That idea of “informing the hope for an outcome” is exactly it. Firms put enormous care into selecting the right students, and then, almost unintentionally, shift into a model where success is expected to follow from that decision alone.

And your point about the “back end” really being the beginning is such an important reframing. It’s where capability, confidence, and contribution are actually shaped.

The challenge, as you noted, is that this part of the process competes with everything else that demands attention in a busy firm. So the focus naturally gravitates to the front end, where the decisions feel more immediate and concrete.

But when you step back, it becomes clear that even modest shifts in how firms approach that early period can have an outsized impact, not just on outcomes, but on the experience of those young professionals as they find their footing.

I really appreciate you sharing this perspective – it captures the tension, and the opportunity, exceptionally well.

I agree that the by-law could be clearer, and it will be interesting to see how the LSO approaches enforcement. When preparing LSO contingency plans for clients, I found the Convocation Report accompanying the By-Law 7.1 amendment process helpful and I incorporated that context as a “best practice” for the plans I have prepared.

I think the Law Society’s expectations of lawyers is much broader than a plain reading of By-Law 7.1 would suggest. I’d also note that the plan is meant to be a living document, and updated when any critical systems or processes used by the lawyer (or paralegal) are changed. The annual update is a bare minimum. I also read the By-Law as requiring firms to prepare firm-level plans, including the scenario where no licensee is left to carry on the practice in the event of a common disaster or catastrophic absence, (the meteorite falling from the sky at the firm picnic scenario.) I think many will be surprised by this and I expect the LSO will be providing some clarification once they turn their mind to enforcement.

It’s also worth noting that the LSO’s client contingency requirements are a bare minimum when it comes to practice continuity planning. The LSO’s requirements are about protecting client interests in an unplanned lawyer absence. Many in my circle are using this compliance requirement as a gateway to a broader practice continuity plan. This involves incorporating practice coverage agreements so that a lawyer has a practice to come back to while they recover from an illness; financial strategies to fund a temporary absence or buyout; and more formal agreements with colleagues to take over the practice and serve clients if a lawyer is going to step away permanently due to death or disability . These are all such important conversations to have, to protect not only a lawyer’s clients, but the practice they’ve worked so hard to build.

I’ll be happy to see the Roster thrive in its new home with the good people at Access Pro Bono and their Lawyer Referral Service.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful, comprehensive, and timely post on researching Greenland beyond the headlines. I appreciate the information on Meddelelser om Grønland, and your important point that “Too often, Greenland appears in legal or geopolitical discourse as if it were a newly “discovered” object of interest; this series is a powerful reminder that Greenland has long been studied, lived, governed, and theorized in its own right.”

As the author notes, better process design and proportionality are essential. For example, the Rules could create a strong presumption for online mediation in civil matters when both parties are represented by counsel (absent consent to mediate in person).

In contexts like the Landlord and Tenant Board, where self-repped tenants face the loss of their homes in an intimidating and alien environment, and need access to human supports which Zoom struggles to provide, process design and proportionality might point in the other direction, toward in-person hearings.

The intention of the piece was to highlight both the opportunities and the limits of these tools, particularly in boutique practice and in lower-risk situations. Your perspective adds meaningful context to that discussion which is the broader issue of lawyers integrating AI into their advice and output to courts and clients, and it underscores the importance of maintaining governance, caution and professional judgement as the technology evolves.

Thanks for sharing your Guide to AI Regulation in Canada. I’ve bookmarked it and it is a really helpful resource as AI caselaw builds.

We now have over 75 reported cases where lawyers or self-represented litigants have been admonished by the courts for submitting hallucinated cases. See my Guide to AI Regulation in Canada for the ongoing list: https://uwindsor-law.libguides.com/AI/Regulation#s-lg-box-16992223

But those are the situations where someone is “watching” what is going on. How many contracts and other agreements are being drafted behind the scenes where NO ONE is “watching” what is going on?

Presumably, those are going to hit the courts in 5 – 10 years’ time when the parties realize that the terms were not drafted properly. Will anyone attribute the errors occurring back to the proliferation of AI in legal practice? Somehow we need to train clients to demand that their lawyers reveal in the text of a written document – that AI was used, so that the lawyers can be held accountable down the road as well.

https://defendlawyers.wordpress.com/2026/01/28/canada-lawyer-alleges-durham-region-police-violently-assaulted-her-dragged-her-to-cells-in-oshawa-courthouse/

Robert