Canadian Lawyer

OP I N ION investors, and the interests of sharehold- ers eclipsing those of clients. Those on the other side of the debate point out that lawyers have never been shy about pursuing profit. They suggest that removing ownership from lawyers might distance them from business pressures. And, most importantly, they predict that new sources of capital would permit sub- stantial investment by law firms in inno- vative technology. This would make them more efficient and able to offer cheaper rates to clients. Easier access to capital might also better position medium-size firms to challenge emerging international behemoths. By the way, as a sidebar, the share- holder influence argument against equity investment by non-lawyers is disingenu- ous. Almost every law firm has a revolv- ing line of credit with a financial institu- tion. A big firm may owe the bank many millions of dollars. This is a form of non- lawyer investment in a law firm, and you can be sure that the investor — the lend- ing bank — will make its views known to the borrower if it feels like it. The Canadian legal profession is somnolent in the face of English and Australian developments and the U.S. debate. Lawyers in this country have either paid no attention to the U.K. Clementi reforms or have regarded them as some sort of alien aberration. They continue to ignore the important and wide-ranging debate in other jurisdictions about alter- native business structures. True, multidisciplinary practices are permitted in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, but there are serious restric- tions on how they can be structured and what they can do. Otherwise, rules of the various provincial law societies effec- tively preclude a Canadian Tesco law (or "Loblaws law," as one wag suggested), public flotation, or just about any type of ABS for the provision of legal ser- vices. If pushed on these possibilities, the Canadian legal establishment retreats to vague ethical considerations of the kind mentioned earlier that do not stand up to elementary scrutiny. It is always a loss not to discuss and analyze serious proposals for change in the justice system. It is doubly a loss when these proposals might improve access to legal services (the Tesco law, for example) and, by creating new sources of capital, make the Canadian legal profession inno- vative and efficient and able to offer its ser- vice more cheaply (access to justice again). One of these days, something will jolt the Canadian legal profession out of its unwise complacency. Perhaps Slater & Gordon will expand into Canada. Maybe Norton Rose, the U.K.-based firm that has swallowed up Ogilvy Renault and Macleod Dixon in Canada, will become a public company quoted on the London Stock Exchange. Then, the Canadian hand will be forced. Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm. His latest book is Mighty Judgment: How the Supreme Court of Canada Runs Your Life. Visit him online at philipslayton.com. SPECIALIZATION IN BUSINESS LAW Classes Starting in September 2012 Part-time, Executive LLM program for corporate counsel and practising lawyers Information Sessions Tuesday, February 14th, 8:00 to 9:30am Thursday, February 16th, 5:30 to 7:00pm Monday, January 16, 2012, 5:30 - 7:00 pm Friday, January 20, 2012, 8:00 - 9:30 am U of T Faculty of Law, Faculty Lounge 78 Queen's Park, Toronto No registration required. Please feel free to drop in anytime during these hours. Taught by U of T Faculty of Law professors, together with top international faculty from INSEAD Business School, NYU School of Law, and Rotman School of Management. For more information, call 416-978-1400 or visit: http://www.law.utoronto.ca/programs/GPLLM.html TIME: EVENT: Supported by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) - Ontario Chapter and in partnership with Carswell, a Thomson Reuters business. GLLM_CL_Feb_12.indd 1 www.CANADIAN Lawyermag.com FEBRUA R Y 2012 1912-01-17 10:44 AM

• Cover