Working Paper - PDF document

WorkingPaper ��* These Working Papers were drafted in preparation for the final Discussion Paper for Building Block 5, Underexplored Alternatives for the Middle Class.While Discussion Paper is edited and translated, Working Papers (with exception of “Tension at the Border”: Pro Bono In recent years, the idea of providing al services under limited scope retainers, sometimes referred to as “unbundled” legal services, has emerged s promising optionfor potentially improving access to justice.Limited LimitedscoperetainerfirstaroseintheUniteStateslargelyaswayofloweringthecoslitigationespeciallyinthfamilyTherandlaterinCanada,peopwhodidnotqualify In some jurisdictions, paralegals can also provide certainlegal services to clients. Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC),Rules Professional problems. Bylimitingtheamountofworkdonbythlawyerthclientcouldpaylower But,eopalsochoosetoself-representforreasonsotherthanfinancinecessityAstheLawSocietyBritisColumbiahaspointeditsreportunbundlingin2008:[P]art of the rise in selfrepresentation reflects a cultural shift that is taking place in the information age. Legal information is now easily available to those with access to the Internet. Many f these litigants will not ee the value in hiring a lawyer to collect and process information they might easily collect themselves.Some will feel they need little or no help from a lawyer when it comes time to advance their case in court. Whetherlitigantschooseselfrepresentnecessitypersonpreferenctheyoftencotorecognithattheyneedwouldbenefitfrom,professionallegalhelpfromtimtotimLawyersbegantoofferlimitedscopretainerstomeetthdemandforthisnewtypeserviceusuallyonfixedbasis. AdvantageUnbundlingAsBegandSossinsay,unbundlingofferswayhousbetweenfurepresentationandnorepresentation. Access to justicedoenotnecessarilyrequireaccetolawyerbuttherisdoubtthatmacircumstanceslawyersplaindispensibleroletheadministrationjusticnumberstudieshavshownforexample,thatthoutcomesforselfrepresentedlitigantsnotfavourabthosforpartieswithcounselherthtraditionmodfulsolicitorclientrepresentationiseithernotpossibleornotwantedmakingleastsomprofessionlegalhelpavailabtopeopatcosttheycanaffordisthushighlydesirable.Thepracticeofofferingunbundledservicesflatisattractivtoclients,Itmakeeasiertoestimattotcostsandeliminatesthuncertaintythataccompanieshourlybilling.Italsofacilitatecomparisonshopping.UnbundlingalsoempowersthosewhowantmaintaincontroltheirownfilestheextentpossibItplaystothstrengthsindividuclients;thlawyerscanofferhelpthatcomplementtheknowledgeandskillsetofeachperson. Samreen Beg andLorne Sossin, Should Legal Services e Unbundled? Michael Trebilcock, Anthony Duggan and Lorne Sossin, eds., Middle Income Access to Justice(Toronto: University Toronto Press,2012 197202 Report the Unbundling Legal Services Task Force “Limited Retainers: Professionalism Practice(Vancouver:Law Society of British Columbia, 2008). Beg and Sossinsupra note at197 CBA, supra,note t 72; Beg and Sossin, ibid.t 19899. Beg and Sossin, ibid. 199 Notonlywillunbundledlegalserviceslikelyimprovetheresultsforclients,buthecourtswibenefittooClearerpleadings,sharperdefinitionofissuesmorlogicrgumentsbetterresearch – whateverthlawyerofferstheunrepresentedlitigantwillundoubtedlincreasethefficiencythecourtsystem.Unbundlingoffersmarketopportunitiesforlawyers,aswell.ClientswhopreviouslyattemptedtonavigatthesystemalonandunrepresentednowseekadvicandrepresentationfromlawyersAsthisdemandevolveslawyerswilladaandfilltheniche.Concerns About UnbundlingFromthoutsetthoswhohavstudiedunbundlinghavflaggedthpracticandethicconcernsthatariseastherulesandprinciplescraftedforthetraditionalmodeloffullsolicitorclientrepresentationhavtoadaptedtoverynewcircumstances. ThmajorconcernidentifiedbythCBAin2000wasthatlawyerswillbeactingforclientsbasedoninadequatinformationwhichmightleadtoworsresultsforthclientandcomplaintsornegligenclaimsagainstthlawyer.Thusunderthcodesprofessionconduct, a lawyerissupposedtohavsufficientknowledgthfactsbeforofferingopinionForinstance,Rule3)fromthCBACodsaysthat:Thelawyershouldclearlyindicatethefacts,circumstanceandassumptionuponwhichthlawyer’sopinionisbasedparticularlywherthcircumstancesdonotjustifyexhaustivinvestigationwithresultantexpenstothclientHowever,unlestheclientinstructotherwise,thlawyershouldinvestigatthmatterinsufficientdetaitoabletoexpressopinionratherthanmerelymakcommentswithmanyqualifications.Therisdangerthatthinquirynecessarytoassuredthefactnotconsistentwittherestrictednotiooftheretainerinvolvedunbundling.Early on, the UniteStatesliteraturisolatedsomkeyissuesaroundunbundlinglegalservicesthelitigationsetting.reportfrom2000ummeduptheissuefollows.Thprimarycriticisofunbundlingfallintothreebroadclassificationconcerthatcourtandjudgemightbemisled,thatclientmightbemisled,andthatclientmightmakemistakes. CBA, supra note at 72. Ibid. Beg and Sossin, supra, note 196, 202207. CBA, ibid.7475 Ibid. The CBA concluded, however, that the ethical duty could be reconciled with limited scope retainer. Although one might take Rule III(3) to affirm the lawyer’s obligation to offer wellinformd advice, equally, one might take recognize that the lawyer and client can agree that the lawyer’s role is limited and the advice be based on incomplete information Ifjudgemisledintobelievingthatlitigantfullyselfrepresentedforexampleorshmightextendgreaterleniencytothlitigantthanthjudgknewthatthatperson’spleadingsandargumenthadactuallybeen“ghostwritten”lawyer.The Law Society of Upper Canada summarized the concerns expressed by societs and regulators as including:ackclarityaboutthagreementbetweenthlawyerandclientnsuringthatthqualityunbundledlegservicmeetshighstandardthepossibilitythatlawyerwillbeactingforclientbasedinadequatnformationwhetherthlawyer’sassistancmustdisclosedthriskthateitherthclientthcourtoropposingcounscouldmisleduncertaintsurroundingtheethicalrulesthatappl Doubhassometimesarisenforexampoverethicrulesthatapplycommunicationwithselfrepresentedlitigantwhoreceivingunbundledlegalservices.Canopposincounseldealdirectlywiththatlitigantso,underwhatcircumstances?OtheruncertaintieshavalsobeenidentifiedWillthecourtallowcounseltowithdrawaftercompletingthagreeduponservicesunderlimitedscoperetainer?Orwillthecourtregardhimorherascounselofrecordandrequirethatlawyertocontinuerepresentingthclient?ResponseLawSocietiesRegulatorsRegulatorsthprofessioninboththUnitedStatesandCanadhavrespondedtotheandrelatedchallengesRecognizingthrealitythatlawyersalreadyofferingunbundledlegalservicesthatthtrendislikelytoincreasandthatproperlydonunbundlingcansafelyenhancaccesstojusticesocietieshavmovedtoprovidguidancandclaritytolawyersandclientsalike.As201040statesinthUniteStateshadadoptedrulesthataddressedmanyofthepracticalandthicalconcernidentifiedtheprecedingsection InCanadthsocietiesinBritishColumbia,OntarioAlbertandNovScotihavstudiedlimitedscopretainersandhavissuedreportsoradoptedrulechangestodealwiththeseissuedifferingdegrees.ThCBAalsoissuedreportonunbundlingin2000. orrestMostenandLeeBorden,UnbundledLegServices”paperpresentedatthAcademyFamilyMediators2000),quoteinLSUCBackgrounReportUnbundling”,supranotee,ProceedingsfromtheFirstNationalConferenceUnbundling,October1214,2000,Baltimore,Maryland. http://www,unbundledlaw.org SUCBackgroundReportUnbundling,supranot3.eandSossinsupranoteat203 TheLawSocietofBritishColumbiapublishedcomprehensivereportunbundling2008Itmadnumerousrecommendationsincluding 1.ulesthatgovernprofessionconductandprocedurbeforthcourtsshouldamendedrequiredtofacilitatthproperethicalprovisionlimitedscopservices.2.lawyersprovidinglimitedscopservicesshouldmeetthhighstandardsofprofessionalresponsibilitynormallyexpectedoflawyer3.thelawyerdoesnotfeeltheprofessionalservicescontemplatedbythelimitedretainercanperformedincompetentandethicmanner,thlawyershoulddeclinthretainer.4.lawyershouldensurthclientunderstandsthelimitedscopthretainerthelimitandriskassociatedwithsuchservices,andshouldconfirthunderstandingwherreasonablypossibinwriting5.lawyerwhoactsforclientonlinlimitedcapacitymustpromptlydisclosethelimitedretainertothcourtandtoanyotherinterestedpersoninthproceeding,failuretodisclosewouldmisleadthecourtorthatotherperson.6.nlessotherwiserequiredbylaworcourt,thediscretiondivulgetheidentityofthlawyerwhoprovideddraftingassistancshouldwiththclient7.lawyermaycommunicatdirectlywithclientwhohasretainedanotherlawyertoprovidlimitedscoplegservicesexceptthrthfollowingfactorsexist:lawyerhasbeennotifiedthlimitedscoplawyer’sinvolvement;hecommunicationconcernanissuewithinthescopeofthelimitedscopelawyer’sinvolvement;andlimitedscoplawyerorhisorherclienthasaskedthelawyertocommunicatwiththlimitedscoplawyeraboutthissuinquestion.8.subjecttocertainexceptions,theregularrulesgoverningconflictsofinterestanddutyofloyaltyshouldapplytolimitedscopelegalserviceretainers.ThLawSocietyorUpperCanadhasalsoissued a lengthyreportandamendeditsrulesprofessionconductemphasizingthneedtoprovidcompetentservicandtocommunicateeffectivelywithclientwhenprovidinglimitedscopelegalservicesBest Practicesmberbestpracticeshavdevelopedovertimtoimprovthqualityunbundledservicesandmitigatthethicrisksinvolvedinthisnewservicdeliverymodfundamentissuistoensurthatthclientisgenuinelyfullyinformedaboutthnaturtharrangementandunderstandsclearlywhatservicesthlawyerwiprovidandthos Supra note at6-8. See LSUC News Release September 22, 2011, summarizing key changes in proposed rules professional conduct in Ontario. thatorshwinotunderthlimitedscopretainerThCBAarguesthatclearretainerletteriswisinanycase;forunbundledlegserviceessential”. Oneofthebespracticesinthisisthmodretaineragreementcreatedforfamilylawmattersthalistssay,17activitiesthatneedtodoneonparticularfileThspecificservicestoperformedbythlawyerinitialede.g.legresearch)Thosnotcheckedoffbecometheresponsibilityoftheclientpersonallycontactingandinterviewingwitnesses)Thusoncthlimitedscopengagementagreementsigned,clearwhoisresponsibleforwhat.Thereforthagreementnotonlyservestodefinthlawyer’srole,butalsotellstheclienttheotherstepsthatneedtocarriedoutConclusionBegandSossinconcludethathileonlonepiecemassivepuzzleunbundlinginviewrepresentsignificantandpositivesteptowardmoreaccessibleciviljusticesystem”Theacknowledgethatunbundlingisnotwithoutrisksbothtolitigantsandtolawyersbutstibelievthatthpotentibenefitsoutweighthepotentialdownsides.They urge changes both in the regulatory culture and the business model of the gal professiontoachievethis.The CBA reached a similar conclusion in 2000, saying that, despite understandable nervousness because of unsettled issues of liability, should still be possible to unbundle legal services way that minimizes the risk both to clients and lawyers.There is little doubt that greater resort to unbundling, cautiously managed, can enhancaccess to justice. As familiarity with the concept grows, and experience accumulates, it seems very likely that more “best practices” will develop, and the remaining risks and uncertainties will decrease, f not entirely disappear. This is to e applauded. CBA,supra note 77 Ibid Beg andSossin, supra note at221 Ibid.221 Ibid. 193 CBA, supra note 78.