As a participant in the broader discussions about
regulatory liberalization over the last several years, I have views.
The fourth disruptor is
regulatory liberalization (i.e. changes to the ethics rules), especially RPC 5.4, which currently prohibits non-lawyers from owning or investing in law firms.
I have been speaking and writing about the four factors that I see currently disrupting the legal industry: consumers, technology, competition, and
regulatory liberalization.
This will surely be the case as unauthorized practice of law (UPL) regulation continues to fade and
regulatory liberalization continues to move forward.
The issue of ABS
regulatory liberalization is best addressed pragmatically and incrementally.
I've spent a lot of time over recent months thinking about alternative business structures and how to think about
regulatory liberalization.
«In the UK,
regulatory liberalization has had only one documented access to justice benefit; motor personal injury claims more than doubled between 2005 - 2013.»
«Access to justice» is the justification utilized time and time again by the Court and bar leadership to sell the LLLT program and other proposed
regulatory liberalization.
(ABSs are just another type of
regulatory liberalization that permits new players to participate in the business of legal services delivery, and is, therefore, no different than programs like the LLLT program.)
Not exact matches
Conclusion and Recommendation: The Working Group concluded that there are negative consequences inherent in current
regulatory limitations on the delivery of legal services in Ontario that could be addressed with the thoughtful
liberalization of business structures and the related
liberalization of what non-legal services can be provided by entities providing legal services.
The social contract is not and will not work for lawyers if the monopoly continues to crumble, which it will as we move from de facto to formal
liberalization and
regulatory reform.