Soon after returning from my honeymoon, I noticed that Janice Tibbetts of the Canwest News Service had written a very nice article that briefly mentioned Dynamic Lawyers in the context of how the legal landscape is changing.   Her article, which was published on August 17-18, 2010, went everywhere. And I mean EVERYWHERE: National Post, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun, Ottawa Citizen, The Star Phoenix, and MORE! Thanks go out to Janice for the honourable mention along with Richard Susskind (the brainchild of everything I do).  Here’s the article:

written by admin \\ tags: Dynamic Lawyers, national post, ottawa citizen, vancouver sun

When I created my parody videos (2 completed, 1 still in the works) about the hard-copy O.R.s, I never thought it would come to this (i.e. the O.R.s going digital).

I (along with others, such as Garry Wise and Ted Tjaden) simply saw a flaw in the system and thought we should comment about it.  My particular way of commenting about it was a bit different: I used a video camera, myself, and some editing software.  I wanted to show everyone how I felt about the O.R.s: they were killing trees, cluttering my office and could not be stopped.  All Ontario lawyers knew that feeling.  You can’t stop the O.R.s from coming every week unless you stopped being a lawyer.  Worst of all, I felt that they may have some good information within, so I didn’t chuck them.  I held onto them.  I tried to read as much as I could with my busy schedule.  Older lawyers told me to read them because they always contained some golden nugget of information.  I was conflicted and wished the Law Society of Upper Canada would provide us with a better way.

Thankfully, they did.  Unfortunately, the “better way” has a lot of shortcomings, but I’m hopeful that they can eventually be overcome.

I begin my analysis with the layout of the Ontario Reports itself (which is quite terrible).  This publication (small, primarily black, white, and grey booklet) is in dire need of a graphic artist’s touch. Why are we still using Roman Numerals?  Does anyone actually say: “Oh, the Notices are on pages Ixix-Ixxix!  I’m going to go there now!”  The publication simply looks like something thrown together from the dark ages.  In this section we have news. In that section we have the classified ads.  Then we have some caselaw for you.  Categorical? Yes.  Sexy? No.  I guess lawyers just got used to the idea of how it was organized and didn’t want to change it.  Or maybe lawyers didn’t give the layout much thought because of the enormous AMOUNT of other publications we get every month that have cool layouts (e.g. Lawyers Weekly, Law Times, Precedent, The National, Law Pro Magazine, Canadian Lawyer, specific law journals, etc.).  It’s simply a lot!  So, in my humble opinion, the Law Society should talk to my wife (Paris) – who is a graphic designer – about the layout of the O.R.s.  Simply because every lawyer in Ontario receives an O.R. each week in the mail or by e-mail doesn’t mean we’re going to read it

Now, lets move on to functionality.  The hard-copy O.R. could be flipped through with ease.  Everyone knows the caselaw was at the back and the Law Society announcements and classified ads were in the front.  The black, white, and gray text and images made it easy on the eyes.  Sure, the print got small at some points, but they had to cram a lot of info into this tiny booklet.  Zooming in and out only required you to bring the O.R. closer or further away from your eyes.  Overall, browsing was easy.  Searching, however, was hard (as it is with all hard-copy publications).

Enter the digital O.R.s  As Garry Wise has pointed out, the zoom and re-pagination features are not user-friendly.  One click and you’re zoomed in way too much.  Another click and you’re back to where you started.  It gets frustrating really fast.  I tried the whole page function.  The problem here is that when you’re simply browsing through an O.R., you’re so zoomed in that you lose the forest for the trees.  You have to keep on clicking endlessly to get to the next page and section (if that’s what you’re trying to do). If you simply keep it on the two-page layout, you can barely read anything (the print was so small).  AND I was trying it out on a 42 inch screen!  Besides the zoom problem is moving from one area on the screen to the next.  I would have liked to be able to use my mouse to “grab” a piece of the page and move it around (you know, using the hand icon) instead of having to rely on the scroll bars and zooming.  But maybe I’m just being a bit too fussy…

A significant problem is the fact that you can’t highlight and copy and paste selections!  That’s a big bummer.  While I am glad to be able to see a larger version of the O.R. on my computer screen (it’s easier on the eyes), I want to be able to grab, copy, paste, etc. any part of it. If I want to grab a copy of what I’m reading, I have to print the page, scan it, and get some software to recognize the text….way too much work!  This should have been one of the biggest benefits to having the digital O.R.s.  I’m hoping the next iteration of the digital O.R.s will have this functionality.

There are some features which I’m a bit baffled about.  Why is there a “links section” in the content index?  Will lawyers be browsing through hundreds of links?  Is this necessary?  Also, do we need a search bar at the top of the page and on the left hand side?  I spend a lot of time thinking about website design issues and when you’re putting things twice on a page it means you’re doing something wrong (cluttering up the space).   Keep it simple.  Keep it easy on the end-user.

At the end of the day, would I pay hundreds of dollars each year for this publication if it weren’t being rammed down my throat.  Not in this format and with this limited functionality, that’s for sure. That said, I’m planning on staying digital – for the sake of trees and keeping my office space clean.

Finally worth mentioning is that I really like what Garry Wise has been saying from the get go: the Law Society should provide an index in their weekly O.R. e-mail announcement that contains summaries and links for lawyers to click through to reach specific pages and sections.  This way, lawyers aren’t guessing what’s going to be on the agenda for this week.  We’re busy enough as it is.  Why force us to click through and read the index on a separate website when you could provide it all in the e-mail. Also a la Mr. Wise, the Law Society should provide an opportunity for lawyers to interact and engage each other in a broader discussion about the content.  This could be done by allowing lawyers to leave comments and links to other sources.  If the aim of the O.R.s is supposed to be communal information sharing among a professional body, then it shouldn’t be one-way communication coming from up-high.

I know the Law Society and Lexis Nexis are trying hard to appease many different appetites (the old, the new, the tech and not so tech savvy).  And I commend them for doing SOMETHING after such a long time.  And I am looking forward to the next version of the O.R.s (which will hopefully be a sleek and sexy digital publication)!

written by admin \\ tags: digital o.r.s, digital ontario reports, digital ors, ontario reports

Commissioner of Oaths | Commissioner for taking Affidavits in Ontario vs. Notary Public

What is a Commissioner of Oaths?  What about a Commissioner for taking Affidavits?  What is the difference between a Commissioner and a Notary Public?  These things tend to get confused, so let me break it down for you:

Commissioner of Oaths | Commissioner for taking Affidavits
A commissioner of oaths is the same thing as a commissioner for taking affidavits in Ontario.  In a nutshell, they are individuals who can commission other people’s oaths.  Here’s the typical situation.  You want to purchase a house and prepare y0ur Will.  Both situations require that you or a witness swear or affirm an Affidavit.   An Affidavit is a document which the person making it swears or affirms that the contents are true.  They do so in front of a Commissioner for taking Affidavits.  Only certain individuals – by their trade, position, or through application – are entitled to commission Affidavits.  Those individuals who are automatically Commissioners for taking Affidavits include:

• members of the legislative assembly;
• provincial judges and justices of the peace;
• lawyers entitled to practice law in Ontario;
• certain municipal clerks, deputy clerks, treasurers, administrative heads;
• certain court clerks; and
• certain officers employee of the government (e.g. Department of National Revenue).

Other than these individuals, anyone who is over 18 years old can apply to the Attorney General to be a Commissioner for taking Affidavits.   These individuals (e.g. paralegals) must apply to the government and pay the prescribed fee (i.e. $75 for the first 3 years and then $50 for each 3 year duration after that).  They receive a certificate and an outline of a stamp which they can take to have made.   The stamp will indicate any geographic or temporal limits for these individuals – as per the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act.

If a lawyer is the Commissioner, he or she must provide their full name when commissioning.   They need not stamp the Affidavit or Statutory Declaration, however.   If a person has had to apply to be a commissioner (as above) and is commissioning the Affidavit or Statutory Declaration, then they MUST stamp the document to indicate their full legal name, confirmation that they are a commissioner for taking affidavits, jurisdiction they are licensed for, name of company they work for and expiry.

Notary Public
Notary Public is simply someone designated as such to give official recognition to certain government or private transactions or documents.  As always, we start with the enabling legislation – in this case, the Notaries Act.  That Act provides that an Ontario Barrister and Solicitor can automatically become a Notary Public.  After getting called to the Bar, I simply had to get an embosser, fill out a form, and pay a one-time fee ($145) to the Ontario government.

Everyone else who wishes to become a Notary Public must apply.  To become a Public Notary (in case you are not a lawyer), you need to be Canadian citizen.  You also need to be available for examination and re-examination in regard to his or her qualification for the office of Notary Public by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice (in the area in which he or she resides).  The latter must find that the applicant is qualified for the office and is needed for the public convenience in the place where the applicant resides and intends to carry on business.  This is all covered under s. 2 of the Act.  Finally, that person must obtain an embosser (about $60) and pay a one-time fee to the Ontario government ($110).

The power of the Notary Public is set out in ss. 2(2) and 3 of the Act.  Generally, if the Notary Public is not a lawyer, then he or she may have restrictions imposed upon them.

Some of the types of transactions and documents which a Notary Public can assist you with includes:

• Administering or commissioning oaths
• Taking affidavits, affirmations, acknowledgments, or declarations
• Certifying documents as true copies
• Assisting with certain immigration documents (e.g. passport application, permanent residence card application, consent to travel documentation, etc.).

Section 5 of the Act provides that a Notary Public need not affix their seal to an oath, affidavit or declaration for it to be valid.

Overall, a Notary Public has the same powers as a Commissioner for taking Affidavits, but can actually do more things (e.g. by certifying true copies of original documents used in private commercial transactions).

Remember: if you need to have a document commissioned or notarized, make a post on Dynamic Lawyers.

written by admin

So the Law Society of Upper Canada, Pro Bono Law Ontario, the Law Foundation of Ontario, and Legal Aid Ontario teamed up to study the civil legal needs experienced by low and middle-income Ontarians.  Their Report of the Ontario Civil Legal Needs Project was released yesterday.  The gist of the report is that, with respect to low and middle-income Ontarians:

• 1 in 3 had a non-criminal legal problem or issue in the past 3 years;
• 1 in 10 had multiple legal problems in the past 3 years;
• almost  4 in 10 of those people with legal problems in the past 3 years were still working to resolve that problem;
• almost 70% were satisfied when they get assistance from private lawyers and other professionals;
• people can’t find legal help because they don’t know where to look or because they perceive they won’t be able to afford it;
• half were able to access free help or resolve their legal problems for less than $1,000 in legal service fees;
• Middle-income Ontarians need legal help with Wills, Powers of Attorney, and real estate issues (e.g. residential leases);
• Low-income Ontarians needed help with disability-related issues, social assistance, personal injury or employment issues;
• 1 in 3 said they prefer to resolve their legal needs by themselves with legal advice, but not necessarily with the assistance of a legal professional;
• Unbundled legal services was seen as an innovative way to serve clients (i.e. by breaking down legal services into smaller chunks and allowing the clients to do so of the work);
• THERE WAS A NEED FOR INNOVATION (e.g. self-help centres, lawyer referral service, online technologies, etc.)

written by admin \\ tags: disability, employment issues, finding a lawyer, innovation, law foundation of ontario, law society of upper canada, lawyer referral service, legal advice, legal aid ontario, legal help, Personal Injury, powers of attorney, private lawyers, pro bono law ontario, residential leases, social assistance

So it recently dawned on me that I should probably be doing webinars.  Picture this: for a nominal fee (e.g. $30-$50), you can watch, learn, discuss, and ask questions on a particular legal area which is being presented by a Lawyer!  I could, for example, discuss business law issues (e.g. the different legal vehicles, pros and cons, liability and tax issues, etc.) or wills and estates matters (e.g. powers of attorney, living wills, wills, codicils, etc.).  Finally, I could have guest lawyers talk about various legal issues (e.g. family law, employment law, criminal law, etc.) which I don’t practice.  You could receive written materials and learn a lot in a very short period time from a real life professional.  All of this for but a fraction of the price a lawyer would charge you for a consultation (which can be hundreds of dollars).  The best part is that the whole presentation can get recorded and sent to you afterwards (and maybe even posted on the blog after a few weeks).  Now, just keep in mind that if you’re looking for legal advice in a webinar, then it’s not going to happen: you’ll receive an education, but lawyers are not prone to dishing out legal advice on the fly without reviewing the facts of your situation and researching the applicable law.

So my question to those DL Blog readers out there is: if I build it, will you come? And if you do come (e.g. 30 people for a 30 minute webinar 2-3 times a week), what kinds of topics would you be interested in hearing about?  You can leave a comment in this blog post or you can email me directly with your thoughts.  After I do my pitch on Dragon’s Den (May 1st), I’ll consider what everyone’s written and then plan accordingly.  If there’s no demand for this sort of thing, then I won’t waste my time doing it.  And please don’t ask me to do free webinars: these things cost me money and time and I need an incentive to keep doing ‘em.  So lets hear what you’ve got to say…

written by admin \\ tags: webinars

Funny how my blog ranks highest for the words “lawyers aid canada” in a routine google search.  Also, I think I’ve mentioned “Lawyers Aid Canada” at least a few times on radio and television when talking about affordable legal solutions for the middle class.   It seems like I’m doing their marketing and PR work for them, but they’re also doing some of their own.  Carol Goar of the Toronto Star, for example, wrote an article about Lawyers Aid Canada on February 1, 2010.  In any event, I thought it would be worth reiterating what a great job their doing… and here I go…

Lawyers Aid Canada is a federal not-for-profit corporation that strives to promote access to justice for the middle class.  It does so by offering individuals with certain household incomes (less than $59,000) access to lawyers who have agreed to charge reduced rates.  Lawyers Aid Canada was founded by Haideh Mottahedin, who worked as a mediator.  She had seen first hand how the middle class had real access to justice problems.  They couldn’t afford a lawyer and didn’t qualify for legal aid.  So, with the help of her son (an expert in online marketing), she launched Justice Net.

Justice Net is a free service that allows people with a household income of less than $59,000 to access lawyers who charge 40-60% less of what they would normally charge, depending on their income and the case.  So far, Justice Net has lawyers registered who focus on many different areas of law – such as criminal, family, civil litigation, immigration, refugee, etc.  As of February, 54 lawyers had signed up.

Worth mentioning is that Lawyers Aid Canada has a very impressive roster of legal professionals.  Haideh Mottahedin was able to recruit Virginia MacLean (municipal law lawyer with a strong passion for social justice and president of the Women’s Law Association of Ontario) to be the president of the 7 member board of directors of Lawyers Aid Canada.   The VPs of Lawyers Aid Canada are Patricia DeGuire (lawyer and human rights advocate serving on the Immigration and Refugee Board) and Alex Frame (retired VP of English radio at the CBC).

Kudos go out to Haideh Mottahedin and her team for working hard to make legal services accessible to the middle class.

written by admin \\ tags: Access to Justice, haideh mottahedin, heidi mottahedin, justice net, justicenet, lawyers aid canada, middle class

WOW!  I just got the call from the producers at CBC.  Apparently, they liked my pitch and want me to be on DRAGON’S DEN for the upcoming season (which airs in the fall).  Very cool…  I’ll be pitching – what else – Legal Forms + Video Guides!  Lots to think about…lots to prepare…

written by admin \\ tags: CBC, dragon's den, Dynamic Lawyers

It’s January 1, 1987.  There are about 13,000 practicing lawyers in Ontario.  And, for the first time ever, Ontario lawyers are allowed to advertise their services in any medium (so long as it was not false or misleading and in good taste).  Previously, lawyers were only allowed to advertise in print.  This marked a turnaround by the Law Society of Upper Canada’s police concerning advertising.  And it was a sweet victory for one particular lawyer: Jane Harvey.  Before 1980, Jane acted as in-house counsel for the Toronto Star.  She was not satisfied with how outside legal counsel’s billings (e.g. it wasn’t broken down by matter or lawyer, etc.).  There was no transparency or predictability.  So she struck out on her own and did something completely new and daring: with $20,000 start-up capital, she opened up a store-front law office in a hole-in-the-wall on Bloor Street West.  Not only that, but she posted a detailed price list inside the store which was visible to people passing by on the street. She made her pricing relatively low, but felt that it was the right thing to do to service everyday folk.  Today, she has 8 locations in various malls throughout the GTA.  Congratulations go out to Jane Harvey for having the gall to do whatever it took to “help the little guy” in the face of old-school (and sometimes stubborn) mentality.  I salute you.

written by admin \\ tags: jane harvey, jane harvey associates, jane harvey lawyers, Michael Carabash

I was just thinking about doing another Ontario Reports parody video (here’s my first one and here’s my second one) when I got an e-mail from none other than “Ontario Reports” (as all lawyers across Ontario similarly received) saying that they were going digital!  I was shocked!

There’s no real way of knowing whether my parody videos ultimately led LexisNexis to change the O.R.s from print to digital. But if I can take credit for saving countless trees, I’ll humbly accept my limited role.

By means of background, the O.R.s are little white booklets that are sent out to every lawyer in Ontario each and every week.  They contain ads, classifieds, recent cases, etc.  As a new lawyer, I’ve been keeping them with the belief that they may have something useful one day.  Older and wiser lawyers have even told me that I should read up on the cases in my practice area as they will sharpen my skills and I may have to refer to them in the future.  Unfortunately, you can’t cancel your subscription (unless you’re no longer a lawyer).  Some have tried, but failed.  Truth be told, I felt that LexisNexis should stop killing so many trees by making the O.R.s digitally accessible.  That’s why I made the parody videos.

Incidentally, I was even at Toronto personal injury lawyer Howard Blitstein’s office the other day and he pointed out how the O.R.s were consuming his office.  I told him I was thinking of doing another video and wouldn’t mind taking a few (perhaps 50-100 or so) out of his office and lugging him home.

Well, it seems like I won’t get that chance: starting April 2010, the O.R.s are going digital…

Ah well…it was good while it lasted…looks like I’ll have to think of something new…

written by admin \\ tags: digital ontario reports, Michael Carabash, ontario reports, ontario reports parody

Looking back at yesterday’s guest appearance on Goldhawk Live, I thought it would be useful to make some general observations.

First, people seem to be fixated on problems, not solutions.  Callers complained.  They pointed out lawyers’ high fees and the lack of predictability.   They talked about not being able to access lawyers to go ‘big boy’ court (so to speak).  But dispute resolution (e.g. by using courts) is just one of many aspects of access to justice.  Part of the solution in having better, quicker, and more affordable dispute resolution involves avoiding disputes, having simplified and perhaps more informal rules and procedures, and using non-lawyers (e.g. law clerks, paralegals, outsourcing, etc.) to conduct work that would otherwise be done by lawyers.

Second, people seemed to be somewhat dismissive of the idea that access to justice should involve preventative law.  You can take a FREE Legal Health Checkup, for example, to find out how legally healthy you are.   Why wait for legal surprises and disputes to arise in order to react?  Why not talk with a lawyer to find out what issues you should be dealing with now to save yourself and your family money and headaches later on?  You go to a doctor for an annual health checkup, so why don’t you go to a lawyer for an annual legal checkup?

Third, people don’t seem to think about innovative solutions that lawyers could offer through technology (particularly the Internet).  This may be a generational gap issue.  Older generations – those who primarily use legal services because they have more disposable income – are probably not used to shopping online for one.  Nor are they used to educating themselves based on what lawyers write on their blogs, websites, and elsewhere.  People see lawyers and their fees as the problem, not as the solution.  But lawyers who people cannot otherwise afford can still service them through technology (e.g. check out our Legal Forms + Video Guides).

Fourth and final, the idea that more expensive lawyers are necessarily better (and therefore those with less resources cannot access justice) should be challenged.  I was winning cases when I started as a new lawyer a few years ago and I was charging considerably less than opposing counsel.  The reason I was winning was because I was more prepared, I spent more time doing hard work, and I presented my case with more authority.  Opposing counsel was relying on their experience and advocacy techniques – but the judges would see through their empty arguments (to my client’s benefits).   I’m sure the clients who retained opposing counsel for hundreds of dollars more per hour than I had been charging my client were thinking: I should have probably hired that young and hungry lawyer.

These are just some of my observations about yesterday’s show…

written by admin \\ tags: legal forms video guides, Michael Carabash, technology