Sentences with phrase «trying solve their legal problems»

However, doesn't that make it even more important to walk in the shoes of a variety of members of the public, for example, who are trying solve their legal problems?

Not exact matches

Maybe this low percentage is the root cause of the legal tech industry's obsession with solving all the wrong problems, or maybe 9 % is a typical percentage of ex-professionals to have on staff for companies trying to provide tech solutions to that industry.

But because law societies in Canada have done nothing to try to solve the unaffordable legal services problem («the problem»), they have undercut their ability to prosecute them for UPL for the reason that such organizations are not themselves licensed lawyers.

Call us similarly different - minded lawyers who are trying to figure out a better way to solve legal problems for clients.

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.

(1) management by part - time amateurs (benchers), whose work is mostly charity — «amateurs» because they don't have the expertise necessary for solving difficult problems such as the unaffordability of legal services (and they don't try to get it);

I think, so often lawyers try to solve problems with lawyers, so I think anytime you can involve technology, business folks from your company that are the end - receivers of your legal output, and really bring different thinking, and I think that's where you'll get your best solutions for, «Are we solving the right problem?»

The LSB's take on this is to, in Passmore's words, «go back to beginning and work out what problem (or risk) we really are trying to solve through regulation and then apply that to the legal services market, or each part of it, consistently».

I nevertheless think it preferable for judges to say that they are trying, with reference to municipal legal systems, to solve legal problems in a way that will make a positive contribution to international law more generally, rather than to claim that general principles derive their validity from state consent or from the objective nature of law.

Usually we're talking about young women who want to know these stories, they want to know the background those are the perfect candidates for the intake position because we don't want them trying to solve this person's problem and most of us even after a few months in the legal industry, we think we have enough information to jump to solving.

In which case, the best answer may be that you don't need to be a lawyer to be a legal tech founder, but you do need to have first - hand experience of the problem you are trying to solve in the legal world.

These lawyers are trying out new tools and different ways of solving clients» legal problems (or their own law - practice problems), like developing software that can do it instead of pulling up another blank Word document.

I think it's worth expanding your idea of the problems that your clients are trying to solve beyond just the legal problem in general and then helping them with those things all the way from the beginning.

(2) I believe that trying to find a just solution to a contentious matter is as if not more demanding than arguing for its resolution according to legal precedents (I always tell my students that they are mistaken if they believe that mooting is the pinnacle of intellectual achievement in law school — in fact it is learning how to negotiate, mediate and problem - solve)(3) Learning how to problem - solve (which includes relating to the people as well as the problem) is a good deal more practical and important for prospective lawyers than being able to find and apply legal precedent, any well - trained monkey can learn to do that and (4) I think we make the mistake all the time of imagining that knowledge and skills are somehow binary processes.

legal problems they don't know that they have, e.g., one unserviced legal problem often leads to several more — e.g., termination of employment without cause or compensation, means debt, loss of property, family break - up, depression, substance abuse, and sometimes suicide, etc.; and, (3) enlist the help of the social media, news media, pressure groups, and those political parties in opposition to governments; (4) everyone should complain loudly to all of the above about law societies» failure to try to solve the unaffordable legal services problem — their failure to attack it is the cause.

With key stakeholders — lease administrators, IT, legal and finance — all trying to solve different problems, communication within the organization is integral to adopting these new standards seamlessly.

Blame law societies for the unaffordable legal services problem because: (1) everything they do in regard to the problem is aimed at helping the public get used to living with the problem, such as promoting «alternative legal services,» but nothing is done to try to solve the problem; and, (2) law societies do not sponsor the innovations necessary to make legal services affordable again.

Henderson said he is studying different examples of how innovators in the law are seeking to have their ideas adopted, such as a legal group trying to solve the problem of banks and private equity firms paying too much for ordinary contract services.

Ken you say, «instead of offering the residents of Canada alternative legal services, its law societies should be trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem, i.e., that the majority of the population can not obtain legal services at reasonable cost.»

I've written several articles having the theme that instead of offering the residents of Canada alternative legal services, its law societies should be trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem, i.e., that the majority of the population can not obtain legal services at reasonable cost.

Law societies are fated to either be: (1) abolished because of their refusal to try to solve the problem of affordability; or, (2) greatly diminished in purpose, power, and prestige by the commercial production legal services.

In the legal department it's about trying to anticipate where you will have challenges throughout the course of a transaction; to solve the problems quickly and effectively.

wouldn't tell the public that the problem is not the Law Society's problem, as in effect it does; (15) LSUC's website wouldn't state that lay benchers «represent the public interest,» which is impossible now that we are well beyond the 19th century; (16) CanLII's services would be upgraded in kind and volume to be a true support service, able to have a substantial impact upon the problem, and several other developed support services, all provided at cost, would together, provide a complete solution; (17) LSUC's management would not be part - time management by amateurs - amateurs because benchers don't have the expertise to solve the problem, nor are they trying to get it, nor are they joining with Canada's other law societies to solve this national problem; (18) the Federation of Law Societies of Canada would not describe the problem as being one of mere «gaps in access to legal services» (see its Sept. 2012 text, «Inventory of Access to Legal Services Initiatives of the Law Societies of Canada» (1st paragraph), (19) LSUC would not be encouraging the use alternatives to lawyers, such as law students, self - help, and «unbundled, targeted» legal services, as a «cutting costs by cutting competence» strategy; and, (20) it would not be necessary to impose an Ontario version of the Clementi Report (UK, 2004) that would separate LSUC's regulatory functions from its representative functions, to be exercised by separate authorilegal services» (see its Sept. 2012 text, «Inventory of Access to Legal Services Initiatives of the Law Societies of Canada» (1st paragraph), (19) LSUC would not be encouraging the use alternatives to lawyers, such as law students, self - help, and «unbundled, targeted» legal services, as a «cutting costs by cutting competence» strategy; and, (20) it would not be necessary to impose an Ontario version of the Clementi Report (UK, 2004) that would separate LSUC's regulatory functions from its representative functions, to be exercised by separate authoriLegal Services Initiatives of the Law Societies of Canada» (1st paragraph), (19) LSUC would not be encouraging the use alternatives to lawyers, such as law students, self - help, and «unbundled, targeted» legal services, as a «cutting costs by cutting competence» strategy; and, (20) it would not be necessary to impose an Ontario version of the Clementi Report (UK, 2004) that would separate LSUC's regulatory functions from its representative functions, to be exercised by separate authorilegal services, as a «cutting costs by cutting competence» strategy; and, (20) it would not be necessary to impose an Ontario version of the Clementi Report (UK, 2004) that would separate LSUC's regulatory functions from its representative functions, to be exercised by separate authorities.

Law societies have caused a great increase in self - represented litigants (SRLs) by not trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem.

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 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 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.

; (4) taxpayers would not have to pay for a justice system that provides lawyers a good place to earn a living but doesn't provide affordable legal services for those taxpayers; (5) the problem wouldn't be causing more damage in one day than all of the incompetent and unethical lawyers have caused in the whole of Canada's history (6) the legal profession would be expanding instead of contracting; because, (7) if legal services were affordable, lawyers would have more work than they could handle because people have never needed lawyers more; (8) law schools would be expanding their enrolments instead of being urged to contract them; (9) the problem would not be causing serious & increasing damage to the population, the courts, the legal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal services for those taxpayers; (5) the problem wouldn't be causing more damage in one day than all of the incompetent and unethical lawyers have caused in the whole of Canada's history (6) the legal profession would be expanding instead of contracting; because, (7) if legal services were affordable, lawyers would have more work than they could handle because people have never needed lawyers more; (8) law schools would be expanding their enrolments instead of being urged to contract them; (9) the problem would not be causing serious & increasing damage to the population, the courts, the legal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal profession would be expanding instead of contracting; because, (7) if legal services were affordable, lawyers would have more work than they could handle because people have never needed lawyers more; (8) law schools would be expanding their enrolments instead of being urged to contract them; (9) the problem would not be causing serious & increasing damage to the population, the courts, the legal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal services were affordable, lawyers would have more work than they could handle because people have never needed lawyers more; (8) law schools would be expanding their enrolments instead of being urged to contract them; (9) the problem would not be causing serious & increasing damage to the population, the courts, the legal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal profession, and to legal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal aid organizations because their funding varies inversely with the cost of legal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal services for taxpayers who finance legal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal aid's free legal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rlegal services; (10) there would be a published LSUC text that declares the problem to be its problem and duty to solve it, and accurately defines the problem; (11) Canada would not have a seriously «legally crippled» population and constitution - the Canadian Charter of Rights an Freedoms is a «paper tiger» without the help of a lawyer; (12) Canada's justice system might again be «the envy of the world»; (13) the public statements of benchers would not show that they don't understand the cause of the problem and haven't tried to understand it; (14) LSUC's webpage, «Your Legal Bill - To High?&rLegal Bill - To High?»

Law societies don't serve the public interest as long as they don't try to solve «the unaffordable legal services problem.»

However, perhaps a prosecution of a law society under Criminal Code s. 122 for its failure to perform its duties in regard to access to justice by at least trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem would fail because, even if an official knows that a decision does affect his / her personal interests, there is no offence, «if the decision is made honestly and in a genuine belief that it was a proper exercise of his jurisdiction.