This week’s blog post – written by the Honourable Robert Bauman, Chief Justice of British Columbia, who is a member of The Access Revolution Blog Steering Committee – is a reflection on the arguments being presented by Professor Gillian Hadfield on the future of the legal profession and legal regulation. Chief Justice Bauman heads the BC and Yukon appellate courts and is the founding Chair of Access to Justice BC, a network of people and organizations sharing the common goal of improving access to civil and family justice for British Columbians.
Sorry for the pejorative. It’s me quoting Professor Gillian Hadfield quoting James Carville, who famously advised Bill Clinton to focus on the economy during his 1992 presidential campaign.
Gillian Hadfield is a law professor with a deep background in economics. She is world-renowned.
Professor Hadfield repeated this quote after noting that the demand for legal work is “exploding” (Professor Hadfield’s word) but the demand for what law firms are actually offering is flat or shrinking. And it is all because of the cost of legal services delivered by the traditional service model. At $300 an hour (Professor Hadfield’s arguably conservative number) for legal assistance, ordinary people simply cannot afford to get help.
In her economic analysis, Professor Hadfield notes that the legal profession in North America is locked into a business model that does not innovate to increase value and reduce costs. Why can’t we change the model? Professor Hadfield lays the blame on the legal profession’s traditions of regulation. In Canada, she says, we “throttle innovation” in the profession. Rules by regulators prohibiting the corporate practice of law (and “practice of law” is defined in exceedingly broad terms), fee splitting and other regulations create, in the Professor’s view, a closed system, a homogeneous idea pool, limited consumer feedback, and limited access to (human and financial) capital.
Put simply: we need lawyers, but at $300 an hour, we cannot afford them. We need to bring the cost down but, in Professor Hadfield’s view, the profession’s regulatory regime prevents the creation of innovative business models—such as a multi-disciplinary approach where some legal services are delivered by professionals other than lawyers—that could achieve that. The hourly rate conundrum makes it impossible to meaningfully address the access to justice crisis.
Reformers respond, in one example, by encouraging the delivery of “unbundled” legal services—letting the consumer purchase discrete, or “a la carte”, services at various points on their journey through the system as otherwise self-represented litigants.
I’m supportive of unbundling. The unbundled legal services model is innovative, and it has the potential to increase access to justice. But, it’s really only tinkering with the current legal services delivery model. It is not a robust response to the fact that our system promises citizens the “Rule of Law”, but delivers, at best, only part of that promise.
Professor Hatfield recently spoke to a large audience in Vancouver. I spoke by way of introducing some context for her remarks; I said that true social innovation requires a collaborative effort across the system by all players, always keeping the user at the centre of our efforts.
I also said that we need to collaborate not just with our usual partners and allies—we need the critics, the innovators, the disrupters in our society, in the “tent” with us—provoking us, challenging us, perhaps worrying us, with new ideas and approaches to resolving our access to justice problems.
Ultimately, it is Professor Hadfield’s view that we need to build an independent regulator of legal service providers. In her words, we need risk-adjusted, outcome-based regulation, rather than to dictate business structures and practices. Put another way, instead of sticking with the traditional model where lawyers dominate the delivery of legal services, we need to look at new regulation models that allow for affordable service delivery that is appropriate and proportionate to the person’s legal problem.
Professor Hadfield’s thesis is a disruptive one – to some, a radical one. I take no position on whether her thesis is correct or not. However, if dramatic change is in fact one of the answers to ensuring ordinary people can access legal services, I want to encourage lawyers (and the judiciary, within our usual constraints relating to the protection of judicial independence and impartiality) to lead the way. By leading, the legal profession can confront the problem, while preserving the value derived from the independence of the bar.
Access to Justice BC has identified the need to shift our system’s culture to being user-centred, to making evidence-based decisions, and to challenging entrenched thinking and habits with innovation and experimentation. Professor Hadfield’s thesis is indeed a disruptive one, but it does exemplify some of these vitally needed culture shifts.
We, as a sector, need to grapple with the system’s critics, and with the fact that change will come, whether we choose to lead it or follow it. I have faith that the core principles and values underlying our system of justice—fairness, transparency, accountability and the rule of law—will guide us in meeting the challenges of disruption and change, in whatever form they may take.
I am based in Ottawa, ON, and I charge nowhere near $300.00 per hour for legal services. So, the basic assumption is wrong. Only a very few lawyers charge that much. Primarily, what drives up legal costs in Ontario are the following: (a) the exorbitant $550 monthly membership we must the pay the Law Society and its mandatory insurer (the Law Society is based in Toronto, and no salary at the LSO is less than $103,000 per annum – which is really clients’ fees submitted as fees); (b) the costs of having attended university law school; (c) the high hydro, office rental and minimum wage rates in Ontario; (d) and carbon taxes that inflate the cost of everything else. Most of our costs because of poor government and regulator policies. Typically, lawyers are only able to bill for about 2 hours each day – the rest of their time is administration and government bureaucracy. So $50/hour would put lawyers at $24,000 per annum. Nobody could afford to survive on that in Ontario, especially when the monthly Law Society fees alone are $6,600.00. Want cheaper legal fees? Reduce the costs of education and living in Canada. Both are way out of control.
So, since you all know the problem that starts with the Law Society and its for-profit subsidiaries like LawPro, TitlePlus, etc. etc., why haven’t all you brilliant minds done something about it, since the problem you all face grossly interferes with access to justice for everyone?
According to at least 2 US Supreme Court decisions, the practice of law is a common law right and cannot be restricted or monopolized by a few greedy people…now there’s a place to start to get out from under self-serving regulatory bodies.
I might suggest that its because the whole point of the legal system as set up, is not to provide access to justice, but to enrich a commercial system designed to make millionaires off the back of those trapped by the monopoly this system has given itself.
I have hired some 12 lawyers in my time, from Ontario, and from BC when I lived there…not a single one would work under $300 and none without a hefty up-front retainer.
Too many people now know the difference between a statutory court and its commercial enterprise system and the common law courts that are supposed to develop the common law after 1982 by prioritizing human rights that, pursuant to s. 26 of the Charter, are supposed to protect our property, family and educational rights and of course the all important but hidden right to be free of all taxation and forced disposition of our resources to corporate governments.
“…nowhere near $300.00 per hour for legal services.” That’s odd. I’ve had costs of just an opponent’s law clerk awarded against me at $350/hr, not including counsel fees. You wouldn’t be suggesting the costs claims put before the court are doctored to exaggerate the real rate in order to achieve excess recovery? What a sham the legal profession is.
Further to my efforts to recover the fees I paid to a lawyer who missed limitation periods and abandoned my two small claims files in 2014 (with catastrophic consequences for me), and further to learning that the Administrative Deputy Judge had taken carriage of my files from the outset and then denied me all access to justice and to the proceedings I am entitled to, etc., I applied to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario for a transfer of the files from Small Claims Court.
My Application was dismissed and the punishment for even trying to access justice and a fair adjudication of my Motions to Strike the Defendant lawyer’s Defences is $6,715.20. Each of the claims is for an amount of $9,000.
So if you think that the system is not ethically bankrupt, think again. There is actually a punishment for showing that an Administrative Deputy Judge has not only stated he was trying to get rid of me, but took carriage of the small claims files from the beginning, had all filings streamed to him and made all sorts of orders that were ultra vires Small Claims rules and objectives, including ordering expert reports and stating that he would discuss my failure to get expert reports with the trial judge.
You cannot fix rot until there is a platform for names to be named and files to be uploaded to show how this is all rolling out in plain sight. How dare we demand our money back for not having received even reasonable service!
Sincerely,
Grace Joubarne
And in my case,, i couldn’t even appeal the decisions,, because the judge said,, and do not come back to court on this issue,,, so,, when i tried to file at the appeal court,, the CLERK, refused to accept my filing,, refused to give me an appeal court number,, even though i had THREE fax confirmation sheets showing they had received my filing, And no lawyer will take my new evidence,, a report prepared by a geneticist,, showing fraud,, showing illegal sharing of dna data with other labs,, and showing clear evidence of evidence misshandling, Out right lies, But no lawyer will take my case to the court, i have spoken to at least half a dozen, none of them will help, It is a complete united front to rid themselves of me and what i am saying, even with proof in hand, It is more then corrupt judges,, It is corrupt judges supported by the staff that they use to enforce their corruption, And a brotherhood of lawyers to do the same, They are not separate, They work together, And the law societies orchestrate it,
In the USA, I believe judges are elected by the people and if he/she is incompetent and/or corrupt/biased, he/she would be voted out of office.
Also, in the USA, many civil trials and motions are televised on TV. In Canada, only the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) can remove a judge appointed by the Federal Government and only for egregious acts such as blatant sexual assault, racist remarks, murder, etc.
Canadian murder trials due to their sensationalism are well attended by the public and as well as small claims hearings which are packed to the rafters with attendees, however in a civil motion hearing and a trial hearing, the poor SRL has to beg for a McKenzie Friend helper and there are rarely any other people in attendance in the visitors seating area. Civil hearings are not televised thus corrupt judges and lawyers get away with their shenanigans.
Bottom Line: Judges and opposing lawyers must have the public spotlight shone brightly on them through much more transparency.
I’ve paid $700 and still litigation was dragged out for 7 years, with the rules of court never being applied to the opposing side. Even as a self-litigant, yesterday I was told the opposing lawyers did not have to adhere to the Rules of Civil Procedure as respondents to my appeal and motion!
I have paid $300/hr for a lawyer who on 3 files missed limitation periods and/or abandoned the files without notice, thereby causing me catastrophic issues. His insurer, LawPro, turned its lawyers loose on me, a self-litigant trying to recover the fees paid him in small claims court now for 2 years, and not once has the merits of my small claims actions been discussed. I even tried transferring the files to Superior Court where, we are told, lies the power of the court to administer justice.
What did I get? Dismissal of my application and sent back to the most gross of failures of administration of justice and procedural unfairness in small claims court where the Administrative Deputy Judge, who has taken carriage of my files since the day I filed them, has stated he will discuss the files with the trial judges, has forced regular litigation requirements such as expert reports, Book of Documents and of course, unnecessary trials on me, all ultra vires small claims rules.
As long as Judges and lawyers can ‘do business’ and call it a justice system, there is no hope for this ‘institution’. No lawyers would behave as they do if the Judges were reliable, competent and honest. Since they can’t for the most part ‘fix’ the rot, they are fighting change.
HERE HERE…. that is why 95 percent of the self represented fail, That is why there is a story in the vancouver sun today about some poor soul who lost it and called the judge out on his behavior,,,He was sent to jail for it, We need accountability from our judicial system players, And we do not have it,
I accept the argument that the economics of the game is problematic. I’ll say something about what else is problematic in a separate comment. For now some thoughts about hourly billing. At the beginning of my long sojourn, when I finally found a lawyer willing to invite me into her office, that short visit resulted in me paying her a $1000 retainer. Subsequently I was getting nothing from her and following a phone call I asked her to put in writing what she told me on the phone. I got a seven page letter stating that there was no prospect I’d see success even if I tried to pursue the matter all the way to the SCC. The letter was accompanied by a bill for nearly $1000, on top of the retainer. I was very naïve back then. I paid her the nearly $2000. I should have complained to the LSBC, but at that point I might not have even been aware of the law society’s responsibility for dealing with complaints. What I know now is that such a complaint would have gone nowhere.
.
I recall from when my sojourn began, nearly two decades ago, quotes in the range of $500. Is it just a Vancouver thing?
.
If the legal profession is going to continue relying on hourly billing then the law societies should ensure that the public can check the “regular rates” of every lawyer without the inconvenience of phoning them and answering their questions. Is that too much to ask?
Judges are openly scowling at anyone who tries to hold a lawyer accountable…why is this not discussed? Why is there not an automatic reimbursement ordered by the Court where there is proof a limitation period was missed? Why are simple matters allowed to be blown into revenue-generating schemes?
Why don’t they discuss the creative ways lawyers double and triple charge for their time? There are only 24 hours in a day, except for lawyers. I have been to meetings where I am charged for an hour, but the lawyer was present for only 15-18 minutes and the whole time was focused on something else. I’ve been to examinations for discovery where I paid for a whole day, but most of that day the lawyer was busy with another case and we were all just left sitting there waiting on him.
Why does our educational system not ensure that all people are educated in how to bring actions as self-litigants, so that we are not easy prey as we are now? We are not stupid, we are uneducated and lied to. We should be able to manage simple litigation on our own. Lawyers must be banned from Family and Small Claims Court, period.
Radical change is needed, but unbundling may have no effect on the access to justice gap.
.
For instance, Bell Canada unbundled its long-distance service as directed by its regulator to promote competition. But because it was still a monopoly provider of local service, Bell simply increased the distance for local calls and then charged a higher rate for that service.
.
Unbundling in some cases creates an impression of progress, without the all-important effect of it. If a bias continues to exist against SRLs, unbundling won’t likely achieve a darn thing for them.
i agree with you Ian, unbundling is one approach,, that some people keep hoping will help, But what about the lack of ethics,,,The lack on honesty,, The outright attacks on the public by the judges and lawyers,, helped by the court house staff, who undermine our cases,, and block access to justice for the self represented?? It is still happening,, unbundled will not help with the development of actual respect for honesty,, and proper procedure following for us, We can read well,,, but the players in the courts,, just do whatever they want, There are no consequences for sharp practice against the self represented,, Perjury in court is so common,, it is expected. Again,, no consequences, How is this to change????
Dear Honourable Robert Bauman, Chief Justice of British Columbia, thsnk you for talking to me like I am capable of understanding without dumbing down!! There have been a few contributors here who talk to me, a self represented litigant, just like the impatient judge does. Unfortunately I agree with the responses. There is no regulation of the profession. I call it the new legal standard: reasonable wrongs. If a lawyer makes a mistake, he is not subjected to a reasonable right “bar” of performance, he/she is held to the “patently unreasonable” bar. That is to say, that lawyer can perform just shy of patently unreasonable and there is no legal accountability. Consider tribunal decisions, they can only be challenged if patently unreasonable. This lowest of low bars is established I. Decisions and is the current acceptable legal standard. This is the real problem. Thank you for your perspective, I appreciate it. Lorelei Rogers in British Columbia
Chief Justice Bauman thank-you for sharing your thoughts on the struggle to innovate and the factors which inhibit change to make affordable justice a reality, and I also appreciate the conversation created by Gilliam Hadfield – urging the expansion of non-lawyer delivery and expansion of regulated delivery models and moving away from self-regulation to some form of government or public regulation of the legal profession.
But missing in the discussion is the elephant in the room which is that “lawyers” are required by regulators and courts to over-deliver – and they are prohibited the protection of limited shareholder liability unlike every other “innovator” in the business world. Imagine if the shareholders of Google or Amazon were personally liable for the acts of every one of their employees. They likely woudn’t even exist, let alone thrive.
Also missing is the reality that anyone – lawyer, paralegal, or otherwise, is going to be required to manage their way through a justice process which is archaic, slow and often counter-intuitive – where the cost of getting from A to B is often completely out of proportion to the issue at play.
So. If you’re going to let non-lawyers own law firms and hide behind their corporate veil – why not let lawyers themselves do the same thing? Why not expressly allow clients to take risk in exchange for less expensive “custom-made” service by lawyers?
Innovation is great. As long as lawyers are allowed to innovate like everyone else.
It is to me overly simplistic to suggest innovating legal services is similar in significance to an advertising company or retailer. Legal services are more akin to medical services. Should innovation in the medical field, aided by such things as human-subject experimentation for instance, be allowed by an LLC or anyone? Generally, Google and Amazon are not likely to cause extensive damage to an individual or their future, even if they provide a service that ends up to be a total disaster.
.
I suppose one could think this way if they are just an actor for a fictional entity that is representing yet another fictional entity. But, SRLs are almost always flesh-and-blood and face real personal set-backs, that hopefully most insiders are becoming more cognizant of when they think about things like this.
As well-intentioned as Chief Justice Bauman is, no substantive changes in the justice system and access to justice will take place while the Legal Club retains all control without independent civilian oversight and external accountability.
The legal profession is a Club that is hopelessly conflicted. Its mandate is to operate Canada’s legal system to benefit all – yet many changes that would assist ordinary people are resisted by lawyers for reasons of pure self-interest.
There is one thing that we can do right now that will yield an 80% solution in rebuilding lost trust in our courts and in making the legal profession more responsive…
The law societies in every province must cease investigating complaints against their own members. This most serious conflict of interest undermines the profession’s credibility and the public’s trust.
Self-investigation by the lawyers’ unions is a real conflict of interest that is unacceptable by any modern standard and cannot be resolved – except by the establishment of independent organizations in each province to receive complaints against lawyers, to perform professional unbiased investigations and to lay charges where appropriate. The retention of investigative functions by the law societies is indefensible.
Let’s focus on this very attainable goal.
Lawyers should not be investigating the people they went to law school with, the people they work with and the people they socialize with and meet in court.
It’s time for legislation to stop self-investigation by the lawyers’ unions.
Lend your voice to this movement. Be vocal. Write to your Provincial and Federal members and attend the public information meetings that are starting this summer.
yes!!! absolutely YES!!! However,, if i may add,,, the handling of evidence without regard for proper following of disclosure rules,, and examination of the evidence is toast as a very bad plan, In my experience,, when you ask for full disclosure, and examination of the evidence,, the lawyers against you will quickly move to dismiss by any dishonest means available, in my case,, they transferred the file to another court without notifying me, Then when i came back again,, they demanded the court dismiss me as vexatious, and summary judgemented me out,,, As a result of these actions,, no examination of the evidence ever occurred,, And the courts let this happen, In fact they facilitate it, The courts also demand we act with respect toward them,,, i agree,, however we have the same right not to be attacked personally in court, I was actually called a slut in open court, The lawyer suggested to the court i probably didnt even KNOW,, who my childs father was. I find this appalling behavior, the approach of the court should be evidence focused,, Not personal attack focused,
I’m sure everyone is tired of saying it, but I’ll say it again the same external oversight out to apply to the CJC also. What ever happened to our new SCC Chief Justice who declared he was going to address this in March 2019? With respect!
As an attorney, I find that the regulations are outdated and certainly not client-centred. If the regulators truly want to ensure that clients are getting the legal services THEY want, then the rules need updating. Being a disrupter and attempting to launch a business that caters to the needs of the SRL is viewed very negatively and with much doubt. It is difficult to get licensed and to prove you are still a lawyer if your services include, for example, work you do as a certified coach. There seems to be no common sense applied to the rules and it discourages people in the legal profession from taking risks in order to satisfy the needs of clients. I agree with the blog, changes need to be applauded; roadblocks to service providers need to come down. Traditional lawyers with traditional practices have their place, but the rules need to be revised to really include those of us who are prepared to take the bigger financial risks and try new innovative approaches to service clients in a manner which is appreciated.
Radical innovation to the provision of legal services is needed but, as a first step, we should step back and ask questions about the overall process. For example:
.
1. Unbundling services or expanding the role of paralegals will allow administrative tasks such as filing out forms, drafting documents or letters etc to be undertaken for considerably less than the $300 per hour charged by a lawyer. But is the real problem that the forms are unnecessarily complicated? Or does the process have duplicate or even contradictory requirements?
.
2. A complicated process brings in revenue for lawyers. Does this create a disincentive for lawyers to streamline the process?
.
3. The complexity of the court procedures is fertile ground for extended exchanges of letters, rescheduling of court dates, multiple affidavits etc. These steps financially benefit the lawyer while allowing the better funded side to Outspend-to-Victory (and the existence of a widely recognised descriptor suggests that it is a commonly employed practice). Is the process actively abused by lawyers?
.
4. The increase in Summary Judgements is the latest wrinkle. Is it used (as lawyers and courts claim) to streamline the process or is it a way to punish people who have tried to implement the changes in Point 1?
.
There are many other issues but, in all cases, the solutions should be directed at the root problem, rather than being a Whack-a-Mole response to the symptoms.
Today, Friday May 31, 2019, I am in court in as a journalist – covering a case where a judge initiated private communications with the lawyers for one side of a civil dispute, without informing the self-represented plaintiff. This went on for 7 months with the lawyers privately, secretly, sending submissions and ‘evidence’ to the judge behind the scenes. The SRL discovered this situation only by accident when one of the parties mentioned an email in court that the SRL knew nothing of.
The SRL plaintiff has filed a motion to have the judge recuse himself as the trust in the court and judge has been destroyed.
This ‘secret communications with the judge’ behaviour is all too common when judges and lawyers view themselves as owners of the justice system and the poor self-represented citizens as interlopers in a private club. It happened in my case and is a typical story when SRLs gather to talk.
We will see what happens today in court.
A very common practice Donald. Judges and Lawyers are definitely “The Club”. Rob Harvie defined it as a “members only club” Colin Feasby in Pintea described us as “outsiders”. When is this going to change? Will it ever?
In a 2017 Globe & Mail article – https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bcs-top-judge-says-justice-system-needs-some-shock-therapy/article34386448/ – CJ Bauman was quoted saying that the justice system needed a dose of “shock therapy”. I doubt that he or any of the other chief justices are ready for what’s coming.
.
One month from now he’ll be in Cambridge, England for a biennial conference at which access to justice never gets discussed, at least not honestly discussed. Here’s the program – http://canadian-institute.com/english/lectures-2019e.html .
.
See also Bill Trudell’s latest column – https://canadianlawyermag.com/author/bill-trudell/ode-to-judicial-joy-17304/ – about keeping the faith, and then consider what The Atlantic is offering – https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/to-save-the-church-dismantle-the-priesthood/588073/ – about how power over the faithful is abused.
It is very nice of Honourable Robert Bauman, Chief Justice of British Columbia, to found and chair Access to Justice BC and to take his time to write in this blog for self-represented litigants. While it is encouraging that there are some judges who care about access to justice and engage with SRLs, the number of such judges is not significant enough for us to wait with hope given the urgency of our issues. Many of us have been wasting over 10 years of life because of legal system. I switched my mind off from the legal issues and systems for a while, which is also a reason why I am making this comment very late.
Chief justice states, “if dramatic change is in fact one of the answers to ensuring ordinary people can access legal services, I want to encourage lawyers (and the judiciary, within our usual constraints relating to the protection of judicial independence and impartiality) to lead the way.” I disagree with that. It is enough lawyers leading the way for decades. Instead, the lawyers should leave the way for the public to lead the way and negotiate with the lawyers what kind of services they need from them and how those services should be delivered.
The Chief Justice states, “…our system promises citizens the “Rule of Law”, but delivers, at best, only part of that promise.”
In my view, our system does not promise “Rule of Law”. For example, the Criterion used by Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada for leave applications is not whether the lower courts upheld the “Rule of Law” but whether there is a high level of public interest in considering the case.
Tribunals such as Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario call themselves as specialized experts and make decisions not based on law consistent with the authorities such as policies approved by Human Rights Commission as required, but based on their personal opinion. For example, when applicants from minority population make legal arguments and cite approved policies, the adjudicators from the majority population disregard those legal arguments and approved policies and personally deny discrimination and justify their denial decisions with their personal opinions. The judges from the majority population in Divisional Court also just state that they owe highest deference to Tribunal’s specialized expertise and uphold the Tribunal’s opinion based decisions. As stated earlier, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada do not look for legality or Rule of Law at all other than looking for a vague and high threshold public interest. How can we say our system promises “Rule of Law”?
As long as there is ‘deference’ to lower courts and tribunals, you know exactly where the public stands in the view of the system.
That is why the system is now so corrupt. The lower courts and tribunals are serving themelves and their brotherhood, so deferring to a system like that is tantamount to inviting more corruption and incompetence and telling the People they really are legal fodder and nothing more.
While Chief Justice and Professor Hadfiled might not have an external/user perspective, they are highly credible internal sources. I believe many users will agree with their following views:
• The legal profession in North America is locked into a business model that does not innovate to increase value and reduce costs
• The legal profession’s traditions of regulation are to be blamed for the inability to change the model
• Rules by regulators create a closed system, a homogeneous idea pool, limited consumer feedback, and limited access to human and financial capital
• We need to bring the lawyer fees down but the profession’s regulatory regime prevents the creation of innovative business models
• A model that embraces a multi-disciplinary approach where some legal services are delivered by professionals other than lawyers would achieve the goal of reducing lawyer fees
• ‘Unbundled legal services’ is only tinkering with the current l legal services delivery model.
• True social innovation requires a collaborative effort across the system by all players, always keeping the user at the centre of our efforts
• We need to collaborate not just with our usual partners and allies—we need the critics, the innovators, the disrupters in our society, in the “tent” with us—provoking us, challenging us, perhaps worrying us, with new ideas and approaches to resolving our access to justice problems
• We need to build an independent regulator of legal service providers
• We need to shift our system’s culture to being user-centred, to making evidence-based decisions, and to challenging entrenched thinking and habits with innovation and experimentation
It would be great if those who agree with the above views promote these messages/views.
And especially we need elected judges and a means for getting rid of incompetent and corrupt judges quickly.
we need the critics,, the innovators, the disrupters do we?? I believe most of us on this site,,qualify for that title,, However,, when we walk into a court, or a lawyers office, we are trouble,, and their agenda is how to get rid of us as fast as possible, Words are cheap! nothing has changed, And it doesn’t appear that it is going to, Unless we force this somehow,