The Law Society published a discussion paper on ABS’s to invite input on the possibility of allowing non-lawyers to own law firms.
This could include partial ownership of law firms by non-lawyers.
What are some of the arguments for and against ABS’s ?
For ABS
-Global and national economic forces drive need to diversify and grow
-Outside capital investment from non-lawyers needed to grow
-Improves access to legal services
-Lifts monopoly on legal market and permits competition to improve service quality and lower price
-Good for national and international firms
-Enhances credibility of lawyers in society
Against ABS
-Access to justice will be threatened by shareholder agendas
-Pro bono will be eliminated as not profitable
-Will lead to the demise of law as a helping profession
-Will turn law into just another commercial activity
-Conflicts of interest inevitable if corporations own law firms (insurance companies owning personal injury firms)
-Survival of small firms and sole practitioners at risk
-Corporate raiders will scoop up lucrative practices and isolate less lucrative practice groups
-Law Society will be unable to maintain control over large corporate owners
-Will pose regulatory challenges
-Corporate agenda will conflict with public good
-Big-box law will follow
What do you think ?
Editorial Note: This article was originally written in the context of the Law Society’s 2014 discussion on Alternative Business Structures (ABS). While some regulatory positions may have evolved, the core arguments for and against ABS remain highly relevant in today’s legal landscape. The questions raised here continue to inform ongoing debates about the future of legal service delivery in Canada and beyond.
Share this article on: