Sentences with phrase «do alternative business structures»
Do alternative business structures actually increase access to justice when it comes to personal injury?
https://lawyerist.com/ Not exact matches
Alternative business structures (non-lawyer ownership) seem less inevitable in the U.S., but their eventual existence does not seem like an unreasonable prediction.
Why do you think that firm failed and did it have anything at all to do with being an alternative business structure in your judgment?
Some of the above examples of access to justice are those that are commonly predicted by advocates of alternative structures: business models that facilitate reduced and fixed price legal services and / or unbundling, technology that enables standardization and improved processes to handle large volumes of cases or contracts, branding that reduces the client's search costs and increases their level of trust, multidisciplinary services that significantly ease the client experience notably because they do not need to assemble or coordinate different streams of work.
Recently, the ABA Journal published an article entitled, Does the UK Know Something We Don't About Alternative Business Structures?
«Does the UK Know Something We Don't About Alternative Business Structures?»
We don't see that PMBR is connected to alternative business structures.
I can't speak for other provinces, but the framework currently envisioned by the Law Society of BC does not encompass alternative business structures.
Not only does this structure permit us to meet our founding purpose — namely, high quality work for substantially less cost — but it also accelerates our evolution into an exceptional national — and to some extent international — law firm that provides businesses, law firms and attorneys with a viable alternative to traditional opportunities.
What we found we were doing was establishing what the lingo describes as an «alternative business structure.»
And it is done on terms not materially different from those of «alternative business structures» in the UK and Australia.
He was the keynote speaker in 2012 at the Federation of Law Societies of Canada on Alternative Business Structures, and subsequently made presentations on ABS to Benchers at Law Society of British Columbia and Barreau du Québec, and three times to Benchers of Law Society of Upper Canada.
My argument was that allowing paralegals in Ontario and allowing alternative business structures in Australia and England has not solved the unmet legal needs problem and that a legitimate goal does not justify change if the change does not advance the goal.
And you don't have to be an alternative business structure to partner with somebody to have a course.
As McCarthy Tetrault General Counsel Malcolm Mercer pointed out to me and members of the Canadian Association for Legal Ethics on our listerv,» the approval of nearly 50 ABSs [Alternative Business Structures]... in England and Wales in 2012 (with the counterpoints of [the ABA's Ethics 2020 Commission] electing to do nothing on the issue in the US and New South Wales in Australia having permitted non-lawyer ownership of ILPs [Incorporated Legal Practices] for the last decade without a «fitness to own» requirement) is important context and perhaps impetus for Canada».
the Law Society of Upper Canada working group on alternative business structures issued a report advising that it «does not propose to further examine any majority or controlling non-licensee ownership models for traditional law firms in Ontario at this time» but it will continue to explore options for «more limited non-licensee ownership models.»
For example, LSUC ignores the problem and its duties as set out in s. 4.2 of the (Ontario) Law Society Act, while «fast - tracking» the Alternative Business Structures issue (ABS issue) to the quick creation of: (1) an ABS Committee (2) a (biased) ABS Discussion Paper written by the Committee; (3) the online publication of the responses thus obtained; (4) the online publication of a summary of those responses — all done by the work of those self - interested benchers who have campaigned hard to have ABSs made legal; and (5) a proposed vote in 2016 to determine the law society's position as to making ABSs legal.