Sentences with phrase «monopoly over their service»

For example, utilities don't have to worry about competition because they have a monopoly over their service area.

Not exact matches

There are long passages expressing his frustrations over public service reform and his conflicts with Brown on breaking up previous monopoly state provision, notably over academies, foundation hospitals and over tuition fees.

It has been resisted as being an improper use of a law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services, which includes its ability to determine the requirements to become a licensed lawyer, and the motivations allowed to be operative in the marking of law school graduates» exam papers during a law societies» qualification process.

So, we must get ready for, as some have predicted, the disappearance of middle - sized and small law offices over the next ten years, and also for government intervention that rolls back law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services and the legal profession's independence from government interference.

Such an agency would be accountable to the political process, to which law societies in Canada are not because of a lack of government surveillance as to how law societies justify their use of their monopoly over the provision of legal services.

(2) the population's views and desires as to this evolution in the use of the legal profession's monopoly over the provision of legal services to impose a «cutting costs by cutting competence» limitation upon people's ability to access justice;

I can't have an affordable lawyer of my own because you use your monopoly over legal services to serve yourselves, but not the needs of the public for legal services.

Given: (1) the misery and damage caused to the majority of the population by the problem; and, (2) the law societies» refusal to try to solve the problem, the commercial producers have a strong argument that they should be treated as equal to the ABSs in providing relief from the consequences of the law societies» breach of trust, i.e., their failure to perform the duties attendant to their monopoly over the provision of legal services.

One recurrent theme in the legal press now is that lawyers enjoy a legislated monopoly over the provision of certain services which do not require legal expertise.

The legal profession will shrink and the law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services will shrink with it.

One recurrent theme in the legal press now is that lawyers enjoy a legislated monopoly over the provision of certain services which do not require legal expertise... [more]

All in all, however, the big commercial research services retain monopolies over these types of materials.

The duty to make affordable legal services available to the population arises from the law that requires the law societies to regulate the legal profession and the monopoly it has over the provision of legal services.

Lawyers rely solely upon their monopoly over legal services to make money, not good business practices.

Until two decades ago, law firms had a virtual monopoly over the delivery of legal services.

Although the Supreme Court of Canada held in Christie that a «general access to legal services in relation to court and tribunal proceedings dealing with rights and obligations» is not a fundamental aspect of the rule of law (see paras. 23 - 27), it does not follow that the legal profession can preserve its monopoly over legal services free from government regulation or control of any kind, even when, as now, it has made legal services unavailable at reasonable cost to a large majority of the population.

Law societies in Canada should be preparing to share their monopoly over the provision of legal services, i.e., preparing for government regulation.

In the interim, should they be allowed to prosecute the offence of «the unauthorized practice of law,» given that such prosecutions now aim to protect a monopoly over the provision of legal services that is greater than that granted them by law?

Lawyers» monopoly over the provision of legal services should require either, (1) that they do all the legal work covered by that monopoly and do it at reasonable cost, or else, (2) that they lose exclusive control of that monopoly.

That is a confession of inadequacy that justifies government intervention by way of rolling back law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services and the profession's freedom from government intervention in the provision of legal services.

But now ironically, it could justifiably be forced back into it by way of a legislated sharing of its monopoly over the provision of legal services with government.

Although neither statute nor case law clearly articulates that the lawyer's monopoly over the provision of legal services depends upon the legal profession's performing all legal services covered by that monopoly at reasonable cost, I argue that such relationship is dictated by constitutional doctrine because:

Therefore government intervention into the management of the law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services is justified.

As a result, the necessary infrastructure of legal research and related support services, and operating legal offices, and management know - how and experience, by which the government could share management of the monopoly over the provision of legal services with law societies, already exists.

The monopoly over the provision of legal services requires not only competent and ethically provided legal services, it also requires that all services within the scope of that monopoly be provided at reasonable cost.

on The End of the Monopoly Over the Provision of Legal Services and Prosecutions for the «Unauthorized Practice of Law», Part 2 of 2

It set out five reasons that the lawyer's monopoly over the provision of legal services depends upon the legal profession's performing all legal services covered by that monopoly at reasonable cost.

(6) The existence of the legal profession's monopoly over the provision of legal services removes the incentive to bring about the innovation necessary to make legal services available at reasonable cost.

[Part 1, last week, questioned the propriety of law societies» exclusive control of their monopoly over the provision of legal services, and their prosecution of offences of «the unauthorized practice of law,» given the many reports documenting the fact that the majority of the population can not afford legal services at reasonable cost, particularly so for litigation.

(12) In other words, the fact that this problem as to the «unavailability of legal services at reasonable cost» has been a serious one for decades, and is getting worse, puts the monopoly that lawyers have over the provision of legal services in need of a shared partnership with government - supported Legal Aid organizations, and legal expense insurance programs, that will: (1) bring legal services to the middle - income and poorer people at reasonable cost; and, (2) make the constitution of Canada an honest document.

(11) To preserve the present system by which legal services are delivered by the legal profession requires that its monopoly over the provision of legal services be defined in terms of the needs of lawyers in providing such services, in the way that lawyers would define such needs, rather than in terms of the needs of the population in obtaining those services, in the way that the majority of population would define their needs.

The above arguments are based upon the constitutional law doctrine of «structural argumentation» (see: Robin M. Elliott, «References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution» (2000), 80 Canadian Bar Review 67, and decisions such as the, Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, [1985] S.C.J. No. 36, the, Reference Re Secession of Québec, [1999] S.C.J. No. 4, [1998] 2 SCR 217, and the, Reference re Remuneration of Judges, [1997] S.C.J. No. 75, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, to argue that the need for access to the rule of law, and to constitutional rights and freedoms, dictate that law societies in Canada can not enforce a monopoly over the provision of legal services that enables their members to charge fees of whatever size they see fit.

These two changes will never happen as long as law societies have exclusive control of their monopoly over the provision of legal services.

Maximizing our monopoly position over legal services to optimize our power and money at the expense of underserved families and companies is not sustainable.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

The fact that the majority of population can not obtain legal services at reasonable cost will eventually result in these solutions: (1) the Ontario government establishing a competing string of law offices providing legal services at cost, thus reducing the law society's monopoly over the provision of legal services; and, (2) the right to legal services at reasonable cost becoming a constitutional right.

It is improper to use the law societies» monopoly over the provision of legal services as protection against having to suffer the economy's ups and downs as the population does.

In carving out a set of certain activities for sale by lawyers only, the legal profession protects not only the public but also its monopoly over legal services.

Due to various imperfections in the market for legal services — including, for example, informational asymmetry and the monopoly that lawyers exercise over the provision of legal service s — the risk for price inflation and escalation is considered to be high when it comes to lawyers as a collective professional group.

(7) lack of accountability in fact to the democratic process (accountable merely in law, but not in fact, i.e., when law societies fail to make legal services adequately available, governments don't demand that they justify their monopoly over the provision of legal services);

Following her study of paralegals several years later, Paula Pevato observed that there was «substantial evidence... suggest [ing] that the legal profession's hostility toward paralegals is motivated, to a large degree, by a self - serving desire to maintain a monopoly over the delivery of legal services to the public.»

So what justifies their monopoly over the provision of legal services?

Bitcoin is increasingly picking up these bad habits, leaving its users with a feeling of déjà vu harking back to the days when banks held a monopoly over monetary services.

Contrary to what the Competition Bureau may believe CREA has no monopoly over the real estate industry, because to suggest so would mean that CREA controls price and supply; kind of like the big oil companies with gasoline prices, and banks with their service charges and interest rates.

Over the long - term, monopolies seldom provide the best products and services at the lowest possible cost.

The «key word» in your above dissertation / explanation of what constitutes a monopoly is... «sufficient», whereas «sufficient» is an adjective describing the degree of control, or not, over a... «service»; that is for the courts to determine, not Ms Aitken, or you, or me.