this grove, it makes me feel so right
    Darling you know you better hold on tight
    Something new is coming on tonight… 

    — Music and lyrics by A. Mae, N. Yanofsky, F. Golde, J. Faulker, H. Hancock,
    J. Watley, A. Cymone, R. Kleiner, Q. Jones and recorded by Andrea

    In April 2021 I wrote a column on CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (“CILEX”) in the UK for my regular column PracticeTalk for the Canadian Bar Association. As of June 2021,  CILEX was offering the CLIEX Professional Qualification (“CPQ”) program that offered a different path to becoming a legal professional in the UK. At that time there was a lot of talk about what CILEX’s entrance into the market might mean for students, for the legal profession, for regulators, for the public and the like. Well I thought we could take a step back and see where CILEX is today.

    The original column:

    In an article published February 21, 2021 in legalfutures.com entitled “Legal education and training: Unfit for purpose,” Professor Chris Bones states: “The revolution starts now. Legal education and training is not fit for today, let alone the future….”

    Prof. Bones is Chair of CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (“CILEx”) in the UK. CILEX is the professional association for 20,000 Chartered Legal Executive lawyers, paralegals, and other legal practitioners in England and Wales. They are recognized in England and Wales as one of the three core approved regulators of the legal profession alongside barristers and solicitors.

    CILEX offers education and training to become a legal secretary and an apprentice program that leads to being a paralegal, advanced paralegal or Chartered Legal Executive and Chartered Legal Executive Lawyer.

    While traditional lawyers are generalists on graduation, CILEX lawyers can achieve a specialist designation on graduation in: Dispute Resolution; Criminal Litigation; Residential Conveyancing; Commercial Conveyancing; Employment Law; Business & Commercial Law; Family Litigation; Wills & Probate; or Immigration Law.

    CILEX claims that their professionals are demonstrably more diverse and representative of the UK population than their peers in other branches of the profession. CILEX does not restrict access to candidates with a specific set of prior qualifications; it opens up the profession to people from all backgrounds, including those who have not gone to university.

    Their education program requires their students to work in a legal environment from the very beginning of their studies. CILEX states that students apply their learning to practical scenarios and build and refine the skills of a practising lawyer as they progress. They claim that their model requires their employers to validate their experience and competence at every stage, meaning practical, work-based skills are “baked-in” to the training and that CILEX trainees become adept at using legal expertise to address real-world challenges for their clients from the outset.

    They recognize that legal technology holds immense potential to benefit both the consumer and the legal services provider by improving efficiency, by reducing costs and by enhancing accessibility. CLIEX states that they support the responsible uptake of technology and innovation in the legal sector, insofar as such progress continues to benefit the consumer.

    CLIEX states that they have a focus on technical expertise and practical skills with the development of the core behaviours required to create forward-thinking, commercially minded, adaptable lawyers who really understand the clients they serve.

    The CLIEX Professional Qualification (“CPQ”) program “sets new standards in practice-focused training and work-readiness, broadens access to legal careers and develops professionals at all levels who are equipped from the outset to add real value to their employers and clients.”

    Students will be able to register for CPQ in June 2021. Something new is coming.


    According to CILEX, as of November 2021: “Some 140 new CILEX Fellows* and Advocates** swore an oath to mark their qualification at the annual graduation ceremony held by CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) on Saturday.

    They were joined by a further 237 members, who were recognised for becoming Graduates, the step before becoming a CILEX Fellow.”

    CILEX Fellows have completed the academic stage of training, have been in qualifying employment for at least three years and have met the relevant work based learning outcomes. They are authorised by CILEX Regulation.

    CILEX Advocates are Fellows who have gained extended rights of audience in their practice area, allowing them to undertake advocacy in certain proceedings.

    CILEX Graduates have completed both their CILEX Level 3 Professional Diploma in Law and Practice and their CILEX Level 6 Professional Higher Diploma in Law and Practice, or equivalent studies.

    CILEX President, Caroline Jepson praised the graduates for their hard work and perseverance, recognising that so many achieved qualification while studying alongside full time work.

    She stated:

    “I have a plea for you today, and it is this – let us hear your voice. Join us in elbowing our way through the elite snobbery and let us together shut down those perceptions which have held us back for far too long.

    “Help us create a legal profession that is ‘qualification-route blind’ – one that appoints, rewards and promotes based on merit alone. Build pride in CILEX and help us reach the point where CILEX lawyers are automatically recognised and valued as specialist lawyers.”

    It seems that the experiment continues and these new legal professionals journey to find their new groove continues…

    © 2022 David J. Bilinsky

    Posted in Law Firm Strategy, Leadership and Strategic Planning, Legal Education, Trends | Permalink | No Comments »