Through my own journey with chronic pain, I am acutely aware of the impact language can have on your health. More specifically, I recognize the role catastrophizing plays in magnifying pain and that simple word substitutions can facilitate healing. It has also triggered a recognition that the language I use with clients may also negatively contribute to their anxiety.

Catastrophizing involves exaggerating the severity of a situation and jumping to the worst possible conclusion. As noted in the recent Psychology Today article, “Catastrophizing”:

Everyone has negative thoughts. But for many people, negative thinking can spin out of control and be disproportionate to the reality of the situation. A relatively modest error, disappointment, or source of embarrassment (or even the possibility of one) can sometimes become, in one’s mind, a cause for major fear or despair – in short, a catastrophe.[i]

In the context of chronic pain, a sufferer may tell themselves that the pain will never improve, it will only get worse and the pain will result in losing their job and family. The sufferer may use phrases to describe their pain such as ‘sharp knife’, ‘stabbing’, ‘searing’ or in my case ‘being beaten with a bat’. Numerous studies have found that this way of thinking or catastrophizing increases the severity of pain. Substituting these words with more neutral adjectives such as ‘sensation’, ‘tingly’ or ‘pulsing’ has a profoundly positive effect on pain levels.[ii]

In addition to chronic pain, several conditions such as anxiety, depression and fatigue may be also exacerbated and be more prevalent in those who catastrophize. [iii] What does this mean when your bread and butter is based on pessimism and identifying worst-case scenarios as it is in the legal profession?

There are many in the profession who embrace our tendency to catastrophize and see it as indispensable to a successful practice. As noted by one practitioner:

It’s probably why I’m a not-too-bad lawyer. I worry – all the time.

….

Catastrophizing, often seen as pessimism in everyday life, is indispensable in legal practice. It’s a form of strategic foresight that protects clients. Lawyers should lean into this character flaw but also keep it in track – try to stop worrying before going to bed.[iv]

As noted by Richard J. Landau, an experienced lawyer and clinical psychologist specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy:

Attorneys need to accurately predict outcomes and envision worst-case scenarios. Catastrophizing is their stock in trade. In this unforgiving environment, optimism can be a liability.[v]

However, Landau also warns of the danger of this thinking, particularly when it seeps into our personal lives. He offers cognitive behavioral therapy as a means for lawyers to recognize pessimism and catastrophizing as useful tools for their practice but also “a means to an end with limited applicability to healthy functioning in day-to-day life”.

While leaving these analytical tools at the office as Landau suggests is good advice, it only addresses one issue – the health of the lawyer themselves. What about our clients? Is our catastrophic thinking bleeding into our client communications and causing unnecessary harm?

Research conducted in the medical profession found that a physician’s use of language and choice of words can influence how anxious patients are after a consultation.[vi] Like lawyers, doctors often meet their patients/clients at their worst moment and need to deliver difficult news. Researchers have identified ‘never words’ that doctors should avoid to reduce harm to their patients.[vii] These ‘never words’ include:

There’s nothing else we can do.

They will not get any better.

Withdrawing care.

‘Fight’ or ‘battle’.

I don’t know why you waited so long to come in.

Instead, research suggests alternative word choices can decrease patent anxiety. For example:

• ‘They will not get any better’ replaced with ‘I’m worried they won’t get better’. The doctor is replacing a negative prediction with an expression of concern.
• ‘Fight’ and ‘battle’ replaced with “We will face this difficult disease together’. This alternative language focuses on the team supporting the patient rather than implying that the patient can overcome the illness with sheer will and may let loved ones down by not fighting hard enough.

For help drafting client communications with less catastrophic language, following the principles of trauma-formed lawyering is a good start. While not specially providing guidance on avoiding catastrophizing, trauma-informed lawyering allows us to be more conscious of the impact of our words on our client’s well-being.

The Guide to Trauma-Formed Legal Writing[viii] developed by the British Columbia Law Institute provides practical guidance on creating legal documents that “are sensitive to the experiences of those affected by trauma.” Best practices for a trauma-informed approach to legal writing include:

• Avoid assumptions, biases, and myths
• Use clear and accessible language
• Be aware of triggers
• Be empathic and respectful
• Offer support and seek feedback

The guide does not provide clear ‘never words’ as outlined above, but the section on avoiding deficit-based language and euphemisms under the heading ‘Be empathic and respectful’ provides some useful word substitutions.[ix]

Overall, there is a balance that needs to be struck between utilizing our catastrophizing skillset and delivering options or possible outcomes to clients in a way that allows them to make informed decisions without causing unnecessary anxiety. We must catastrophize to a point but find a way to minimize unnecessary catastrophic language. This is an area I will continue to explore and aim to provide further guidance in my upcoming posts.

_____________

[i] Lybi Ma, “Catastrophizing” online:<Psychology Today> https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/basics/catastrophizing.

[ii] Laura Petrini and Lars Arendt-Nielsen, “Understanding Pain Catastrophizing: Putting Pieces Together”, 11 Front. Psychol., 2020 online <frontiers> https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420/full.

[iii] Sian Ferguson and Olivia Walters, “Catastrophizing: What You need to Know to Stop Worrying” online <healthline> https://www.healthline.com/health/anxiety/catastrophizing#causes.

[iv] Deanne M. Koll, “Final Thought Catastrophizing” online <Wisconsin Lawyer> <https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=98&Issue=6&ArticleID=31080.

[v] Richard J. Landau, “Does “Thinking Like a Lawyer” Play a Role in the Legal Profession’s Mental Health Crisis?” 40 Michigan Bar Journal (October 2018) online <Michigan Bar Journal> https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3495.pdf.

[vi] “Physician’s positive language use reduces anxiety among patients with unexplained symptoms” online <Radboud University> https://www.ru.nl/en/research/research-news/physicians-positive-language-use-reduces-anxiety-among-patients-with-unexplained-symptoms.

[vii] Leslie Henton, “Do No Harm: Researchers Help Doctors identify Words They Should Never Say to Patients”, online <Texas A&M Mays Business School> https://news.mays.tamu.edu/news/2024/11/do-no-harm-researchers-help-doctors-identify-words-they-should-never-say-to-patients/.

[viii] British Columbia Law Institute, “Guide to Trauma-Informed Writing” online https://www.bcli.org/wp-content/uploads/TILWG-Final.pdf.

[ix] Ibid at 42.

The post The Dangers of Catastrophizing in Client Communications appeared first on Slaw.

How many times have you asked someone , “ how are you?”

Similarly, how many times have you been asked the same question?

If we think about this, the question becomes very mundane and actually quite meaningless.

“How are you?” has become a customary greeting, wherein we don’t expect to receive or give a response that is more than “I am okay.

Recently, after being asked by a friend “how are you?” I realized in mid answer, that this person was not even listening to what I was saying.

I am certain that many of you have found yourselves in a similar situation.

As I pondered on this realization and how it made me feel, it became clear to me, that in a world that is lacking authenticity and the ability to be present in the moment, actually listening to the answer, may be a turning point which leads us back to meaningful human interaction.

So let me ask those who are reading this… How are you… truly?

Are you feeling overwhelmed in a world that seems to be running a race without a destination?

Are you lacking real human connection… the kind that feels safe, genuine, and non judgmental?

Are you craving emotional acceptance and being able to share your true feelings without fear of judgment and/or repercussion?

If so, then I want you to know that you are NOT alone.

Most people are not able to either express this or are too afraid to admit it.

So let me invite you to a safe space. Even if it’s just you and your journal for now. Just find those few moments to sit with yourself, or if you are lucky to have that one special friend or family member, and allow yourself to be authentic and free to vent, write, talk and connect with yourself.

It seems that technology with its constant demands of 24/7 availability is taking over the human need to recharge, disconnect and be present.

We were never meant to actually respond to calls and emails at all hours of the day or night. We were meant to work, play, rest, and repeat.

24 hours of every day were meant to consist of 8 hours of rest, 8 hours of work and 8 hours of play.

When you think about this time allocation, you are probably asking yourself, where do I have time to rest or play for 8 hours? How can I find these hours in my day when I am multitasking child or elder care, general family responsibilities, work, volunteer activities and a multiple “to do” list.

That is the dilemma in North American culture, but realistically speaking, people in other parts of the world have mastered this quite well.

In Europe there are three or four hour ‘lunch hours” where people go home and eat with their families, rest and recharge. Weekends are for family and relaxation. Vacation is at least four weeks per year.

In our culture, only some careers allow for such “luxury.” However this is not luxury, it is a necessity. Mental health professionals and advocates have been urging us to do this for years.

We were never meant to adjust to the 24/7 technological world and become human robots. We are meant to harness the technology and other innovation to create a more kinder, calmer and meaningful world.

Using technology to work smarter not harder is the key.

If we allow technology to dictate our evolution as human beings, the “human” part of our existence and interaction will actually one day disappear.

So next time you ask someone “how are you?” I would invite you to ask this only if you are ready to truly listen.

When you put away the phone, shut down the computer and other distractions , you can show others that you are present and willing to bring humanity into the conversation.

Who knows… maybe if all of us start to practice really listening to the answer, we will begin to feel connected to our fellow human beings.

This in turn will lead to feeling safe sharing our own feelings and emotions with those asking us “how are you?”

The next transformation will then lead to people accepting the fact that sharing emotions and feelings is humanity and not weakness, which will finally create a world with more acceptance, love, compassion and permanent eradication of the pandemic of mental health issues.

Wishing you all much success in finding and expressing you true selves.

________________

Disclaimer

The information in this article is not therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care/treatment, substance abuse care/ treatment, nor is it medical, psychological, mental health advice or treatment, or any other professional advice.

The information in this article is for information purposes only, and is not to be used as a substitute for therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care, medical care, or any other professional advice by legal, medical or other qualified professionals.

The information in this article shall not be recorded, copied or distributed.

If you feel that you may need medical or other professional help, please contact your doctor or call 911 if it is an emergency.

The post The Wellness Lawyer: “How Are You?” appeared first on Slaw.

Forum shopping, that taboo practice in which a litigant chooses the most favourable jurisdiction to try a case, is generally looked down upon. Indeed, courts frown upon the practice even if the sole reason is to stem delay; that is, that a case can be tried faster in one jurisdiction than another. From a system-wide lens, this challenges common-sense. We need only look in the medical field, where patients can shop for medical services like MRIs, specialists, family physicians, anywhere they like. Yet the courts prefer to treat themselves as islands.

What do we look for in a justice system? One oft-repeated feature is consistency. Consistency in verdicts yield predictability and confidence in the justice system. It goes without saying that a case tried in Goderich should yield the same result in Ottawa*. Consistency in the time it takes to complete a case should be just as important. You would think this would be trite, as illustrated in the old adage “justice delayed is justice denied”. But the courts seem to say differently: that we should accept that a case in Thunder Bay can go to trial in two years, and that a case in Brampton can go to trial in four years, and forum shopping should not be used to make the two times closer.

The benefit of a free market is its ability to fill in gaps. When uber took over the taxi-market, it became markedly easier to hail a ride in every city. Gas prices move up and down according to machinations of supply and demand, both present and future. Imagine then how delay would be flattened across free-market courts: the time it takes to hear a motion in London would be the same as in Toronto would be the same as in Belleville would be the same as…

This paradise would come at a cost. Faster jurisdictions would lament further delay. Costs could increase lawyers travel (but then again, virtual courts still dominate the scene). Certain forums may be so local as to not admit a different jurisdiction (neighbours fighting over a fence line; or a local councillor stepping in doo-doo); but then again, maybe such cases are best dealt with elsewhere, for the reason of unimpeachable impartiality.

Intra-provincial forum shopping would help equalize delay times. The law of the forum would be the same; for example, there would be no difference in the law applied, and the expertise of the judge, in the same case whether it be in Welland or Perth. The difference in costs would be mitigated by virtual courts. The lawyers – decreasing in rural areas in a bit of a crisis – could come from anywhere in the province, thus increasing access to justice. With distances decreasing thanks to virtual technology, the old arguments against forum-shopping are weakened.

Perhaps, if delay was not an increasingly troubling problem – in Ontario, one requiring a complete overhaul of the civil rules, a significant funding shift from civil to criminal litigation to attempt to clear backlogs, a digitization of the courts prioritizing criminal law (and correspondingly de-prioritizing other practice areas) – then forum-shopping would be a smaller issue. And indeed for many past years forum-shopping was not-oft done, not oft-litigated, and if litigated, quickly resolved. But the phenomenon has increased precisely to mitigate against the devil of delay, not the evils of vexatious litigants. Perhaps it is time for forum-shopping to be re-visited as another tool to stem delay and build consistency across the justice system.

_______

*My apologies to those outside of Ontario; this writer’s experience is limited, and I would urge you to opine in the comments.

The post Forum Shopping Could Fix the Delay Problem appeared first on Slaw.

In previous articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms and explored the first four elements: Respect, Equity, Clarity, and Learning. This month, I turn to A: Autonomy.

Let me introduce you to Priya.

Priya is a fifth-year associate with a busy corporate practice at a mid-sized firm. She is capable, hardworking, and well-liked by clients. She has recently found her work coming from one partner, and the working relationship follows a pattern. He hands her a file and tells her it is hers to run. Then he rewrites her drafts, not for substance, but for style. He asks to be copied on every client email. When opposing counsel sends over a question, he often answers it before she has seen it.

Priya has noticed a change in her own work lately. She no longer asks herself what the best approach to a problem is. She asks what the partner would want.

She has stopped doing her best thinking. She is guessing at his. She is also feeling increasingly demotivated to the point that she has started talking to a recruiter about options.

Autonomy.

Why Autonomy Is Not Optional

A quick reminder about how this fits into our human operating system. Neuroscientists describe the brain as a prediction machine. At every moment it is forecasting what will happen next and checking those forecasts against what arrives from the environment, the body, and the social world. The more accurate the predictions, the more efficiently the brain manages its energy budget and the safer we feel. Security enhances cognitive capacity. That is the deep logic our brains operate from.

Autonomy is a social input our brain is alert to. It is one of the five social domains in David Rock’s SCARF model. When we have meaningful control over our work, our choices, and our environment, we can predict more of what happens to us, and the brain reads that control as reward. When control is stripped away, the brain registers threat. Attention narrows. Stress rises. The quality of thinking, which is the product law firms actually sell, degrades.

This is why micromanagement is so reliably corrosive, and why the cost runs in both directions. The associate (or staff member) disengages, and the supervising lawyer stays trapped in work the firm hired other people to do. Nobody reclaims their time by doing everyone’s thinking for them.

More Than “Stop Micromanaging”

The usual prescription for autonomy is simple: stop micromanaging. The advice is correct. It is also incomplete.

Telling a supervising lawyer to let go of a file is like telling a conscientious driver to take their hands off the wheel. A lawyer who hands a matter to a third-year with “it’s all yours” and disappears has granted abandonment not autonomy.

Autonomy is not the absence of structure. It works because of structure.

Build the Sandbox

The sandbox metaphor usually gets used in business as a play area: a consequence-free corner where people can experiment. I want to use it differently.

Think about why a sandbox works. The walls. The walls hold the sand in. They mark the edge between where the child decides and where the parent does. And they are precisely what allows the parent to sit on the bench instead of hovering, because everything inside the walls is safe.

The walls do not constrain the play. The walls are what make unsupervised play possible.

That is what autonomy needs in a law firm. The walls are the defined edges of a piece of work: what done looks like, when it is due, when you will talk about progress and answer questions. Inside the walls, the how belongs to the person doing the work. Build the sandbox well and three things happen at once: autonomous action becomes safe, errors surface while they are still small, and files become opportunities for learning.

Three walls matter most.

First: A delegation process that sets everyone up for success

Delegation is where autonomy is granted or withheld, and most firms leave it to individual habit. A sound process is not complicated: clear instructions about the outcome and its context, a timeline, genuine availability for questions, and check-in points agreed at the moment of handoff.

That last element is crucial. A check-in agreed in advance is structure. Structure provides a sense of security. A check-in imposed midstream can come across as surveillance. “Is it done yet?” “Have you started?” These questions signal distrust and aren’t simply annoying. They are motivation killers.

Second: Ownership of the how

Once the metaphorical sandbox walls are set, team members decide how they tackle their work and are held accountable for the quality of the product and timely delivery. Define outcomes, not methods, unless necessary. If a precedent is to be followed or a firm convention applies, say so at the handoff; that is a wall, and walls are fair. What is not fair is leaving the method open and then rewriting the work to match an unstated personal preference.

The same principle applies to change. When firms roll out new technology or workflows, leaders rightly decide the destination, but the people who live inside those systems every day need to have genuine input and real choices about how to get there. Autonomy during change is the difference between a team that adopts and a team that complies and grumbles.

Third: A shared discipline of feedback

Autonomous work is best supported by a feedback system that flows smoothly in both directions. The associate running a file, or staff member taking on a task, needs to know how the work is landing. The supervising lawyer who has stepped back needs confidence that problems will be surfaced fast. Both depend on feedback, and at many firms feedback is left to individual personality: some partners give it well, some give it harshly, and others barely give it at all.

The fix is to train every lawyer in one consistent approach to giving and receiving feedback. On the giving side: specific, behavioural, tied to the work, and oriented to progress, catching what is working as well as what needs to change. On the receiving side, the half that is almost always skipped: how to ask for feedback, how to listen without mounting a defence, and how to turn a vague “this needs work” into something usable.

When everyone at the firm gives and receives feedback along the same lines, feedback stops being an event and becomes a regular part of the work. Course corrections feel routine rather than personal. Errors get surfaced while they are easily remedied. The sandbox stays safe, and the learning never stops.

Operationalizing Autonomy

Here are three actions a supervising lawyer can put in motion this quarter:

1. Adopt a delegation protocol. Put it in writing and follow it. When assigning work, provide background information, the outcome and why it matters, the deadline, and check-in points. Provide feedback on the work product. Use this protocol for every significant delegation for ninety days to firmly establish the walls of your sandbox.
2. Make effective delegation and feedback and essential part of your firm’s operations. Train the whole firm in one consistent. Not just partners. Lawyers and staff, giving and receiving. Develop a simple model, run a working session, and practice with real examples.
3. Audit your own redlines. For two weeks, choose some opportunities to review your edits. Notice, what were the substantive edits, and what was a stylistic preference. Send the substance back with your reasons. Let the preference go, or name it once as a convention you like followed. Then watch what happens to the next round of drafts.

Watch out for these Autonomy undermining moves

• Rewriting a draft for personal style rather than substance, without explaining the difference
• Taking back a task at the first wobble instead of coaching through it
• Requiring a cc on every email after handing over a client relationship
• “It’s faster if I just do it myself”
• Announcing changes to systems and processes with no input from the people who use them daily

Each of these examples is small. Each one teaches the same lesson: this is not really yours. People who learn that lesson stop bringing judgment to work and start bringing compliance. Compliance does not develop nor produce the thinking clients pay for.

Returning to Priya

Nothing Priya’s supervising lawyer does is malicious. He is careful, his standards are high, and every override feels to him like quality control. But each one lands in Priya’s brain the same way: as a threat to her control over her own work. And the work product he gets back is shrinking to fit the space he leaves for it.

Now picture the same partner and the same files with a sandbox in place. A clear handoff. Check-ins agreed in advance. Feedback flowing both ways in a shared language. The how belongs to Priya. Errors surface at the check-in, while they are small and fixable. Priya is learning at full speed, and the partner is sitting on the bench, free to do the work only he can do.

One parting thought: While AI will throw a spanner into how we develop lawyers in the future, the need for autonomy and the feedback that supports learning and growth will remain a dependable constant. Start honing your leadership approach now.

The post RECLAIM: A Is for Autonomy appeared first on Slaw.

In late 2025, facing public criticism and scrutiny from a scandal involving its Registrar and a registered real estate brokerage, iPro Realty Ltd. (“iPro”), the Government of Ontario exercised its statutory powers to appoint an Administrator over the Real Estate Council of Ontario (“RECO”). The province’s intervention was dramatic throughout the fall of 2025, but it has since faded from daily headlines. Despite its absence from our daily news feeds, the iPro matter warrants analysis and should serve as a cautionary tale for the hundreds of professional bodies across Canada that operate under delegated administrative authority. If your organization has (1) a powerful decision-maker, (2) discretion-heavy enforcement tools, and (3) public-facing responsibilities and/or responsible for trust accounts, your organization may have the same risk profile as RECO, even if your sector isn’t real estate, which means that it may be time to stress-test your organization’s ability to protect against public scrutiny and avoid your own iPro scandal.

[ Image by Amy Lloyd ]

iPro Scandal – In Short

RECO administers its mandate under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act (2002), which includes the registration and oversight of agents and brokerages across Ontario and consumer protection within the industry. According to RECO’s website, part of this mandate includes the requirement to, “hold real estate agents and brokerages accountable, make unbiased decisions to protect the public, and maintain trust in the real estate services market.”[1] However, that trust was eroded publicly in 2025 and led to the provincial government’s take-over.

The iPro scandal can be encapsulated in a comment once made to me by a fellow lawyer: “the number #1 rule is that you never ever mess with a client’s trust account!”[2] This lawyer may have used more colourful language, but the point is clear and can be applied to the iPro matter because iPro ‘messed’ with trust funds, but RECOs response was messy.

Dentons was retained by RECO to investigate this matter and based on its Confidential Report and news reports, the following is a high-level summary of the key facts:[3]

• May 2025 – iPro advised RECO that it was engaged in discussions about the potential sale of its assets to another brokerage
• May 19 – iPro disclosed a trust account shortfall of approximately $10M to RECO[4]
• 21 minutes later, the Registrar sent an internal email suggesting negotiating an Undertaking Agreement between RECO and iPro. RECO had not yet completed an on-site inspection and this approach deviated from standards applied previously by the Registrar in other situations. At the same time, the Registrar did not take other proactive steps to protect client assets or preserve the funds
• May 28 – the Registrar attended a RECO Board Meeting but did not disclose the iPro matter in his written or oral reports
• August 8 – the Undertaking Agreement was executed between RECO and iPro, approximately 11 weeks after the RECO inspection concluded. This is the first time the CEO learned of the Undertaking Agreement
• August 13 – Once the Board was informed, it ordered an immediate freeze of iPro trust accounts

One final fact to consider is that the iPro principal had previously served as a member of RECO’s Board from 2019-2023 while the Registrar was in his existing position.[5] [6]

Once the matter became public the fallout was swift, culminating in the Province’s appointment of an Administrator, Jean Lépine, under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 on December 1, 2025.[7] The Minister’s Order justifies the appointment to, “prevent serious harm to the interests of the public and consumers by ensuring that the serious concerns identified with RECO’s culture and governance processes are fully addressed.”[8] Mr. Lépine has been busy since his nomination in December 2025 appointing a new RECO executive and making some substantial changes. Mr. Lépine is reportedly working on some initiatives that include a “cultural renewal plan” and a “renewed governance approach.”[9] The government’s effective take-over of RECO reflects the loss of public confidence that RECO can effectively regulate its own industry and protect consumer funds.

Time for a Stress-Test

Organizations always seem to get tripped up when it comes to conflicts of interest. It happens often, regardless of the industry. Board Members and Directors, along with most professionals follow legislation that addresses conflicts of interest and how they should be avoided. Outside of legislative requirements, many organizations address conflicts of interest through their policies or codes of conduct, but it is common to assume that individuals will be able to recognize a conflict of interest when it pops up, address it and understand when to report that conflict of interest. The iPro matter illustrates that that’s not always the case.

As discussed above, the iPro principal was a former RECO Board Member and knew the Registrant. While Dentons found insufficient evidence of a personal relationship between the Registrar and iPro’s principal or direct influence on decision-making, the Registrar never sought advice from anyone else and his actions, which deviated from the norms, were described as ‘unique’ among reviewed cases.[10] The deviation from standard processes created a reasonable apprehension of bias.[11]

In the iPro matter, the Registrar may not have been unable to identify the conflict, or simply ignored it – who knows – but, given the Province’s swift response and the recommendations provided by the Dentons report, now is the time to conduct an organizational stress test (if your organization hasn’t done so already) – it all begins with understanding conflicts of interest within your organization.

1. Do you have a conflict of interest policy?

When conducting an internal audit, focus first on determining whether you have a conflict of interest policy. If you do, be sure it is current and provides examples of common conflicts faced within your specific industry. If conflicts of interest are built into another policy, ensure that this section is prominent and easy for employees to locate. Don’t bury information about conflicts deep in other policies.

2. Do you have a conflict of interest tracking system?

If conflicts of interest are common in your industry, consider a tracking system where employees can post their outside activities, when they’ve started those activities, and when they’ve ended. Conflicts can arise at any point with outside business activities and volunteer positions. Tracking those potential conflicts can also remind employees to avoid them in their daily tasks.

3. Do you educate your Management, Staff and Board Members at least annually?

Keep in mind that neither systems nor policies can cover every conflict of interest situation, which is why education is so relevant to support robust management of conflicts of interest. It is important to educate employees at least annually on conflicts of interest with practical, scenario-based training. Annual training and education helps to remind employees about their ongoing obligations and where to go to seek advice.

4. Do you have a process for escalating concerns about conflicts of interest?

Consider how employees or the public can escalate or report their concerns about conflicts of interest. A good whistle blowing program can support the organization’s conflict of interest policy allowing employees and outside sources to confidentially speak up when they see (or perceive) a conflict. In the iPro matter, an anonymous complaint was received by RECO about iPro trust irregularities in late May 2025, but that anonymous complaint was referred to the Registrar and does not appear to have been properly managed.[12] In its report, Dentons advised RECO to consider an external vendor to manage intake and reporting by whistle blowers. Not all organizations require an external vendor to have a successful whistle blower program, but it is important that there is a documented escalation process that includes effective challenge and oversight of any investigations, conclusions and remediations.

5. Are your policies up-to-date?

In RECO’s case, there is an Administrative Agreement requiring that they maintain up-to-date policies. While it is unclear if RECO’s policies were out-of-date, it is clear that some of them were deficient. Keep in mind that policies are ‘living trees’ and should grow with the organization. Annual or bi-annual policy updates are a fantastic time to challenge what works, to identify gaps, and improve processes to better the organization. Consider creating a mechanism to track all policy-deficiencies noted by employees between updates.

6. Don’t forget about perceived conflicts

Common conflicts of interest include self-dealing or participating in activities that benefit that individual or people close to them. This kind of conflict of interest is easier to identify, but this becomes harder when the conflict is unintentional or when there might be a perceived a conflict. In cases of perceived conflicts, the reputational risk of the organization can be significantly damaged, even if the conflict is not real. In the iPro matter, Dentons found that RECO could have benefitted from broadening their conflict of interest policy beyond self-interests.[13] In the iPro matter, the perceived conflict led to the intense reputational damage suffered by RECO eroding public faith and pushing the Province to intercede. Even a perceived conflict can have lasting impacts on an organization.

Conflict of Interest Stress Test Checklist

• Do you have a conflicts of interest policy?
• Is it up-to-date?
• Does it include clear definitions and scenario-based conflicts of interest? Is the definition broad enough to include all different kinds of conflicts (not just self-dealing)? Do you address perceived conflicts?
• Do you educate your staff on that policy at least annually?
• Can internal (and external) parties escalate concerns anonymously and confidentially within your organization? Is there a process to deal with complaints related to conflicts of interest? Do you have an escalation team?

Concluding Thoughts

The iPro matter fueled news feeds throughout the fall of 2025 and has since faded from headlines. However, the changes being made within RECO are newsworthy and provide some important lessons to professional self-regulated bodies who are the gatekeepers of their industry and also serve to benefit the public. Without fail, organizational reputational risk is always on the line when conflicts of interest are not adequately managed, when power goes unchecked and when governance is treated as an afterthought. Scandals are clickable but controls are durable.

_____________________

[1] RECO, Online: https://www.reco.on.ca/about/what-we-do.

[2] Lisa, the lawyer.

[3] Timeline pulled from: Courtney Zwicker, “The iPro timeline: Audit details RECO culture concerns, deviation from ‘standard process’” 17 November 2025, Real Estate Magazine (Online: https://realestatemagazine.ca/the-ipro-timeline-audit-details-reco-culture-concerns-deviation-from-standard-process/#:~:text=Secrets%20and%20a%20culture%20problem,board%20of%20the%20trust%20shortfall); Dentons, Confidential Final Report on the iPro Matters, 30 October 2025 (Online: https://www.reco.on.ca/getmedia/f9d52a01-5b78-4db6-991d-d4950d32c3c9/Confidential-Final-Report-to-RECO-from-Dentons-October-30-2025.pdf) (“Dentons”).

[4] The trust funds were to be held to pay Realtor Commissions and downpayments on properties but instead were used for operational expenses.

[5] To be clear, the Dentons report found no personal relationship between the Registrar and iPro principal.

[6] Subsequent financial audits determined that iPro may have used about $30M in trust funds for operational expenses: Shane Dingman, “iPro Realty’s debt exceeded its value, court documents show,” 19 September 2025, Globe and Mail (Online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/article-ipro-realtys-debt-exceeded-its-value-court-documents-show/).

[7] “Jean LÉPINE APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO”, 1 December 2025, Ontario One Call (Online: https://ontarioonecall.ca/news/jean-lepine-appointed-administrator-of-the-real-estate-council-of-ontario/).

[8]“Minister’s Order to appoint an administrator under the Safety And Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996: RECO,” 28 November 2025, Government of Ontario (Online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministers-order-appoint-administrator-under-safety-and-consumer-statutes-administration-act).

[9] “RECO announced major transformation initiatives, a new corporate structure, and a new executive team,” 28 January 2026, RECO (Online: https://www.reco.on.ca/news/reco-announces-transformation-initiatives-new-corporate-structure-new-executive-team).

[10] Ibid. Dentons at p. 14.

[11] Ibid. Dentons at p. 8.

[12] Ibid. Dentons at p. 40.

[13] Ibid. Dentons at p. 17.

The post The RECO-iPro Matter: Governance Lessons From a Regulatory Mishap appeared first on Slaw.

In late April, two groundbreaking decisions concerning legal regulators in Canada were announced — one by a court, and one by a law society.

The first decision came from the British Columbia Supreme Court, which ruled that the provincial government’s proposed overhaul of legal regulation in BC was constitutional and could proceed. I thought this was the obvious outcome from the outset, as I wrote here at Slaw two years ago, and I’m very glad to see the issue resolved — for the moment, anyway.

At the heart of BC’s legislative overhaul (and the lawsuit that challenged its constitutionality) was the BC government’s plan to replace the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) with a new body called Legal Professions British Columbia (LPBC), incorporating the Society of Notaries Public of BC in the process. The government won’t win any awards for the way it went about consulting the profession on this change, and there were a number of aspects of both process and content (which I won’t address here) that raised serious concerns for legal system stakeholders.

But the heart of the overhaul, and the crux of the legal profession’s unhappiness with it, was a fundamental reconfiguration of legal regulation governance. The LSBC, like every other law society, is governed almost entirely by lawyers who are elected to board of director positions (“Benchers”) by other members of the profession. LPBC, by contrast, would be governed by a mixed board of appointed and elected directors, a bare majority of whom would be lawyers.

I supported the overhaul because I had formed the opinion that in practical terms, most law societies put the interests of the profession ahead of the public interest, especially when it comes to non-lawyer delivery of legal services. This isn’t because law societies are governed by cackling evildoers; it’s because a professional regulator whose governors are directly elected by and from the profession it’s supposed to regulate is inherently compromised. If you are elected to a position, you have a constituency, and you cannot help but prioritize that constituency and its interests in your work.

But the LSBC, supported by the Trial Lawyers’ Association of BC and the Canadian Bar Association, said the proposed governance structure, which took away the supermajority of elected lawyers on the Board, constituted an unacceptable violation of lawyers’ professional independence. The government said it wasn’t, and in my article two years ago, I agreed. In his decision, so did BCSC Chief Justice Ronald Skolrood. He found much to dislike about the legislation and the government’s process, but he ruled that the proposed governance structure did not violate the Constitution.

This is a very shorthand summary of the story and the decision; you should read the whole ruling (as well as the organized bar’s dismayed reaction) to learn more. The plaintiffs are making noises about an appeal, which I hope they don’t pursue. Among other reasons, I fear that by the time an appeal snakes up through the BCCA and the SCC, legal regulation will have been overwhelmed by other horsemen of the regulatory apocalypse now coming over the hill (more on that below).

Less than 48 hours after Chief Justice Skolrood handed down this decision, the Benchers of the Law Society of Ontario dropped a smaller bombshell of their own. They voted to endorse the recommendations of the LSO’s Governance Review Task Force that Convocation should be significantly reconfigured. The LSO’s reforms don’t go as far as BC’s did, but they’re still very notable:

• The total number of directors is reduced from 53 to 37
• The total number of elected lawyer directors is reduced from 40 to 24
• The total number of public (lay) directors is reduced from 8 to 6
• Three new appointed directors (two of whom are licensees) are added

The upshot is that the percentage of elected lawyer directors drops from 75% to 65%, while the percentage of public directors very slightly increases (from 15% to 16% — I’d have preferred at least 30%, but I’ll take what I can get).

Thankfully, the overall size of the Board was also reduced 30%, marking a welcome change from bloated to merely overstuffed. Thirty-seven directors is still way too many — the State Bar of California’s Board of Trustees has 13 members, covering a jurisdiction with 225,000 lawyers— but it’s an improvement. The changes still have to be approved by the Ontario legislature, but I don’t foresee any difficulties there.

These two developments point towards the same conclusion: The longstanding custom by which Canadian lawyers elected lawyer-heavy boards to govern legal regulators is slowly but surely coming to an end. And that’s good.

To state the obvious: Lawyer independence from state interference is indispensable. Governments should not be able to direct, intimidate, or punish lawyers because of the clients they represent, the positions they take, or the causes they advance. The rule of law — which you might have noticed is under serious pressure these days — counts lawyer independence as one of its foundational pillars.

But elected-lawyer super-majority dominance of legal regulators is neither necessary to achieve that goal nor proportionate, in its impact, to achieve it. Other professions, including those that also take their independence seriously, have come to accept the value of boards that contain both professional and non-professional, and both elected and appointed, members. The LSO report itself describes appointed directors as a way to address structural gaps that elections don’t resolve, including expertise, competencies, and the presence of Indigenous and Francophone perspectives.

But I think there’s an even deeper issue at stake here: the public legitimacy of a self-regulating profession. Legal regulators are entering a period of extraordinary challenge. Generative AI will change everything we believe to be true about who can produce legal work and what legal competence requires. Increasingly ravenous private equity investors are circling law firms with buyout offers many will find hard to refuse. Meanwhile, the access-to-justice crisis is entering at least its fourth decade, and the profession hasn’t come close to offering up a workable solution yet. Governments across the country are watching the profession — some more closely than others.

In this environment, law societies that continue to pursue a super-majority of elected lawyers on their boards risk more than just wasting money and time while more wolves gather around the profession’s door. They also risk the possibility that the general public will perceive these efforts as the actions of a legal profession increasingly focussed on what lawyers want above everything else. If that belief ever becomes widespread and entrenched in the minds of Canadians, then no amount of regulatory governance reform will do much to help us.

The post The Legal Profession’s Weakening Grip on Law Society Governance appeared first on Slaw.

In my last column, I wrote about the hidden economics of law firm student recruitment and the substantial investment firms make in attracting and hiring students. The conclusion was relatively straightforward. Most firms devote enormous attention to recruitment, but the return on that investment is largely determined after students arrive.

That return is shaped through hundreds of small interactions that rarely receive much scrutiny. How work is delegated. How instructions are delivered. How drafts are reviewed. How students learn what is expected of them.

In most firms, these processes are informal and highly variable. That is understandable. Lawyers are busy. Each lawyer has a different working style, different expectations, and different levels of tolerance for detail. Some provide extensive context. Others provide very little and expect the student to work things out independently. Some review assignments line by line. Others make revisions quickly and move on to the next issue.

None of this is necessarily problematic.

But as someone who develops strategic plans for law firms and regularly reviews financial performance, I often see another side of the equation that receives far less attention. I see the amount of student and junior lawyer time that gets written down or written off entirely. I see the lost realization. I see how difficult it can be for firms to convert student effort into usable and billable work.

More importantly, I see how avoidable some of that inefficiency actually is.

The quality of a student’s work is often determined before the assignment even begins.

A student who understands how a piece of work will be used makes different decisions. Is the assignment intended for a client, a partner’s internal thinking, a chambers application, or a quick risk assessment? Is a short practical answer required, or more extensive analysis? How much time should reasonably be spent?

That last question matters more than many lawyers realize.

Students and new associates are typically trying to calibrate two things simultaneously: the quality of the work and the amount of time that should be invested in producing it. When neither expectation is made clear, students often overwork assignments in an effort to avoid disappointing the assigning lawyer.

The result is familiar.

A research memo that is technically strong but far too long for the issue at hand. An analysis that explores every conceivable argument when only a practical recommendation was required. Hours spent perfecting work product that was never intended to receive that level of attention.

Over time, those extra hours often reappear quietly through prebills, write downs, and reduced realization.

Most students do not understand the economics of this yet. They see their time entered, then reduced or removed. Repeated often enough, that can become discouraging. I hear from many students about how eager they are to make a real contribution. It can create the impression that their work has little value, when in reality the issue is frequently one of calibration rather than capability.

Rightly so law firms generally accept that students and junior associates are long term investments. Few expect new lawyers to become immediately profitable. But helping students develop sound judgment around scope, efficiency, and billing practices earlier in their careers benefits both the individual and the firm.

In many cases, five or ten additional minutes spent framing an assignment will save far more time later.

In practical terms, effective instructions tend to include:

1. Scope: what question is being answered and how it fits into the file
2. Purpose: who will read the work and how it will be used
3. Format: memo, email, bullet points, or something more informal
4. Level of detail: quick answer or more developed analysis
5. Timing: when it is needed and whether the deadline is fixed or flexible
6. Priority: how this assignment compares to other work
7. Effort: how much time it should reasonably take
8. Resources: where to find precedents or similar work, the client file, or other lawyers or staff who can answer questions
9. What a strong result looks like: a brief indication of the expected outcome
10. Check ins: when to follow up or confirm direction

None of this requires a formal training program. It simply requires making explicit what is often left unsaid.

There is also another dimension to this conversation that firms should not ignore.

Many senior lawyers were trained in environments where ambiguity, pressure, and minimal feedback were normalized. Younger generations of lawyers often enter the profession with somewhat different expectations around mentorship, communication, meaningful work, and workplace culture. Some senior lawyers may not fully relate to those expectations and perhaps do not need to.

But firms still need to develop and retain this generation.

These students and associates are the future successors of firms. The long-term health of most firms depends on whether these young professionals become capable, confident, productive lawyers who want to stay.

That does not mean lowering standards. It means recognizing that professional development is itself part of the investment firms are already making.

I still remember working with certain intimidating partners early in my own law firm career as a young marketing manager. I did not want to spend one unnecessary second in their offices. I was anxious, trying not to make mistakes, and likely absorbing only part of what they were saying.

Looking back, I probably left many of those conversations without the clarity I actually needed.

Most lawyers can likely remember some version of that experience from early in their careers.

Students who are uncertain or intimidated often do what many people do in high pressure environments. They guess. They proceed with partial understanding rather than ask another question or risk appearing incapable.

The consequences are usually not catastrophic. They are cumulative.

Across a summer, articling or internship term, patterns begin to emerge. Some students become easier to work with. Their work product aligns more closely with expectations. They require less revision. Lawyers begin returning to them with more assignments and better files.

Others may simply need more context, more feedback, or more opportunities to understand how the work is actually being evaluated.

This is why consistency matters.

Not rigid standardization. Not formalized scripts. Just slightly more intentionality around how work is delegated, reviewed, and explained.

Student recruitment will always matter. But once students arrive, the real opportunity lies in how effectively firms help them become productive, confident, and trusted professionals.

That is where much of the actual return on investment is either realized or quietly lost.

The post The Hidden Economics of Delegation to Law Students appeared first on Slaw.

In previous articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms and explored the first three elements: Respect, Equity, and Clarity. This month, I turn to L: Learning.

In February 2014, Satya Nadella stepped into the role of CEO at Microsoft. The company he inherited was dominant but adrift, slowed by internal competition and a sense that it had been left behind by the cloud and mobile shifts. Nadella opened with a bold move.

Microsoft, he said, would go from being a know‑it‑all culture to a learn‑it‑all culture.

That single reframe became the spine of one of the most‑studied corporate turnarounds of the last decade. Inspired by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck’s work on the growth mindset, Nadella spent years rebuilding how Microsoft hired, reviewed, promoted, and ran meetings around one premise: the learn‑it‑all does better than the know‑it‑all. Microsoft’s market value rose from roughly $300 billion in 2014 to over $2.5 trillion a decade later.

If you want to read more on what Nadella did and how, three good non‑paywalled accounts are Fortune’s retrospective, Fast Company on the three‑word description of the new culture, and Nadella’s own interview at Next Big Idea Club.

The reason I open with Nadella is that the same reframe is one law firms can grab hold of. And the reason matters more than ever.

Why Learning Is Not Optional in a Law Firm

Law firms are people businesses. I have said this in every article in this series. There is a second thing worth saying.

Law firms are people businesses whose work product is the intellectual output of the people. Lawyers do not make widgets. They produce judgment, analysis, advice, strategy, and advocacy. The firm’s revenues are a direct function of the quality of that thinking.

AI changes the stakes.

The more routine work such as listing documents from an affidavit, first‑pass research, and basic drafting is increasingly being done well by AI with humans in the loop. What clients will continue to pay senior rates for is the distinct, high‑judgment intellectual output that AI cannot reliably produce. That is the work of well‑trained lawyers who have built deep knowledge through practice and reflection.

The law firms that will survive and thrive in the coming years are going to have to get better at being learning organizations. Not occasionally. Continuously.

There are exceptions. If your practice is genuinely a volume game — residential real estate conveyancing, for example — then process efficiency may matter more than continuous learning. But for any firm in civil litigation, energy, corporate finance and securities, business law, employment, tax, family, or any area where the work is genuinely bespoke, the firm’s ability to learn is its competitive moat.

Learning is not a perk. It is a strategy.

What a Learning Culture Actually Looks Like in a Law Firm

A learning culture is, first and foremost, a mindset. The orientation shifts from being good to getting better. The focus shifts to “how are we getting better?” — about the work, about our own performance, about how the firm runs.

To take hold, this learning mindset has to be operationalized in specific places. Four are worth naming.

The work itself

The simplest expression of a learning culture is a regular conversation about the work. A highly respected estates and trusts firm I know holds a regular team meeting where lawyers and key staff bring forward files in progress and talk through the trickier aspects together. After significant matters close, they do a short post‑mortem. An employment firm I heard from at a recent presentation does the same: they review how the client was served, how the legal work landed, what worked, what did not, and what to carry forward. The key is, these firms have embedded a deliberate process into their legal practice.

Mistakes

This is where a learning culture either lives or dies. The literature here is Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety, and the finding is clear: teams perform better when people can surface errors and uncertainty without fear of humiliation or punishment. In a law firm, this means a missed limitation period, a calendared date that slipped, a closing document that went out wrong, has to be reportable upward without the messenger getting their head taken off.

Leaders carry the weight of this one. The first job is self‑management: not flying off the handle, not punishing, not blaming. The second job is the sentence that comes next. Something close to: “Thank you for surfacing this. How can I help you make it right?” Then the team works the problem and asks, calmly, what can be learned from it.

A powerful multiplier is when senior lawyers talk openly about mistakes they have made, how they were corrected, and what those mistakes taught them. So do mid‑level associates with juniors. As do experienced legal assistants mentoring new team members. When error becomes a topic of normal conversation rather than a source of shame, the firm gets faster, safer, and stronger. Some of the deepest professional learning anyone does comes from a hideous mistake. The question is whether the firm makes it possible to learn from those moments together.

Annual planning and performance reviews

Many firms have elaborate professional development plans that serve more as a box to check that a meaningful planning exercise. I prefer simpler plans which include four or five questions connected with learning, asked once a year and revisited at the half‑year mark:

• What did I get better at last year? What did I learn?
• What skills or knowledge do I want to develop this coming year?
• What concrete actions will I take to make that happen?
• What do I need from the firm to support this?

These plans then become the spine of the performance conversation. CPD investments stop being generic spending and start being tied to specific growth goals. A mid‑year check‑in keeps the plan from disappearing into a drawer.

The AI question

Every firm with associates is going to have to rethink how it trains them. If AI can pull a list of documents ready for submission to the court (after a human in the loop review) from an affidavit accurately and in minutes, what is the associate doing? The temptation will be to skip the foundational work and move straight to the AI‑assisted version. That temptation has to be resisted.

There is no shortcut for building the neural pathways of legal judgment. Associates need to do the work the long way before they do it the AI way so that when they review AI output, they recognize what good looks like and what is missing. How a firm structures associate development in the age of AI is going to be one of the most important pieces of intentional work in the coming years.

Client feedback

A learning culture also looks outward. Firms that periodically and seriously ask key clients how they are doing and what they could do better are firms that keep getting better. Whether through internal partner conversations or an external interviewer, structured client feedback turns the firm itself into a learner.

Operationalizing Learning

Three concrete moves a partner can put in motion this quarter:

1. Schedule the conversation. Put a standing meeting on the calendar for your practice group to talk about live files and recently closed matters. Not a status update. A learning conversation. Protect it from being eaten by the urgent.
2. Change your first response to mistakes. The next time someone brings you bad news, before you react, say the sentence. “Thank you for telling me. How can I help fix it?” Debrief once the problem is contained. Your associates and staff are watching what happens, and the story will travel.
3. Adopt the simple plan. If you have a lengthy and complex professional plan template, simplify it, and make sure it builds in reflection about skills developed, lessons learned, and the learning plan for the coming year. Ask each person on your team to complete one, talk through it with you for thirty minutes, and check in at six months. That is enough to start.

Learning lights us up

There is one more reason to take this seriously.

When people’s basic needs are met, safety, fair pay, decent working conditions, the drive to learn, grow, and master something difficult is a fundamental human need, not a perk. Lawyers in particular are a self‑selected population of high achievers who chose a profession built around mastery. The drive is already there.

When firms build the conditions for it to be expressed, motivation spirals up. People come to work for reasons beyond the paycheque. Discretionary effort rises. Quality rises with it. Senior lawyers want to stay. Good juniors want to join.

If you are looking for one place to start with the RECLAIM model in your firm, L is a strong choice.

The know‑it‑all firm is the firm AI is most likely to flatten.

The learn‑it‑all firm is the adaptive firm with an opportunity to deliberately design how it evolves.

The post RECLAIM: L Is for Learning appeared first on Slaw.

The legal services sector is in for rough times for the foreseeable future after which we will see a rebirth of legal services entities that bear little resemblance to those operating in the market currently. This is why your firm’s foundational rebuild must happen now.

Law firms are in the midst of grappling with a tsunami of changes within the legal services market that are impacting both practice and business. This is especially true after coming to terms – if we can honestly claim that – with the ravages of the pandemic. I understand that many people would like to put the pandemic in the past. While that would be ideal, it would also ignore the fact that its impact remains with us now and will continue to affect us for some time to come.

The pandemic was a black swan event the likes of which none of us has experienced in our lifetimes when both individuals and businesses were focused on staying healthy and alive.

If we learned nothing else from the pandemic, it’s that the old adage of a five-year business strategy died along with the 7,113,407 reported pandemic-related deaths according to the World Health Organization as of March 15, 2026.

Enormous waves of change have come crashing in since the pandemic began in December 2019, including the ongoing seesaw of work-from-home versus return-to-office, never mind artificial intelligence. The result is that law firm strategy has, in many respects, been cast aside in favour of skipping straight to tactics that for all intents and purposes boils down to “add more talent” and “do more stuff.”

Strategy Backassward

Adding talent through lateral acquisition has been happening at a more frenzied rate over the last few years with lawyers changing firms like they change shirts. These days you almost need a program to tell the players. Goosing law firm growth by adding laterals is similar to my recipe for a law firm merger: Add more nuts and stir.

Unlike individuals involved in mergers, laterals require strong support at all levels and for a much longer time than one might assume. The difference between merged talent and individual lateral acquisition is that ongoing support for a lateral is an investment from the firm and its people. This requirement can be at odds with a perception that if a lateral is as desirable and draftable as they purport to be, then they can self-start, self-propel, self-develop, etc., as well as bring over their clients and billable work. In reality, that isn’t necessarily so and it usually isn’t that simple or easy.

And then there’s “do more stuff” that, at least for a time, makes people feel as though they’re – guess what? – doing more stuff. But is this stuff based on a strategy that supports an objective? No, it most often is not, and has the scattergun approach and busywork hallmarks of spinning one’s wheels: You expend energy and go nowhere.

Setting the Objective

The trick is to create a core business objective that sets you distinctively apart as one of one from the competition: The one thing you do better than anyone else. From there, the task is to set strategies, build supports, and execute on explicit, time-bound, measurable, and accountable tactics that enable the core objective.

The core objective acts as true north from which you never deviate. However, strategy, plans, and execution may occasionally require flexibility to accommodate business and legal market changes. That said, flexibility does not mean elasticity in order to be reactive, never mind accommodating to every single thing, condition, person, or whim.

Strategy is often considered exciting and sexy while objective is deemed the exact opposite. This is why, within law firms, there are always discussions about strategy. However, it is very rare that the firm’s objective is discussed, never mind nailed down.

This is because determining the objective is the hardest part of a discussion. Setting and sticking to an objective requires difficult, yet honest evaluations and conversations that are usually intensely political and often divisive. Reinforcing the objective also requires accountability of individuals as well as the grit of leadership to stay the course, come hell or high water and people who have political sway or think they do.

My Transformation Template

My focus is on business, which is at the core of every law firm regardless of practice.

In my life before law, I successfully restructured businesses in trouble. This is where I learned and applied the following transformation template that worked every time. While this template looks deceptively simple, it is not.

It is based on making hard choices that not everyone will like but will advance the entity to a better position demonstrated by increased profitability, deeper market penetration, key talent attraction, etc. Most vitally, it demands a hard deadline for completion and an iron will to get it done.

Transformation Template

Objective: A transformative outcome. Hard deadline. Measurable proof of success.

Strategy: A set of decisions to achieve the objective. Strategy supports Objective.

Plan: Short-, mid- and long-term measurable tactics. Plan supports Strategy.

Execution: Assignment of tactics and accountability. Execution supports Plan.

The challenge begins with Objective and, as mentioned earlier, is usually a hellacious struggle in the best of circumstances, and worse when dealing with lawyers. This is because, for many law firms, deciding on a single overall transformative objective is rife with contention and politics with symptoms such as, input from anyone who has an opinion and deems themselves right, pipping up and piling on by those who must hear themselves talk, machinations from protectionists of their own practice, and so on.

The other challenge is that the word “strategy is often paired with the word “plan”, ergo, “strategic plan.” Strategic plans or planning sounds important, but really it is a dead giveaway of lazy business.

Strategy is one thing; planning is another. They are distinctly different and need and deserve to be treated as such. Otherwise, as I have said before, lumping the two together leaves many lazy law firms faffing about with aspirational imaginings that culminate in them being as beige and gray as porridge and as fungible as peanut better and, worse yet, leaves them no further ahead than before they began the process.

Get Real

I have heard managing or founding partners say (usually at budget time) that their firm’s objective is “to make $X-million more” in the upcoming fiscal year. When asked about their strategy to accomplish this objective, they have no clue. This is when the process rattles off the rails and the firm reverts to its usual ways of “doing stuff.” Nothing changes, nor does the firm advance.

So, to get real: If you get the Objective nailed down, great. Next, determine a set of – say, three or four – Strategies that will enable achievement of the Objective.

The Plan comes next and, frankly, is the part most people enjoy because it’s tactical. Consider three to four sets of plans that support each of the three or four Strategies.

Execution is what people tend not to enjoy and where the whole exercise usually falls apart. This is because execution relies on assignment of and accountability for individuals charged with leading action on time lined tactics as well as reporting results. Very often, this is when a plethora of excuses pop up, such as having to handle or manage client work, supervise juniors, etc. It is also at this juncture where the firm’s leadership is judged on both its rigour as well as its mettle to lead from the front by demanding accountability and taking swift and decisive action for failure.

Or Don’t

Unfortunately, what usually happens is that in deference to going along to get along, people and firms will decide that doing nothing is easier than doing something. They will defer to what they are used to doing and bumble along living on hope that nothing untoward will happen.

This is why the ostrich syndrome continues to be alive and well and living in law firms.

It is also why foundational rebuilding separates winners from losers like wheat from chaff. Rebuilding is not done off the side of a managing partner or anyone else’s desk, or in conjunction with client work. It is a big, tough, full-time-and-more job that will not result in the person leading it to win any popularity contests. Consider it fair warning from someone who has done heavy restructuring more than once that whoever leads this initiative will have to pull knives out of their back – and probably their front – before lying down to rest.

Transform or Innovate

My template results in transformation, not innovation. And, yes, there is a world of difference. Transformation is not for the faint of heart. On the negative side, it can often cause hurt. On the positive side, it enables space and foundation on which to rebuild.

Agents of transformation act with intensity and speed. The outcome is a complete transformation of the business. Transformation or restructuring – which is often considered a frightening or even a threatening word – is warrior’s work. It is why transformation is usually best led by an outside agent who, while they need to work well with people, must be laser-focused on getting what needs to be done, done.

Innovation is the preferred term used by law firms that, by their nature, shy away from transformation for fear of upsetting someone or a bunch of someone’s apple carts.

Get over it. Or as a restructuring colleague of mine says, “Get on the bus or under it.”

I suggest those who have “Innovator” or something like it in their job title focus on transforming the business of legal services rather than innovating practice. Why? Because those who pay a law firm’s freight – namely clients – don’t care about practice; they care how you do business and how your business benefits their business.

Risk or Reward

Evaluating risk versus reward is where law firms can trip up due a fear of being wrong. I am not talking about being wrong in terms of practice or advice, but daring to take a calculated risk that has the potential to propel change in ways never experienced before that can land an individual, team, or firm in a whole new experience, environment, or business.

This kind of risk resistance is often based on fear of the unknown, whether the results could be positive, negative or neutral.

As an advisor, I will often ask a client, “What’s the worst that could happen?” The answer is often, “Failure.” And therein lies the fear factor that can result in doing nothing.

Embrace Fearlessness

Fear results in a combination of paralysis and inertia that, in my opinion, is both ludicrous and pointless since change, whether it is positive, negative, or neutral, impacts each of us in numerous and different ways every single day.

As a sidebar, and in a fear-versus-fearless vein, you may be amused but not surprised to learn that in a recent meeting with a group of lawyer colleagues, I was asked not to scare people with my remarks pertaining to business impacts of artificial intelligence. Imagine my response.

Being a realist, I can’t unknow what I know, which is that many traditional law firms are decaying primarily due to traditional structures, processes, and hierarchy with the knock-on effect of AI’s impact on the antiquated billable hour model. I have been predicting, opining, and advising on this for years. Now it is finally happening and with speed.

The hitch is that the legal services sector seems stuck in an ongoing loop that needs to be broken apart completely in order to be entirely reinvented and rebuilt rather than being patched or fixed using the same original components, a new widget or two, and some spare parts.

As a participant as well as a student and observer of the global legal services sector for the last three decades, here is what I know for absolute sure: The legal services industry is in for rough times for the foreseeable future after which we will see a rebirth of legal service entities that bear little resemblance to those operating in the market now.

As a realist as well an optimist, I expect continuation of the former – for as long as it takes to evolve – and look forward to witnessing the latter.

The post The Law Firm Foundational Rebuild appeared first on Slaw.

I recently watched a documentary called Sensitive. The topic of this article was inspired by its content.

Introduction

Have you ever been told that you are too sensitive? Or that you need to have tough skin in this world and especially in the legal profession?

Or, how about the time when you are feeling sad or may start to cry, someone looks at you in a judgmental way and says, “what’s your problem? No one wants a sensitive person to be their lawyer.”

It seems that many of us have shut down our emotions and decided to hide who we really are, in an effort to fit a mold that society invented for lawyers, at the expense of mental health and physical health.

For years, I have been trying to understand how to help our profession get over the stigma of mental health. Unfortunately, after 30 years, I am sad to say that we have not moved the needle very far, and are still muddling through this task. I hope that this article will continue to bring us closer to finally eradicating the stigma of mental health in the legal profession.

What is an HSP?

Being a sensitive individual has become a negative aspect of a person’s personality, especially if you are a lawyer or a judge.

Sensitivity wrongly implies to people that a person cannot make unbiased decisions, as they are guided more by emotions. People seem to think that being sensitive detracts from making good decisions. I completely disagree, and so does extensive research that has come out regarding sensitive individuals.

What people don’t understand is that being a sensitive individual, is actually a superpower and not a negative personality trait.

Albert Einstein, Vincent van Gogh, Charles Darwin, Alanis Morisetts and Nicole Kidman have all been identified as highly sensitive people.

HSP stands for highly sensitive person.

This is a terms that was created by psychologist Elaine Aron, who has written books on this topic.

According to Ms. Aron, there are certain people in society that have a personality trait known as sensory processing sensitivity or SPS.

This is not a disorder but simply a personality trait with which and some individuals in the population are born.

A highly sensitive individual has increased emotional sensitivity, stronger reactions to external and internal stimuli such as pain, hunger, light and noise.

According to Aron’s research, 15-20% of the population is highly sensitive and fall into the HSP category.

Many people believe that having such sensitivity is a negative trail. However, some of the most creative and intelligent people are actually highly sensitive individuals.

Benefits of Being an HSP

For those of you who are highly sensitive people, or those who think the sensitivity is a burden rather than a blessing, here are some benefits of being an HSP.

An HSP is going to be more attuned to their environment. So they will be the first to notice if someone is upset, or in distress. This is due to the fact that an HSP tunes into the non spoken behaviors of individuals, such as demeanor, body language, and the sound of ones voice.

HSP feel deeply and so even though they may be deeply affected by tragedy and negativity around them, they are also able to connect with people on a very profound level and are trusted friends and confidants.

When an HSP as a lawyer, interviews a client they are attuned to the non verbal messages being sent by the client. So the person may be saying one thing but the lawyer or judge will perceive other signals that tell them some more investigation may need to be made into the specific issues.

This allows for a more detailed interview process, better analysis of facts and evidence, and more effective representation.

The difficulty for an HSP is that as a result of feeling the world around them in such a deep way, they may get tired and overwhelmed easier than others. So in an effort to self care, an HSP may not attend as many functions, or leave gatherings earlier.

This makes life a bit hard, when work at times requires attendance at events, or having to perform duties within a specific period of time during the day.

HSP need time to recharge and to bring their nervous system into balance. Instead of taking a few hours after a long day to decompress, they may need a day. They may also need to work at different hours than the normal 9-5, in order to accommodate their innate talent of taking in the world at 150% most of the time.

It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where 9-whatever is the norm. Who created this “norm”?

In many European cities, people take time for long lunches, start work later, and finish when they are done with their tasks. They are able to have at least four weeks vacation as the norm and work/life balance is recognized by most companies.

The ability of an HSP to process a great deal of information, have extensive understanding of the topics they are dealing with, and provide creative solutions, comes with a price because workplaces do may not t accommodate for their need to recharge and decompress.

When an HSP comes into a workplace and is able to perform all their duties, but not manage the 9-5 or the necessity to participate in work events, they are immediately labeled as not a good employee. This label is based solely on the social aspect of work rather than the actual duties.

At the end of the day, the HSP will find alternative employment or open their own business. The benefit of these exceptional individuals will be lost to those superficial workspaces where employers don’t understand how to help and accommodate those who don’t fit the mold of North American society dictates as “norma.”

Thinking Outside the Box

In an effort to make this world a better place for everyone, let’s for just a moment, turn the societal norms upside down.

What if a person could work on a schedule that fits their personality. It would give a HSP the ability to manage the stimuli and world around them so they can perform their job at the highest quality.

What if by accommodating personality traits, we can actually achieve performance of duties to previously unattainable heights?

Of course we have to balance the accommodation with the necessary duties of certain careers. However, with some compassion and ingenuity, solutions can be created.

Balance is key. For example an HSP may be allowed to start work at 10 or 11 in the morning. They may be allowed take more breaks to manage the plethora of stimuli coming at them. They may work later rather than starting earlier. They may not be forced to attend all the social events but rather chose when to attend and when to leave.

What if the workplace focused on the performance of duties rather than giving credence and promotions to those who can manage a 9-whatever hamster wheel?

What if the workplace rewarded competence, excellence and individuality?

The answer is simple. By allowing people to be themselves and adjusting our work environment to the individuals who work there, will in essence provide a much more successful work space, increased productivity, reduction in sick days and in general a happier and kinder world.

So next time someone tells you that you are too sensitive… tell them, “yes I am” and just walk away.

________________

Disclaimer

The information in this article is not therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care/treatment, substance abuse care/ treatment, nor is it medical, psychological, mental health advice or treatment, or any other professional advice.

The information in this article is for information purposes only, and is not to be used as a substitute for therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care, medical care, or any other professional advice by legal, medical or other qualified professionals.

The information in this article shall not be recorded, copied or distributed.

If you feel that you may need medical or other professional help, please contact your doctor or call 911 if it is an emergency.

The post The Wellness Lawyer: “Can You Be a Lawyer and a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP)?” appeared first on Slaw.

In my last two articles, I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms, and then explored the first element of the model: Respect.

This month, I turn to the next two elements: Equity and Clarity.

To begin, let me introduce you to Sam.

Sam runs a busy practice. She has a legal assistant whose performance has been inconsistent for years. There are regular typos, misspelled client names, and a lack of attention to detail that means Sam must review everything herself. The opportunities for Sam to delegate are limited, even for simple tasks.

The assistant has also been with Sam since she founded his firm.

When talking to a friend about the situation, Sam says: “I know I should be more business-like, but I don’t want to be unkind.”

This mindset, that you are either business-like or kind, is more common than many lawyers realize.

It is also wrong.

The highest-performing law firms are not choosing between business discipline and humanity. They are environments where both are alive and well. People are treated with respect. The firm supports its people. At the same time, expectations are clear, accountability is real, and systems are applied consistently.

In other words, they are strong on Equity and Clarity.

Clarity: The Foundation of Performance

There is a simple expression that captures the role of clarity in leadership:

Clear is kind.

Clarity gives people solid ground to stand on. It reduces guesswork, lowers cognitive load, and allows people to focus their energy on doing good work rather than trying to guess at what is expected of them.

In a law firm, clarity shows up in very practical ways:

• Clear expectations about performance and roles
• Defined processes and workflows
• Transparent criteria for advancement
• Consistent approaches to feedback and evaluation
• Communication is prioritised.

Feedback is a critical part of clarity. Catching success, recognizing progress, and helping people understand how to improve their performance are not “nice extras” — they are essential leadership behaviours. So is holding people accountable when expectations are not met.

Communication is the mechanism through which clarity is delivered. People want to know:

• How was this decision made?
• What process was followed?
• What are the expectations going forward?
• What is valued here?

When these questions go unanswered, people fill in the gaps themselves, often in ways that increase stress and erode trust.

Equity: The Experience of Fairness

Human beings are highly attuned to fairness. We are constantly scanning for cues about whether we are being treated justly in relation to others.

In a law firm, equity is reflected in:

• How hiring decisions are made
• How work is allocated
• How performance is assessed
• How people are evaluated, rewarded, and promoted
• How compensation decisions are made
• How policies are applied
• How opportunities are distributed

Importantly, equity is not just about what decisions are made. It is about how those decisions are experienced.

When standards are applied inconsistently, when some people are held accountable and others are not, the impact on culture is immediate. Trust erodes. Motivation drops.

Where Clarity and Equity Meet

Equity and clarity are deeply interconnected.

A firm can invest significant time and effort into designing fair policies, compensation systems, and decision-making processes. But if those systems are not clearly communicated, their fairness is invisible.

Clarity is what makes equity visible.

Without clarity:

• Fair processes can look arbitrary
• Thoughtful decisions can appear biased
• Differences in outcome can appear unjust

With clarity:

• People understand the reasoning behind decisions
• They can see how processes are applied
• Even when they disagree with an outcome, they are more likely to accept it

People do not need to agree with every decision. They do need to be able to see that the process was fair.

Returning to Sam

In Sam’s case, this is not a situation of neglect or lack of effort. Her assistant has been asked numerous times to improve attention to detail, and suggestions have been provided on how he might do so.

Sam’s tolerance, while well-intentioned, is not kind, it is unfair. It is unfair to Sam, who is carrying unnecessary stress and unable to fully rely on the support she needs. It is unfair to the rest of the team, who are compensating for gaps in performance. And it is unfair to the assistant himself who is being left in a role that does not align with his strengths and experiences the stress of repeated failure to meet the standard.

Equity, in this context, requires action. The assistant should be performance managed with clarity and care, given a genuine opportunity to improve, and if he is unable to meet the expectations of the position, supported in an appropriate transition out of the role, including fair remuneration. This is what fairness and genuine leadership looks like in practice.

Equity and Clarity as Leadership Practices

Equity and clarity are not abstract values. They are built through everyday decisions:

• Setting and communicating expectations
• Applying standards consistently
• Explaining how decisions are made
• Providing regular, specific feedback
• Addressing performance issues directly

These are not acts of harshness. They are acts of leadership.

A Final Thought

Law firms are people businesses. The firm’s revenues depend on the intellectual output of the lawyers supported by staff. Every day, the people in your firm are interpreting signals about whether their environment is fair, predictable, and trustworthy. When the workplace provides a sense of security motivation and performance increases. When people feel insecure, unclear, or that they or others are being treated unfairly, the work will suffer.

Equity and clarity are two of the most powerful signals you can send. They are not in opposition to kindness. They are what kindness looks like in a high-performing organization.

The post RECLAIM Part III: Equity and Clarity Are the Foundation of a High-Performing Law Firm appeared first on Slaw.

For years I’ve been buying the same turkey bites from the grocery store (Canadian made, of course). They’re a high protein, grab-and-go snack. And, for years, I’ve paid about $7.00 for them. During my last visit to the grocery store, those same turkey bites were a whopping $12.99. Reading the sticker price led to an audible gasp while strangers around me nodded in agreement, because without having to say anything, we were all thinking the exact same thing – yes, an 85% price increase is astronomical, but this is our new reality.[1] Just after my shopping experience, I came across a few articles published about the Grocery Code of Conduct (the “Code”) with headlines framing it as a response to affordability.[2] I read the articles expecting to learn how grocers intended to respond to public concerns about pricing. I was wrong. The Code does not address higher prices and instead it seeks to clarify the roles of sellers and producers. While the Code doesn’t address how grocers will reduce the price of my turkey bites, it does offer a useful illustration of the limits of industry self-regulation.

What is the Grocery Code of Conduct (the “Code”)?

It took roughly 5 years of consultation, meetings and negotiation before the grocery industry published its first voluntary code of conduct signed by major grocers including Loblaws, Metro, Costco Canada, Walmart Canada and Empire Co., along with roughly 150 suppliers.[3] The Code follows the path paved by other, similarly situated countries, like Australia, and it addresses concerns raised by producers, suppliers and farmers about the consistency and predictability of fees paid by these participants to grocers. By introducing the Code, the industry is hoping to level the playing field, create more certainty and allow suppliers to escalate disputes. By clarifying the roles of the grocer and the producer, the benefit to the consumer will be more of a knock-on effect. The thinking is that more fee predictability will lead to lower prices for consumers. However, according to research conducted by CIBC, who surveyed retailers, wholesalers, suppliers, brokers and industry participants, respondents believe that there will be no notable impact from the Code.[4]

Broad (and Meaningless) Language

The Code and the governance structure that supports it is an attempt at industry self-regulation, and industry self-regulation can be tricky. While it is more cost effective for governments and it can succeed, one of the major flaws in this type of approach is that foundational instruments may be diluted to achieve industry support.

A reading of this code of conduct suggests that the industry took the ‘watered-down’ approach to achieve industry sign-on. The Code starts out strong with a statement of principles:

“Contribute to a thriving and competitive grocery industry, delivering the vital goods upon which Canadians in every community depend, recognizing the needs of all stakeholders in the grocery value chain, including the unique realities facing small and medium enterprises, the realities of the Canadian marketplace, and the importance of environmental, social and governance principles.”[5]

However, after this statement of principles, the principled language in the Code dramatically falls off.

The Code does not address how retailers and suppliers will achieve their stated goals or go deep on important definitions, most importantly, it is silent on the meaning of environmental, social and governance principles (“ESG”). The Code avoids defining ESG. Defining ESG may have been challenging, given that its meaning varies widely across companies and industries. While each of the Code’s signatories may have understood ESG differently, to be meaningful, it is important that those principles be explicit. For example, specific issues that could be of interest in the grocery supply chain could be numerous, including labour practices, environmental impact and supply-chain ethics. The potential ethical issues in the global grocery industry supply chain are manifold and complex and while these issues are often addressed through the procurement processes, or through corporate ESG benchmarks, reporting and other internal governance processes, the Code lumps all potential social concerns into an overall “ESG” bucket. A more principled approach would have been to clearly define the most important terminology and identify the red lines.

After its statement of principles, the Code then reiterates concepts that already exist in law. For example, section 1 reiterates the state of law as it currently exists: that parties have the right to contract, negotiate terms of agreements and enter into agreements, that the parties have to act fairly in their dealings, and it reinforces the Competition Bureau’s pre-existing authority. Defining pre-existing law (and common law), the authority of the Competition Bureau, or re-confirming the purpose of existing contracts or agreements (again, likely already defined in the procurement process) adds little substantive value and misses and opportunity for clear guidance.

The above examples illustrate the dilution pitfall in industry self-regulation. To help get industry buy-in, often meaningful principles are weakened so they’re more palatable to more parties, but this weakens the foundation.

Lacking ‘Teeth’

When establishing industry self-regulation another tricky element includes compliance and oversight which can be weakened by inadequate power provided to enforce the Code and voluntary engagement. Effective monitoring and enforcement powers help to provide ‘teeth’ to the foundational document as does mandatory participation.

In an interview with the Financial Post, Gary Sands, Senior VP of the Canadian Federation of Independent Groceries, describes the Code as a set of principles or provisions.[6] For industry self-regulation to succeed, the Code’s signatories should approach it as a set of mandatory ethical requirements to which all participants in the Canadian industry must adhere. Additionally, all members must agree to embed the Code into their organizational governance structures and abide by the consequences if they fail to meet the Code’s principles.

The Code is administered by the “Office of the Grocery Sector Code of Conduct” (“OGSCC”) and the Code’s signatories bear the financial burden of ensuring industry compliance through this newly established governance framework[7] which includes the appointment of an Adjudicator to administer the Code and resolve disputes between members.[8] Signatories must also adhere to the authority granted to the Adjudicator and abide by the Adjudicator’s recommendations, regardless of whether they agree with them. At this stage, it appears that the Adjudicator will only preside over issues involving two signatories to the Code but only once all other complaint resolution mechanisms have been exhausted. The Adjudicator’s decisions are non-legally binding with consequences somewhat limited to public notice of non-compliance and remediation recommendations.[9] Without strong decision-making authority and consequences that include monetary fines or penalties, an Adjudicator’s decision-making authority to enforce the Code are unlikely, on their own, to drive meaningful compliance.

Some players in the Canadian grocery industry are not currently signatories to the Code and that position is understandable. The benefit to being a non-member at this stage since they benefit from being ‘free riders’. They can participate at their discretion and opt in whenever they like. While they do not contribute financially, they receive the benefit from the industry’s initiatives, which includes improved overall reputation and the lack of governmental regulation and oversight. At this early stage, given that inclusion is voluntary, it may be more beneficial for some organizations to sit on the sidelines and wait to see how the process unfolds by observing the Adjudicator and its decision-making from afar.

A Missed Opportunity

Here’s the final pitfall of industry self-regulation that I would like to address here – the missed opportunity to address consumer concerns. At this moment, most people worry about the price of their groceries, they worry about price inflation, consistency in pricing, and some believe that there is no incentive for members of Canada’s food industry to reduce prices because there is little competition in the market.[10] These concerns are hotly debated in parliament, news and through social media outlets impacting industry reputation. While clarity between grocers and suppliers was likely the low-hanging fruit that needed addressing, after prices steadily increased during COVID with stressed supply chains, the grocery industry had a genuine opportunity to add to public dialogue, but they seemed to have missed the opportunity to implement meaningful and impactful consumer policies to address public concerns.

Some Concluding Thoughts

It may be premature to judge the Code and the OGSCC at this early stage of development and, who knows, these initiatives might ultimately lead to reduced prices for consumers. Industry self-regulation has its benefits. It allows the industry self-determination, greater flexibility, and it may be the most cost-effective solution for governments.[11] But, for now, it seems that I may have to find a protein substitute for my turkey-bites.

__________________

[1] Soon after drafting this blog, ‘Operation Epic Fury’ began with significant shipping challenges occurring in the Strait of Hormuz. It is likely that these global events will further exacerbate shipping issues and food costs over the next few months.

[2] One of the articles: The Canadian Press, “Canada’s grocery code of conduct kicks in Jan. 1, with buy-in from 5 major grocers: Code could improve grocer-supplier relations, but not a silver bullet for prices” (CBC: January 1, 2026) (Online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-grocery-code-of-conduct-jan-1-9.7031468); “Canada Grocery Code of Conduct Provisions” (OGSCC: 2026) (Online: https://canadacode.org/code/code-of-conduct/)

[3] “Canada’s First-Ever Grocery Code of Conduct Comes Into Effect” (FDA: February 2, 2026) (Online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Canada%27s%20First-Ever%20Grocery%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20Comes%20Into%20Effect_Montreal_Canada_CA2026-0003.pdf ); “Retail fees in the Canadian food industry: Findings of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Working Group on Retail Fees” (Government of Canada: July 2021) (Online: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/sector/data-reports/retail-fees-issue-canadian-food-industry).

[4] Denis Paglinawan, “New Grocery Code of Conduct won’t have notable impact, insiders say” (Financial Post, January 28, 2026) (Online: https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/grocery-code-conduct-wont-impact): Quote by Mark Petrie and Chantel Pearce, CIBC analysts.

[5] Emphasis (underlining) added by me.

[6] “Grocery code of conduct could cut food prices,” Interview: Larysa Harapyn and Gary Sands (Financial Post: November 20, 2023) (Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEuw-8sYck).

[7] The Code is read together with a Governance Framework, By-laws and Operating Rules that will only apply to those who are registered members.

[8] “OGSCC Finalizes Governance Framework and Launches Formal Recruitment” (OGSCC) (Online: https://canadacode.org/news/ogscc-finalizes-governance-framework-and-launches-formal-recruitment/).

[9] “Dispute Resolution Management Process” (OGSCC: 2026) (Online: https://canadacode.org/code/dispute-resolution/). For the DRMP to apply, it requires that both parties be participating members at the time of the alleged dispute (s. 2.2). The decision of the Adjudicator is non-legally binding (s. 6.3(d)) and consequences of non-compliance with the Code and the Adjudicator’s decision or remediation recommendation includes publishing a Notice of Non-Compliance and report on the OGSCC website (s.6.4).

[10] “Canada Needs More Grocery Competition” (Competition Bureau Report: June 27, 2023).

[11] The federal government has stepped in to offer GST rebates while food affordability continues to be hotly debated. “Carney announced grocery rebate amid growing affordability issues for Canadians,” Press Conference (Global News: January 26, 2026) (Online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l-6o4Ech50).

The post Why the Grocery Code of Conduct Won’t Lower Prices and What It Shows About Industry Self-Regulation appeared first on Slaw.

A few recent data points about AI and the law, along with one bracing conclusion.

1. At the end of February, American lawyer Zack Shapiro published an article on Linked titled “The Claude-Native Law Firm.” It described how his two-person firm is powered by customized “skills” that capture and encode his legal frameworks and judgment into Anthropic’s Claude AI, enabling Claude to deliver legal outputs rapidly and transferably across the firm. This interview with LawDroid’s Tom Martin relates what Shapiro is doing and why it’s potentially momentous: It suggests that properly and thoroughly instructed general-purpose Gen AI might prove as effective for legal work as more expensive legal-specific Generative AI (e.g., CoCounsel , Protégé, Harvey, vLex).
2. In early March, Canadian lawyer Robert Diab published an article in the CBA National describing how he compared Claude Cowork’s legal research ability with that of the far more expensive LexisNexis Protégé. He assigned a series of advanced legal research question to both programs, setting Cowork loose on the CanLII database and asking Protégé to examine its own data. Protégé’s performance was spotty, missing some cases and misinterpreting others; Cowork was nearly flawless. “Using an agentic tool like [Cowork] with CanLII strikes me as the most accessible and powerful way to do legal research using AI,” Diab wrote. “Given the cost, it is a tool well worth using.”
3. In mid-March, American corporate counsel Laura Jeffords Greenberg published an article on LinkedIn detailing her own comparison between Claude Cowork and Thomson Reuters’s CoCounsel on an employment law question. CoCounsel provided a summary and walkthrough with little elaboration, whereas “Claude told me the current rule, what’s changed in the last 14 months, what to watch for when drafting, and why it matters. It did the interpretive work. … In-house counsel asking a legal question needs a practical answer with citations for verification; not a summary of everything that’s ever been true.”

Now, we always need to be careful when assessing claims like this. Three data points is a microscopic sample size from which to draw conclusions about wider trends across the legal sector. Feel free to discount these claims to the extent your own skepticism warrants.

But there’s a difference between skepticism and outright denial. At the very least, these examples suggest we could be underestimating just how powerful a legal tool general-purpose AI can become when it’s been deeply customized, carefully instructed, and connected to authoritative public legal sources.

That possibility is reinforced by recent gains in the advancement of Generative AI itself. Gen AI analyst Ethan Mollick reported in March that “AI systems are increasingly being used to build better AI systems, creating a feedback loop… If you make models that are good at coding and good at AI research, you can use them to build the next generation of models, speeding up the loop.”

It might turn out that general-purpose Gen AIs like Claude Cowork really can, with enough focused preparation and effort, match or even outperform far more expensive legal-specific Gen AIs in at least some settings. I’m not saying that for certain. Dramatic claims demand dramatic evidence, and three data points that crossed my desktop hardly prove that Cowork can beat Protégé or CoCounsel across the board.

But we need to pay close attention when credible users report that general-purpose models are outperforming expensive legal-specific tools on practical legal tasks. Because if that proves to be the case more broadly, the implications would be enormous. Legal data would still matter to any AI system hoping to compete in the legal market; but the absence of that data might no longer be disqualifying. And that alone is something few of us would have believed when GPT-4 arrived just three years ago.

The post What if Legal AI Doesn’t Need Legal Data? appeared first on Slaw.

A few years ago, I was asked to review a law firm’s student recruitment program. The firm had a respected brand, an engaged student committee, and a long history of bringing in summer and articling students.

The assignment seemed straightforward: review the process and suggest ways to strengthen the program.

So, I began by following the time.

There were student committee meetings. Planning sessions with marketing and talent professionals. Law school outreach events and receptions. Resume reviews. Interview preparation. Full days of interviews involving partners, associates, and administrators. Post-interview debriefs. Offer discussions. Candidate follow ups.

By the time the exercise was complete, we had mapped hundreds of hours of lawyer time.

Then I translated those hours into billable value and added the related hard costs.

The number surprised everyone.

For a firm of moderate size, the annual cost of running the recruitment process alone exceeded $500,000.

And that number did not include the investment in the students themselves. Salaries. Training. Orientation. Mentorship. Administrative support. The many hours lawyers spend teaching, reviewing, explaining, and guiding.

None of this is criticism. Student programs are one of the most important investments a firm can make. They shape the future partnership pipeline, reinforce culture, and allow firms to develop lawyers from the earliest stage of their careers.

It is also worth acknowledging something most firms already understand: students are not expected to be profit centres. Their value lies in the long view. The goal is to develop capable lawyers who will, in time, become productive and profitable contributors to the firm.

But when you step back and look at the numbers, the scale of the investment is striking.

Which raises a reasonable question.

Are firms getting the return they expect?

How often are most students hired back? How much student time ends up written off? How quickly do students begin contributing real value to the firm?

The quiet economics of student recruitment

Student recruitment is both structured and competitive. Committees devote significant time to identifying the right candidates. Lawyers attend receptions, interview days, and campus events. Firms compete with one another for highly sought-after students.

In jurisdictions such as Ontario and British Columbia, the timing and structure of hiring are coordinated through recruitment processes administered by the Law Society of Ontario and the Law Society of British Columbia.

The front end of the pipeline therefore receives enormous attention.

Yet once students arrive, firms often rely on a familiar formula for helping them succeed. Orientation. A principal. Informal mentorship. Exposure to work.

And then the expectation that they will gradually learn how the environment works.

What firms say they struggle with

Recently I asked twenty law firms a simple question.

What are your biggest challenges when it comes to student success?

Four themes surfaced:

• 54 percent said providing adequate legal training and mentorship
• 46 percent cited business development training and support
• 46 percent pointed to challenges building productive relationships with lawyers and staff
• 46 percent said they struggled to derive real value from student work

What is interesting about those answers is that none of them relate to recruitment.

They relate to assimilation.

The professional context students rarely see

Law schools prepare students well for legal reasoning. But the professional operating system of a law firm remains largely invisible to them.

Most students arrive with little understanding of:

• how work actually flows through a firm
• how to initiate finding work
• how internal relationships shape opportunities
• the economics of a law firm
• why mentorship in practice may look different from what they expected
• how lawyers originate work
• how to manage competing demands from multiple lawyers

Students often tell me they spend their first months trying to decode the environment. They are trying to understand expectations, when to take initiative, how to ask for work, and how not to overstep or jeopardize getting hired back.

Many students are left to figure this out themselves.

Yet these dynamics often determine how quickly a student becomes productive, trusted, and integrated into the firm.

What if students arrived better prepared?

When I asked the same group of firms a follow-up question, the responses were revealing.

If students arrived with stronger understanding of law firm dynamics and expectations, what difference would that make?

• 69 percent said students would be more confident and engaged
• 69 percent said they would be more proactive and productive
• 54 percent expected stronger relationships with lawyers and staff
• 54 percent predicted higher student satisfaction and stronger word-of-mouth reputation

That last point deserves attention.

Law firms tend to think of recruitment as a marketing exercise directed outward toward law schools. But there is also a powerful student economy operating quietly alongside it.

Students talk to each other constantly. They compare experiences. They share impressions of culture, mentorship, and opportunity. Reputation among students travels quickly and informally.

Every firm participating in the student market is already part of that economy, whether it realizes it or not.

The overlooked opportunity

The striking thing about student programs is how much effort goes into attracting students and how little time is devoted to helping them understand the environment they are entering.

Orientation programs understandably focus on important operational matters such as IT systems, policies, and administrative procedures.

But the unwritten rules of professional life inside a firm often receive far less attention.

How work is found.
How internal reputation develops.
How relationships are built.
How lawyers begin building practices.

Students typically learn these lessons slowly, through observation and trial and error. Some students are fortunate and their firms have talent professionals committed to some of this training.

A different lens on student programs

The firm I mentioned earlier made a small but meaningful shift after seeing the $500,000 calculation.

They stopped thinking about their student program primarily as a recruitment exercise.

Instead, they began thinking about it as a return on investment question.

How do we maximize the success rate of the students we bring in?
How do we shorten the learning curve for law students?
How do we ensure more students succeed, return, and build careers inside the firm?
How do we strengthen student satisfaction and the reputation that follows?

Student programs have always been about the future of the profession.

But when viewed through the lens of investment, they also represent one of the largest and least examined commitments most firms make to talent development.

Which suggests a useful reframing.

If firms are already investing so much to bring students through their doors, the real opportunity may lie in helping them succeed faster once they arrive.

The post The Hidden Economics of Law Firm Student Recruitment appeared first on Slaw.

Tom is the founder of a litigation law firm in Ontario who is now enjoying life beyond the start-up phase of his practice. His firm is running smoothly, powered by a collaborative team of lawyers and support staff and supported by well-integrated technology. It did not start that way. The early years required persistence and experimentation: hiring, training, and retaining the right people, and implementing technology and workflows for efficiencies. Now, he is beginning to enjoy the benefits of those investments.

What explains Tom’s success? How did he get from those early struggles to a firm that runs smoothly and a team that steps up to take ownership of files? The answer is he had strategy, a plan, and was intentional about the culture he was creating at this firm.

There is a lot of hype out there about scaling your law firm. Technology is often touted as the solution. I agree it is part of the solution, and in my view, the easiest part. What matters most though are your people.

Law firms are people businesses. Even with AI on the scene, this is still true of most firms today. The profitability of law firms is directly tied to the intellectual output of its people. For that reason, law firms must optimize themselves to support the quality of the legal work produced by their lawyers and the staff who support them.

In the past, the question of how to do this was something of a black box. Before the emergence of neuroscience-informed leadership and positive psychology, much of management thinking came from industrial models that treated people as though they were parts in a machine. We now know this model is not only outdated but particularly ill-suited to professional work like law.

One essential fact is crucial to law firm leadership – how our human brains operate. At every moment of the day – awake, sleeping, or in between – our brains are scanning the external environment, and our internal states for one purpose: To manage our energy budget efficiently so we can survive to live another day.

Our brains are highly attuned to cues in the social environment signalling potential threat or reward. The work of David Rock and others has distilled insights from the field of neuroscience into actionable models that introduce and explain the specific cues that our brains are alert to. These models provide the data we need to manage our firms intentionally to spiral up motivation and engagement, or conversely to ratchet up stress and disengagement.

Last month in Slaw I introduced the RECLAIM model as a cultural operating system for law firms. You can read that article here. The RECLAIM model draws on David Rock’s SCARF® framework, which synthesizes a large body of neuroscience research to explain the social drivers of human motivation. It also draws on elements of Dr. Martin Seligman’s PERMA model of human flourishing from the field of positive psychology. By integrating these frameworks, the RECLAIM model provides practical daily guidance for building law firm cultures that promote motivation, engagement, and performance.

The RECLAIM model consists of six inputs that shape how people experience work at a law firm: Respect, Clarity, Learning, Autonomy, Inclusion, and Meaning.

This month I begin a series of articles that look in depth at each element of the RECLAIM model and how these inputs can positively influence motivation, engagement, and performance in a law firm team. In this article I focus on the first element of the model, R, which stands for respect.

RESPECT

Respect aligns closely with what neuroscience research describes as status. In David Rock’s SCARF® model, status refers to our sense of our relative importance in relation to others. The brain constantly scans our social environment for cues about whether we are being valued or diminished. These cues arise in everyday interactions: whether someone’s ideas are listened to, whether they are interrupted, whether credit is given, how feedback is communicated. These behaviours are experienced by the brain as signals of status reward or status threat.

The RECLAIM model focuses on respect because it translates this neuroscience insight into daily professional behaviour. Status is the underlying cue the brain responds to, and respect is the practical way organizations can build this cue into day-to-day practice.

Here are four ways to build this first element of the RECLAIM model, into your law firm’s culture.

1. Develop an approach to feedback at your firm that centres learning and progress. Catching people doing things well, noticing progress, and offering insights into how to improve performance becomes the firm’s standard approach to feedback.

On the receiving side, lawyers are encouraged to compare their performance in the present against their performance in the past. Noticing improvements and professional growth is normalized as is attention to opportunities for bettering performance.

2. Develop a regular practice of publicly celebrating accomplishments. One way to think about this is as if you are “sprinkling champagne[1]” on contributions, achievements, and success.

In practice this looks like a public shoutout to the paralegal who worked over the weekend on an urgent legal matter, or to the associate who presented to an industry group, or the legal assistant who stepped in to help her colleague get a last-minute piece of work done.

This “sprinkling of champagne” is something to be encouraged across the firm and all positions or job titles. One boutique litigation firm I know, built this practice into their monthly firm meetings. A regular agenda item was for firm members to share examples they saw of their colleagues modelling one of the firm’s values. Attendance at the monthly meetings grew, with everyone packing into the boardroom to take part.

3. Provide lawyers with training on active listening. Active listening means giving your full attention to what is being said, providing small cues that you are listening, reflecting back understanding, and withholding judgment (the hardest part). This kind of listening delivers a powerful positive status cue and correspondingly signals respect and helps deepen trust.

Employ active listening when giving and receiving feedback, in meetings with clients, during meetings with mentors or mentees, or when handling a concern someone has come to you to discuss. In these moments, you can put away your phone, close your laptop or shut down your monitor, close the door and give the person the benefit of your focused attention.

4. This fourth tip for operationalizing respect at your law firm is to adopt a standard practice of assuming best intent. I first heard of this practice from lawyer coach Amy Binder and was immediately impressed with its simplicity and effectiveness.

When you adopt best intent as your lens, you approach others with a respectful appreciation that people are genuinely trying to do their best, even when they struggle or make mistakes. This appreciation of positive intent deepens trust and supports learning. The mindset—and the trust it engenders—creates a felt sense of safety in professional relationships, where errors can be discussed openly and remedied.

Adopting best intent is one of the simplest ways leaders begin to create this kind of psychological safety.

Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, whose research brought the concept of psychological safety into mainstream organizational leadership discussions, explains in The Fearless Organization that teams perform best when people feel safe to speak up, ask questions, and acknowledge mistakes without fear of embarrassment or punishment. Environments that foster this kind of psychological safety are far better able to learn, adapt, and improve.

Returning to Tom, his smoothly operating business owes a lot to the culture of respect he fostered at his firm. His team members trust his leadership. He is clear about expectations and has taken a systematic approach to the professional development of associates at the firm. They can count on him to be available to answer questions and to provide insight into how they can up their performance. Support staff are also encouraged to take ownership of their work. All team members are equally valued for the roles they play in supporting the clients through their legal challenges. The team gathers monthly at a local restaurant to enjoy each other’s company. The culture at Tom’s firm supports people to place their focus on delivering excellent legal work, without the distractions of internal politics, job insecurity, and other perceived threats.

Having explained the R of Respect in the RECLAIM model, I want to return to where I started. Respect is not simply a nice-to-have cultural value. It is a way of building positive neurological cues into day-to-day interactions at your law firm.

If you could see deep into the minds of everyone at your firm, you would see two large neural networks constantly scanning the social environment for status cues. This process is happening every minute of every day.

Take the opportunity to intentionally sprinkle positive status cues and signals of respect throughout your interactions with colleagues and clients. Small signals of respect accumulate, shaping a healthier workplace and a more engaged team.

_______________

[1] Thanks to Carina Bittel, advisor with The Lawyer Coach and Flourishing Law Centre, for introducing me to the celebratory term “sprinkling champagne” and for being such a proponent of this culture-enhancing practice.

The post RECLAIM Part II – R Is for Mutual Respect and Recognition appeared first on Slaw.

The coolest thing about being a lawyer is the ability to walk into privileged space. It’s why every immigrant parent wants their child to be a lawyer, why TV shows perennially propagate legal dramas, why politicians hate lawyers and are lawyers, why in the Godfather the biggest flex is having a lawyer-consigliere, and why there are, for lawyers, only two kinds of people: lawyers and non-lawyers.

Most tangibly, a lawyer enters a courthouse by skipping security, a place guarded by metal detectors, police, jails, and judges. Then, upon entering a courtroom, only the lawyer has the presumptive right to pass the bar and approach counsel’s table. How about the non-lawyers, those plebeians? They must sit back in the pews and worship Your Worship. They cannot be trusted; they must be searched and vetted before entering the church of law; they must be beckoned before they can approach the bar. Not so, the lawyer, we apostles of justice. To us come the spoils of decades of study and work in the form of privileged space.

And privileged space is not merely physical. It is a social space that operates within and against great power. What happens when a police officer pulls you over on the road and makes demands? Should you volunteer information that can hurt you? What consequences await you? The lawyer invokes rights, existing in the same space of power.

And what of our daily relations and the squabbles we enter? A neighbour cuts down your tree; a business associate refuses to pay; a contractor fails to complete the job; a threat is uttered, I’ll sue you! The options lay before the lawyer as clearly as the chef sees a mise en place: a friendly conversation, an unfriendly conversation, a demand letter, a claim, a mediation, a settlement, a trial. While the non-lawyer peers into each option with increasing haziness, the lawyer sees each clearly and approaches not with trepidation, but with the mindfulness of a horologist, picking up so many pieces of a well-trod puzzle.

And what of modern bureaucracy? The rebates, the insurance claims, the ski waivers, the kids’ waivers, the passport applications, the visa applications, the car accident reporting forms, the divorce forms, the licensing applications, the two-hour holds? They are the lawyer’s bread-and-butter. Allow me to take that sheaf of complexity and separate facts from fluff. For it is the lawyer’s character, trained through years of red-lined documents to review and revise, to patiently plod through the drudgery.

And what of the boardroom, that bastion of corporate power? For a typical employee it could take years, decades, if ever, to reach the invitation. Not so the lawyer, who is not only welcome, but invited, whose opinion is critical to the functioning of the business. To these boardrooms the lawyer is endemic, as comfortable as a dog sleeping in its favourite blanket.

So if the question is asked, do you want your children to become lawyers? Do you recommend becoming a lawyer? The answer depends on a simpler reply. Do you wish to enter privileged space?

The post Privileged Space appeared first on Slaw.

Disappearing acts pertaining to people, skills and talents have always happened every few years in the global legal services market as the sector continually refreshes itself. But disappearing has never been more prevalent than it has been of late and will become even more common in months and years to come. Act now.

As mentioned in my previous column, I am well aware that my opinions and perspectives especially over the last few years and more so lately are becoming more fearless and urgent as factors impacting the global legal services market surge with a magnitude of force that demands response — not admiration, study, or words — and, most importantly, requires decisive action as the clock of change ticks ever more loudly.

Right now, my concern is for talent transience at all levels within law firms. Talent of all descriptions has been sloshing back and forth and from firm to firm since the pandemic upended how we work. Lately, all levels of law firm talent have quietly retrenched in the hope that keeping mouths shut and heads down will provide safety in an environment undergoing enormous change at the speed of summer lightening.

If only ducking for cover was the answer. However, the working world is now more difficult and will become harder yet. Anyone who has a heart will recognize this struggle in people-terms. However, as a realist, I implore you to realize that law firm life will become more challenging as traditional structures show their age, operational costs and investment requirements increase, and margins become mercilessly lean.

A complete reset is required. This is not about a pivot because a turn will not save a law firm entity. This means a full restructure of how law firms operate and why, along with what tools are expected, required and used, how financing and various forms of it will support the entity, and what talents and skills of humanity are necessary for its survival.

The Law Firm Reset

My last two columns sparked huge reactions. The Law Firm Pyramid Rollover was met with republishing requests, reposts, and commentary. Its companion piece, The Law Firm Private Equity Puzzle, was met with nothing: tomb-like stillness, pin-drop quiet, could-hear-a-mouse-pass-gas silence.

I have been writing opinion columns for legal publications since 2006 and have found that the closer I get to the core of an issue, the quieter the response. Now is no different.

This same core-targeting technique has also been part-and-parcel of my consulting practice, which is to step back to study not just the problem but its context within the big picture before peeling away all that is ancillary to uncover the nut of the issue. Like a sharpshooter, the nut becomes centred in the crosshairs of my sights, I breathe to steady myself, check that others are ready to proceed, and fire. Misson accomplished.

If that sounds mercenary, it often is but it also gets the job done and desired outcome achieved.

And so, here we are with the trigger having been pulled on a legal services market reset that has taken many decades to take form. The reset will both overwhelm and underwhelm its inhabitants depending on where they are in the journey of both their personal and professional lives. But as I have said before, expect massive change to happen well before and certainly by 2030 when the global legal services sector will operate much differently than it does now.

Expect both destruction and rebirth. Many traditionally structured law firms of all sizes and practices will crash and burn because they are inherently fragile and will fail. Likely and unlikely law firm combinations will happen and be politely cloaked as mergers with fallouts of all kinds ensuing after the fact.

From their ashes and also as new builds, we will see legal service entities emerge and flourish as flatter, non-empirical structures that will operate with greater fluidity in terms of talent, technology, offerings, and cost. These entities, which will become much more prevalent, will probably not even be referred to as law firms – and won’t want to be. Nor will they be hamstrung by the lesser-than moniker of alternative legal services provider. They will be sleek, streamlined, client-catering as opposed to client-centric, and entirely different.

Recent Wreckage

Since 2026 began, we have seen three glaring examples of how these changes are playing out in real life. They include the closure of U.S. mid-size firm, McGlinchey Stafford, the crash-and-burn of the U.K.’s PM Law Group, and job cuts at global behemoth, Baker McKenzie.

While these three instances are prime examples of recent upheaval, as of this writing it’s only February. We have a long way to go for the remainder of 2026, never mind my predication that by 2030, the global legal services market will bear no resemblance to what it is today.

Still, let’s sift through some of the most recent wreckage to identify themes.

McGlinchey Stafford, a mid-sized U.S. firm of 160 lawyers based in 18 offices and headquartered in New Orleans announced its wind down after 51 years in early January 2026 and closed on the last day of that month. According to ALM, the equity partners voted to wind down after assessing “several strategic alternatives,” according to a firm press release. The firm cited its shutdown as “the result of a combination of market factors, such as lagging collections, compounded with various internal factors over several years.”

While the dust has yet to settle and, in my experience, there are always numerous factors that stress a law firm or any other business to its breaking point, the underlying cause is almost always money followed closely by people.

In McGlinchey’s case, lagging collections, which is a common problem in many law firms, was among identified issues. “There was no single triggering event or one definitive action that brought us to this point,” the firm said in the news release. “This is not because of any specific attorney’s departure, or any individual financial decision or leadership action that led us to this point.”

On February 1, 2026, PM Law Limited began machinations to close. Its 600-plus people learned the following day that the firm had shut down stranding clients, lawyers, and staff alike. The PM Law group includes more than 20 practices spread across U.K. locations in Yorkshire, Cumbria, and Berkshire with at least 55 fee-earners and dozens of support staff.

Again, the cause appears to be financial. As reported in The Law Society Gazette, “According to the last published accounts for PM Law Limited, covering the year to 31 October 2024, the company had net assets of more than £3m. The firm was owed £6.2m and was due to pay creditors £3.1m within one year. There were no cash reserves.”

Why work-in-progress has ever been considered an asset has always mystified me since WIP exists only on paper. Until a firm receives payment, WIP is as much an illusion as smoke and mirrors. Again, these are early days and the Solicitors Regulation Authority has intervened, so more may be revealed in time.

And finally – at least, as of right now – Baker McKenzie is severing ties with just over 700 people across all offices of its global business services teams, including IT, knowledge, administration, DEI, leadership and learning, marketing, and design among others.

Again, while the underlying cause is money, Baker blames layoffs on artificial intelligence. It said: “To position the firm for continued growth and remain agile in a fast-evolving business context, we recently undertook a careful review of our business professionals functions. This review was aimed at rethinking the ways in which we work, including through our use of AI, introducing efficiencies, and investing in those roles that best serve our clients’ needs.”

“Following the review, and consistent with many other organisations, we are proposing a series of changes to how we operate and deliver important business services. Subject to consultation processes in applicable jurisdictions, some roles will likely be phased out, while others will evolve. We have not taken decisions around these proposed changes lightly, but felt it was necessary to deliver on our long-term plans. We appreciate the valuable contributions our impacted colleagues have made to the Firm and will be supporting them.”

Unfortunately, Unsurprising

None of any of these situations and their results should come as either surprising or a shock. Money is always at the root of almost every upheaval. Add to that, the fact that AI is an efficiency generator, not a wealth creator.

Anyone who keeps their eyes and ears open and stays out of the weeds will have seen this coming since the combination of money and AI carries the velocity of a freight train with the potential to create widespread damage upon collision Therefore, caught between money on one hand and AI on the other, major restructuring and job losses within law firms will remain an ongoing issue for the foreseeable future.

And so there you have it: proof like we need it that the bottom is actively being cleaved off of the traditional law firm pyramid and this now archaic structure is already rolling over and upending like an iceberg.

Advice and Recommendations

Having identified this problem quite some time ago, and seeing it come to fruition, I offer a few pieces of advice that may lead to solutions along with recommendations.

Be a student: If the legal industry is where you want to spend the next five to 10 years – or the entirety of your working life – become a student of it. I don’t mean study your area of practice if indeed you practise law but consistently learn about the entire legal ecosystem and every area of it. Understanding and being completely conversant in the depth and breadth of the legal services sector will enable you to get a sense of what may happen, when, and why. This may also enable you to spot opportunities and get a jump on trends.

Ferris Bueller’s famous last line in the 1986 film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is apt. “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” I use this quote all the time because it’s true. Let it be your guide, too.

Stay curious: Questioning the status quo pertains to challenging the accepted way of doing things. “This is the way we’ve always done it” has been a tired old go-to response that has led to inefficiencies and outdated practices that have hobbled advancements in the legal services sector since time immemorial. This is one of the reasons legal has always been slow as molasses in January to change and is part-and-parcel of the traditional pyramid structure that like many other fossils, may as well be encased in amber.

Those who question the status quo are almost always the same mavericks who shatter the norms, throw out dusty old rule books, and invent new ways of doing things. These people are the true and stalwart leaders among all of us. Be one.

Network with Intention: A simple yet effective recipe for intentional and efficient networking that beats the standard hi-how-are-ya mixer every time is: 1. Target who you need or want to speak with; it’s best if this person is the decision-maker. 2. Request a meeting about a topic that matters to both of you but mostly to them. 3. Set it up and go. 4. Expect to follow up in a helpful manner, and in moderation and at intervals. Schedule and diarize these interactions.

The simplest methods always work best. The most engaging and consistently engaged lawyer I have ever known kept a notepad on the corner of his desk with a running list of people he wanted or needed to speak with each week and about what. By following this method diligently, he became a wildly successful managing partner of a ground-breaking law firm, its key business driver, a community leader, and finally, a member of the Canadian Senate.

Where to From Here

The bottom line is to understand that changing roles and/or law firms, whether or not it is your choice, is not negative if it enables you to learn and grow. However, regardless of whether you are an employee or contractor, you will want to take agency of your own career whenever possible to avoid others dictating how your life unfolds.

For example, and rather ironically, an individual who lost their job due to working with one of the law firms mentioned earlier in this column informed me years ago, and in an authoritative manner, that law firms only want to work with fulltime employees who stay for years. I countered that wide-ranging consultative experiences with various types of law firms and legal service entities are positive and marketable traits.

Obviously, these two points of view are on opposite ends of the workstyle spectrum. One is not better than the other and both are valid. The important factor is to decide what style works best for you, customize it, and expect it to change over time. And always keep your antenna and guard up, and your network refreshed and up to date.

I have long said that keeping your eyes and ears open and staying out of the proverbial weeds will enable a better chance of you being better than okay. It has been solid advice forever, and in the fast-shifting environment in which we are living now, it may be some of the best advice you are ever apt to get – unless, of course, you prefer to go “poof” and disappear. Then again, for some people, that will be an okay option, too.

The post The Law Firm Disappearing Act appeared first on Slaw.

What many of us in law, legal education, and other fields still want to know at this point is: what is AI really good for? What does it do reliably well and better than we could do on our own? And when we use it for those purposes, what risks do we take on?

In the early days of ChatGPT, those risks were clear. AI hallucinated authorities and generated biased output grounded in its training data. But as models have improved and we’ve learned to guard against these problems, those concerns have become more manageable.

A different and more subtle issue has now come into view.

Having discovered some of the things AI is good at — supporting research, drafting, and editing — the main concern is not just whether its output is accurate, but when effective use of the tool crosses the line into harmful over-reliance.

When a lawyer or a self-represented litigant cites cases that don’t exist, they aren’t over-relying on AI. They’re misusing it. Over-reliance entails something else. It overlaps with automation bias — the tendency to defer uncritically to a system’s output — but is not reducible to it.

We over-rely on AI not just when we accept its output as true without question, but when we allow it to perform work we shouldn’t be delegating to it at all — even if it’s work that AI can do well.

But precisely what should we not be delegating to AI? Here, we’re in new terrain.

For certain forms of writing — a personal email, an essay, a court decision — most of us have a strong intuition that relying on AI to do the drafting is wrong, even if the result is fluent and technically sound. These forms of writing are tied to deeply seated ideas about identity and reflection. Automated prose, however polished, leaves us cold. It may be correct but it’s inhuman.

Yet in many cases there’s nothing wrong with relying on AI. Using it to transcribe an interview or summarize a case on CanLII to decide whether it’s worth reading closely can sometimes feel magical.

The trouble that many experienced users of AI are now encountering is that as these tools become more capable and we become more adept at using them, it becomes easier to slide into patterns of increasing delegation. And the more we do so, the more AI begins to encroach on doing the critical things we should be doing ourselves.

It becomes tempting, for example, in the course of a chat with AI to let it carry you from a brainstorm to an outline to a first draft, because it all happens so fast. The model can seem uncannily in sync with where you want to go. Prompts often end with suggestions for next steps, making it feel as though the system is always a step or two ahead of you. It can be hard to resist letting it take the lead.

Increasingly, in my conversations with colleagues about AI, the question is not what creative uses they are making of it, but what limits they are drawing around its use.

Clear lines to be drawn

Institutions are grappling with this problem by drawing formal lines. Newspapers, universities, and courts have adopted policies specifying when and how AI may or may not be used. The aim is not to ban these tools but to foster responsible and accountable use.

Should we, as individual users, do the same — commit to rules of thumb in advance?

We do this with other technology, from cell phones to social media. Taking a principled approach to using AI can help us avoid discovering, only after the fact, that we’ve over-relied on it — when we can no longer unsee an outline or draft a model has placed before us that now guides our thinking and crowds out other ideas we might have explored.

My rules won’t be the same as yours. They depend on the kind of work you do. I do mostly academic and journalistic writing. Different considerations apply in teaching and in the practice of law.

I’ll share a few of the rules I’m trying to follow, but preface them by articulating the overarching theme: make wide and varied use of AI, but use it with restraint and self-awareness.

My own rules of thumb

For research, I use tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity to gather and briefly summarize sources — but no more than that. I don’t want to rely on AI to interrogate those sources, rather than delving into them directly myself.

When it comes to writing and editing, I try to be even more cautious. AI is exceedingly good at producing outlines or supporting arguments. For that very reason, I avoid it at this stage. I would rather have the structure of a piece emerge organically from my own thinking, even if that process is slower or less efficient.

I might present my own outline to a language model and ask for further ideas or angles I may have missed. But I want to do the hardest part myself: shaping the argument.

Using AI to generate a first draft of anything but the most routine writing, such as a brief factual summary or a short email pitch, doesn’t work for the kind of writing I do. This is partly because it risks passing off AI-generated prose as my own expression, which is not what readers expect. More crucially, it allows the model to pre-empt my own voice. And discovering what I want to say is a big part of why I write in the first place.

When I edit with a language model, I ask it to do so “lightly rather than aggressively.” I want suggestions for how to improve a draft, tighten the odd sentence, or catch typos. I don’t want it to transform my writing into something that no longer sounds like me.

Lawyers and litigants

Some lawyers are comfortable using language models to “generate first drafts of contracts, pleadings, memos, and correspondence.” As one lawyer explains, when drafting, she will give the model “samples of my work and then my ideas. That way, the first draft is a lot further along than if I just gave it generic instructions.”

Even the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs contemplates using AI to draft submissions, and one access-to-justice group touts AI’s value in helping to draft pleadings.

Much of this may be fine if lawyers “supervise and review all outputs generated by AI”. But I would single out using AI to draft court submissions. Even if they’re reviewed for accuracy, I don’t think relying on AI here is appropriate. Doing so, I believe, runs a real risk of breaching a duty of competence, given the professional judgment needed here to make choices about relevance, tone, and strategy — judgment that AI can’t replace.

Self-reps are another kettle of fish altogether.

But what’s the point?

So then, why bother using AI if it can so readily do more harm than good?

Because even when used cautiously, it’s still enormously helpful.

Even if I limit my use of AI in research to gathering and briefly summarizing sources on the open web, it is still a quantum leap more powerful than doing searches on Google or dedicated databases. Many of the sources surfaced in a search using ChatGPT or Perplexity will be unhelpful. But more often than not, one or two will contain a wealth of relevant material (details, footnotes) that map out the lay of the land so that I can choose where to go from there.

Language models may be over-eager writing assistants that need to be closely supervised. But for light editing or feedback on a draft, they can be indispensable. When I use AI in this way, it feels less like a replacement for my thinking and more like a demanding but helpful reader.

Easy for you to say

Will it be easy for people with weaker writing skills to use AI with restraint? Probably not.

In law school, undergrad, or high school, the temptation to rely on AI to summarize readings or complete assignments students should do themselves is obvious. It poses a real threat to their development.

Does my enthusiasm for AI rest on the fact that I have decades of reading and writing in law behind me? Is it easy for me to urge restraint because I already possess the skills that AI threatens to displace?

Perhaps.

But this, I think, is where we all now find ourselves, regardless of experience. AI has made everything from learning to research and writing both easier and harder. If you want to learn without being hindered by AI, you’ll need to learn restraint. And if you want to go on writing in your own voice, you’ll need to do the same.

I’m still using AI a lot. But I’m trying to use it cautiously and deliberately, with an eye to what I’m gaining and what I may be giving up. I’m trying to remind myself constantly: keep hold of the reins!

The post Keeping Hold of the Reins When Using AI appeared first on Slaw.

Have you ever felt so done with everything that if there was one more thing on your plate you could just explode?

I remember watching cartoons as a kid where the characters would get red in the face, the head would get bigger and bigger and then “boom” they would explode in a cloud of smoke. This is the best way to depict how many of us feel when we are at the end of our ropes. That strange sensation in the body that is telling you to walk away from your desk, go out in nature, calm down… do anything but not be in the place where you are now, is usually ignored.

The sad reality is that we are not always able to walk away, drop everything and go in nature to recharge. We have responsibilities that need to be attended to at the particular moment in time. Thus, just like the cartoon character, most likely we either implode so as not to show how we feel to others, or explode where all our angst and anger flows out to those around us.

Other than describing various coping techniques to diffuse the rise of emotions, which I have done in other articles, I want to talk to you all about something called the window of tolerance.

The window of tolerance was originally developed by Dr. Dan Siegal MD. The concept describes the optimal time or “window” in which a person can effectively manage and cope with their emotions.

This window can be affected by various variables such as being overwhelmed with too many activities/information, stress of daily life, and buildup of stressful events and trauma. This list is not exhaustive.

The window is flexible and will expand or contract depending on what is happening in your life at a particular moment in time. It is also different for each person. My level of tolerance in a certain situation may be different than any other person, since my life experiences and daily activities are not the same as others.

When you are in your window of tolerance, you will likely feel like you can deal with anything that is coming your way. You may feel stressed or tired, but it does not overwhelm you or bother you.

Experiencing trauma or stressful events may take you out of the window of tolerance and at that time our bodies may go into a fight, flight or freeze response. As a result of these experiences, any amount of stress or anxiety may generate fear which then triggers the body’s defense responses.

The reason is that these stressors, which to someone who has not experienced trauma may not be significant, will most likely make the mind believe that the trauma or other stressful events are occurring at that moment, even though you are completely safe

It is beyond the scope of this piece to go into the defense responses and why the mind reacts as it does to stressors.

However it is important to recognize when you are starting to feel like something is building inside and at any point may explode or implode.

NEXT STEPS

1. When you are feeling anxious or nervous, take a few deep breaths and connect to your body. This allows you to recognize that you are getting upset, nervous, scared, and identify the emotions.
2. I wrote about using an emotions chart to start recognizing more easily your emotions and connecting to your body.
3. When you realize and acknowledge your emotions, you can acknowledge that you are stepping out of your window of tolerance.
4. Ask yourself, what do I need now and what is my body trying to tell me? Do I need to step away from the situation for a few minutes; is whatever occurring at this moment making me very uncomfortable and if so, what can I do to help myself feel safe?
5. Remember, that feeling safe in your body does not mean that you are in actual danger. At that moment due to past trauma the body is interpreting the events as dangerous and your are feeling unsafe. You don’t need to figure out why you feel this way, just acknowledge the feelings and then find a way to feel safer.
6. This may include taking a time out, going outside for a breath of fresh air, walking in nature if possible, listening to calming music etc…
7. The main point is recognizing what your window of tolerance looks like, connecting to your body so that you know when you are stepping out of that area, and then finding ways to feel safe and calm so you can step back into that zone.

_________

Disclaimer

The information in this article is not therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care/treatment, substance abuse care/ treatment, nor is it medical, psychological, mental health advice or treatment, or any other professional advice.

The information in this article is for information purposes only, and is not to be used as a substitute for therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care, medical care, or any other professional advice by legal, medical or other qualified professionals.

The information in this article shall not be recorded, copied or distributed.

If you feel that you may need medical or other professional help, please contact your doctor or call 911 if it is an emergency.

The post The Wellness Lawyer: “Window of Tolerance” appeared first on Slaw.

For most of my career, I have worked on the inside of law firms — advising partners, managing change, fixing things that quietly but persistently get in the way of good work. Strategy. Marketing. Associate retention. Recruitment. Training. Culture. All the unglamorous but consequential pieces that impacts whether a firm thrives or stalls.

Along the way, I noticed something that never really changed.

Every year, bright, capable law students arrive at firms deeply motivated to do well — and surprisingly underprepared for what the job actually requires. Not because they lack intelligence or work ethic, but because no one ever explained the rules of the game.

Law schools teach students to think like lawyers. Firms expect them to behave like professionals in a business.

The gap between those two things is where a lot of early frustration, anxiety, and underperformance lives.

That gap is the reason I started Lawyer Launcher.

The questions students ask

Students and summer associates ask remarkably consistent questions:

• What does “good” actually look like in a law firm?
• How do partners evaluate me when no one is giving feedback?
• How do I ask questions without looking incompetent?
• How much initiative is too much?
• How do I manage my time when everything is “urgent”?
• What do I do when expectations are unclear or contradictory?

Firms, on the other hand, tend to assume that capable people will “figure it out.” Some do. Many do not — or they figure it out slowly, expensively, and with more self-doubt than necessary.

From the firm perspective, I hear:

• “The student doesn’t take initiative.”
• “They aren’t building internal relationships.”
• “They don’t seem to understand priorities.”
• “They wait to be told what to do.”
• “They’re on their phone a lot.”

Almost always, the issue is not ability. It is communication.

What’s Lawyer Launcher?

Lawyer Launcher is not about teaching black-letter law. It is not about gaming the recruitment process.

It is about helping students and junior lawyers understand how law firms actually operate — socially, commercially, and professionally — so they can show up more confidently and contribute sooner.

The content is intentionally practical. How to manage assignments. How to communicate with partners. How to recover from mistakes. How to read the room. How to build trust early. How to survive the first year without burning out or second-guessing every interaction.

In other words: the things people wish someone had told them earlier. Things I wish I knew early in my career in law as a manager.

The podcast: conversations students never get to hear

The centrepiece of Lawyer Launcher is the Lawyer Launcher – Behind the Bar podcast.

The premise is simple. I speak with people who have lived the law firm experience from different but helpful vantage points: partners, general counsel, firm leaders, consultants, recruiters, and lawyers at various stages of practice. The conversations focus less on career highlights and more on how things actually work.

We talk about:

• What partners really notice in junior lawyers
• Common early-career missteps (and how recoverable they are)
• How confidence develops — and how it doesn’t
• What firms expect but rarely articulate
• How lawyers build credibility over time

For students, these conversations demystify the profession before they step into it.

For new associates, they provide reassurance — and often a quiet sense of recognition: Oh. It’s not just me.

Why this matters beyond law school

Although Lawyer Launcher is aimed primarily at students and articling candidates, it has turned out to be just as useful for new associates. This is what managing partners have said.

The first two or three years of practice are where habits form. How lawyers manage their time. How they communicate. How they handle uncertainty. How they interpret feedback (or the absence of it). Small misunderstandings at this stage can compound quickly.

I often work with firms that are frustrated by associate performance while associates are quietly overwhelmed and unsure what success looks like. Bridging that gap earlier benefits everyone.

A student who understands firm expectations becomes an associate who requires less correction, integrates more quickly, and builds confidence sooner. We all know this.

A complement, not a critique

Lawyer Launcher is not a critique of law schools or law firms. Each does what it is designed to do. But neither is particularly focused on translation — on helping people move from academic success to professional effectiveness.

That is where Lawyer Launcher sits.

If it helps students feel less blindsided, associates feel less alone, and firms spend less time correcting avoidable issues, then it is doing its job.

And if, along the way, it makes the profession a little more humane and a little more transparent for the people entering it — all the better.

An invitation to listen to courageous conversations

For students and new lawyers, the invitation is simple: listen or watch on YouTube. Lawyer Launcher – Behind the Bar podcast is designed to surface the conversations you are rarely in the room for — the ones that shape expectations, evaluations, and professional judgment long before anyone puts those things in writing.

For firms, there is a second opportunity. The podcast can be used intentionally as part of professional development: as content for lunch-and-learn discussions, onboarding programs, or informal associate development conversations. It can also be recommended for independent listening, giving students and junior lawyers a shared vocabulary and a clearer sense of what “good” looks like in practice — without adding to internal training demands.

The goal is not to prescribe a single path, but to reduce avoidable friction at the earliest stages of a legal career. Podcast guests often share their regrets and faceplants so listeners can learn from the mistakes of others.

When expectations are clearer, confidence develops faster, feedback lands better, and everyone spends less time guessing. That is what Lawyer Launcher is trying to support — one candid conversation at a time.

The post We Can Support Law Students Better appeared first on Slaw.

“[Productivity] gains only come when companies use AI to redesign processes and ultimately rethink whole business domains. That’s where the step-change in efficiency and growth will come from. To get there, the foundations must be right — clean, well-governed data; secure and interoperable systems; and people who understand how to work alongside AI.”

This observation from Jonathan Keane, Strategy and Consulting Lead at Accenture for UK, Ireland and Africa, was a highlight of the recent Financial Times Special Report on AI. It was meant to apply to a range of businesses, but I think it lands most impactfully in the legal services space.

In many respects, law firms are ideal environments for AI to take root and flourish. Generative AI can draft lawyer-like or near-lawyer-like content in a matter of seconds — emails, agreements, factums, revisions, and legal opinions, to name just a few. When grounded in reliable legal data and reinforced with controls like retrieval-augmented generation and citation-checking, AI’s legal output becomes markedly more dependable. It almost seems custom-designed for law firms and their knowledge-work focus.

And increasingly, document generation is looking like AI’s opening act. Agentic AI, as this excellent primer by LegalTechHub explains, consists of systems that go beyond mere output generation to plan and take actions toward a goal, iterating across steps rather than waiting for a human to drive each interaction. They are “software components designed to operate with delegated authority within defined bounds.” When fully mastered (and duly guardrailed), agentic AI could potentially bring law firm productivity to even greater heights (although not, within the near future, to a point where lawyer oversight is unnecessary).

But therein lies the problem, and the key to understanding how, in other respects, AI is a terrible fit for law firms — because most law firms still define “productivity”in 19th-century terms.

As I’ve explained elsewhere, law firms measure inventory in hours and understand “productivity” in terms of volume: The more hours billed and collected, the more money generated — and the more of those hours that come from leveraged assets like associates and non-equity partners, the more profit produced. AI’s capacity to generate lawyer-like output is remarkable; but the speed with which it works is what’s really game-changing, because it renders “time worked” virtually irrelevant as a measure of value.

But the disconnect goes deeper than that. The growing capacity of AI to carry out work — not just one-off requests through a chatbot interface, but also entire chains of activity through the use of AI agents — means that AI is displacing lawyers as the primary means by which legal task are performed. We like to say that “AI augments the lawyer,” but I suspect that within a few years, especially in high-volume areas, we’ll find ourselves saying that “the lawyer augments the AI.”

In other words, we are rapidly heading towards a role reversal in legal service production. The foundational unit of productivity in law firms has always been “the lawyer,” through whom all activities of value flow and around whom staff and systems are assembled and arranged. Sooner than we think, AI will displace lawyers at the gravitational center of legal productivity: The machine will simply be more productive and ultimately more effective at coordinating and carrying out legal tasks than lawyers are.

Notice that I’m saying displacement, not replacement. Lawyers aren’t going to disappear (or they shouldn’t, unless they really play their cards badly); but they are going to switch seats. They will allow AI to be installed and operate as the productivity engine of legal work, and will dedicate themselves to those legal service activities for which people are better suited than machines: building human relationships, expressing human empathy, performing human advocacy, and exercising human judgment.

That’s the post-AI future I see for the legal profession. But I’m increasingly of the view that that future cannot be realized within the structure of traditional law firms. Law firms, as we’ve always known them, are lawyer-centric entities in every respect: Everything of value and importance, above all the delivery of legal services, flows through the lawyer.

AI simply isn’t compatible with that kind of model. In fact, I believe that AI is fundamentally antagonistic towards the traditional law firm. For AI to be truly impactful in the legal services context, a new model becomes necessary, one that incorporates and integrates AI as the default option for production, and eventually as the fundamental engine of productivity.

This is why I’m keeping a close eye on “AI-native” law firms and “AI-first” law firms — legal business entities built around AI engines rather than lawyer engines. To be clear, these entities are still in their infancy, and a lot of things need to go right, primarily with how they manage the economics of output verification, for them to really take off. But I’m coming to think these kinds of firms do hold the key to the future of legal work. The more deeply traditional firms try to use AI, the more frustrated they may become, because they’re deploying a technology that’s incompatible with the way they measure value and organize production.

Photographic film companies couldn’t survive the invention of digital photography, and the commissioned-broker model was swept away by electronic trading. Every so often, a new technology comes along that resets all the mechanisms and changes all the assumptions about how work gets done in an industry.

I think lawyer-centric law firms are poised to join them. I think we need to get ready for AI-centric law firms.

The post Towards AI-Centric Law Firms appeared first on Slaw.

[ Image by Amy Lloyd ]

I use AI to assist with social media posts, writing outlines, idea generation, initial research, image generation, etc. AI acts as my administrative assistant to create efficiencies in my inbox and remind me of important tasks I need to complete. A few weeks ago, AI reminded me that I had a blog deadline and that I should get writing. Given the promise of AI, I decided to run a limited experiment in my holiday downtime.

I wanted to understand if AI could help my practice management by creating an efficiency, but that experiment utterly failed and I wanted to conduct a root cause analysis to understand why my experiment didn’t work. My conclusion was that the failure occurred because of one (or all) of these factors: the specific AI-tool, the prompting, general AI limitations, or me.

The Productivity Promise

Stanford Professor, Jeremy Utley, is an academic who provides practical guidance on how AI can be leveraged to create productivity. In a video called, “Stanford’s Practical Guide to 10x Your AI Productivity”, his advice is to focus on the pain points of your role and try to find productivity gains in those areas.[1] For me, it is the administrative side of my practice. I find it tedious and I would love to off-load some of those tasks, but I also know that they’re necessary and important.

While I use the LSO practice management guidance, tips and precedents,[2] at the end of the year, I try to set aside some time to review my internal policies and processes just to check that they’re current and touch on trending issues or regulatory changes. When it comes to policies, procedures or other internal guidance, AI can be incredibly helpful to:

• Provide an outline of important laws, regs or relevant issues to consider
• Help with brainstorming and guidance to get started
• Draft or re-draft paragraphs (or your entire corporate policy)
• Identify outdated information and provide a checklist of areas of focus
• Initiate research into required updates by providing helpful summaries, resources, and guidance

So, when I came across Professor Utley’s videos, I thought to myself, “10x my productivity and get rid of the administrative part of my role? Sign me up!”

The Problem and the Experiment

Problem: “Can AI create practice efficiencies by helping me to update my internal corporate policies?”

Sample Size: One.

AI Tools Used: One.

Comparative AI Tools Used: None.

Methodology: Draft a SMART prompt which provided AI with context and expectations for the task; Upload the reference documents which included an outdated corporate policy and information about my practice; Refine SMART prompt and re-run

Results: AI spit out a checklist of common sense things that I should look for like, “review all references and check for updates”, “update outdated information,” “check for changes,” “confirm URLs”, “confirm if this reflects current marketing channels or strategies in use”.

Next Steps: Ended AI chat.

Conclusion: Experiment failed.

Analyzing The Results (& Why It Failed)

Once I got the results and realized that my brief AI-experiment failed, I ended my experiment and updated the policy page-by-page using my brain. Professor Utley warns us about this. He suggests, in simple terms, that many people ask AI a question and then when a valuable answer isn’t forthcoming, they give up on the tool.

In an article in the Guardian, author Sophie McBain contemplates whether AI is creating the “golden age of stupidity” and to support this position, she relies on an example provided by Michael Gerlich, head of the Centre for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability at SBS Swiss Business School. Professor Gerlich found that students who used AI more frequently scored lower on critical thinking using a candle comparison:

“I always use the example: imagine a candle. Now, AI can help you improve the candle. It will be the brightest ever, burn the longest, be very cheap and amazing looking, but it will never develop to the lightbulb,” he says. To get from the candle to a lightbulb you need a human who is good at critical thinking, someone who might take a chaotic, unstructured, unpredictable approach to problem solving.[3]

According to Professor Gerlich, while AI can make us, “cleverer and more creative”, the way that most of us use AI produces “bland, unimaginative, factually questionable work.” When companies use AI in their internal practices without offering AI training, the result may be that innovation is stifled. He suggests that these organizations, “risk producing teams of passable candle-makers in a world that demands high-efficiency lightbulbs.” In my situation, it is possible that I was the untrained candle-maker and so my experiment was bound to fail because I didn’t know how to ask AI to conduct the administrative task.

I’ve seen countless examples of lawyers “vibe coding” and using AI to automate routine processes like completing forms, initial drafting, summarizing documents and synthesizing information from multiple sources. And, I’ve seen (and used) some impressive legal practice tools. There is no doubt that AI creates efficiency and automation in the legal practice, but not always. In using AI, it is important to use the right tool and acknowledge that it doesn’t always lead to the best results in every situation. When it comes to practice policies or any other administrative efficiency, often contextual nuances that apply only to you and your organization, can only be understood by AI when it is effectively integrated into your workflow. Training AI and becoming familiar with what it can and cannot do takes time. Maybe I did not spend enough time to work alongside the AI and teach it what it needed to know to provide the best results in my experiment?

As we’re all getting to know, very rapidly, that lawyers have to be continually weary of fabricated and miscited caselaw.[4] When it comes to the administrative part of a practice, while the risks may be lower, they do not disappear and advice given by AI may not align with LSO Regulations, By-Laws and practice guidance. The reality is that editing and revising AI-generated content can even be as time-consuming as a manual draft anyways and manual intervention is almost always needed, particularly for any edits or rewrites. Instead of being certain of the content, it is important that we continually question whether the information is accurate or whether the AI has produced a hallucination. The quality and relevance of AI recommendations are not always reliable which also makes organizational AI-reliability questionable. It is possible that I was unrealistic about the amount of engagement that would be needed after AI produced its solution – manual intervention would have been needed regardless, so perhaps the issue is that while I may have saved some time, the 10x goal was never achievable in the first place

Concluding Thoughts

My AI experiment was a resounding failure and though it ate up my time and energy (reminding me that I might need better hobbies), I still felt that the failure was worth sharing because, ultimately, the use of AI is a series of ongoing learning experiments. It is natural to have high hopes for what technology can offer, but AI may not always be up to the task. It may not achieve the efficiency you were looking for, but choosing to experiment, even when facing potential failures, setbacks and wasted time, helps us to remain part of the conversation rather than being left behind with the Luddites. My suggestion: use technology thoughtfully, rely on your judgment and continue experimenting with new approaches – you may learn much more from the process (and failures) than from the outcome.

_____________________

[1] Jeremy Utley, “Stanford’s Practical Guide to 10x Your AI Productivity,” YouTube (EO Global) (25 August 2025), online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMOmmnjy3sE.

[2] See these LSO resources: Technology Resource Centre (https://lso.ca/lawyers/technology-resource-centre) and Practice Supports & Resources (https://lso.ca/lawyers/practice-supports-and-resources).

[3] Sophie McBain, “Are We Living in a Golden Age of Stupidity?” The Guardian (18 October 2025), online: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/18/are-we-living-in-a-golden-age-of-stupidity-technology.

[4] See for example, Ko v. Li (2025 ONSC 2766).

The post How AI Can (And Can’t) Enhance Practice Efficiency appeared first on Slaw.

Given the high value placed on research excellence by legal professionals and consultants, I am surprised that stories continue to be reported about the lack of rigour exercised in the creation of work product by these professional groups. In addition to the ongoing stories of professional sanctions placed on lawyers for including incorrect citations and other issues associated with the use of generative AI, there have been regular stories about the high values for government report contracts and the use of AI to create them. Here are some articles on a report prepared by Deloitte for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on health-care worker staffing that was prepared for the price of $1.6 million:

• Matt Barter, “GOV NL Spent Over $1.5 Million on Health Human Resource Plan,” via his blog.
• Justin Brake, “Major N.L. healthcare report contains errors likely generated by A.I.,” via The Independent.
• Justin Brake, “N.L. government pledges ‘strict review’ on AI use after more false citations found in reports,” via The Independent.
• Garrett Barry, “Deloitte breaks silence on N.L. healthcare report,” via CTV.

In the CTV article includes the following:

“AI was not used to write the report; it was selectively used to support a small number of research citations,” a spokesperson for Deloitte said in a statement. “We are revising the report to make a small number of citation corrections, which do not impact the report findings.”

I notice that the quoted text uses the Unicode character “narrow no break space” with the code <0x202f> on either side of the word “write” instead of a regular space. This character, like the em-dash, has been found to be a common artifact of generative AI systems, and, as there is no apparent reason for it to be used there, I infer this indicates that a similar system was used in the drafting of the statement (to see this for yourself, you can copy and paste the section from the site into a text editor such as NotePad or TextEdit). In typesetting, <0x202f> allows for control over how text is displayed by showing a space while forcing applications like web browsers to not allow the text to run to a new line at that spot. It is used in places like before a colon in French. I interpret this to mean that generative AI is used in a widespread way at Deloitte, which conforms to the way they discuss their work processes in their marketing material on their website.

Generative AI systems were trained on human written content, and both <0x202f> and em-dashes are regularly used in text whether human or machine written, which is why these systems insert them, and I don’t mean to imply that it is inappropriate to use them. I recognize that generative AI can be useful, but to me the particular type of situation outlined in the news stories linked above indicates lack of interest in important parts of research and writing non-fiction (using generative AI in writing fiction is another discussion). This is concerning to me, as it seems to indicate that the authors followed one of two processes, either they have written something and then used an AI system to generate citations retroactively. Or they were revising their citations using an AI system. To me this is implicitly saying that the body of the text is important but the citations matter less, which is a problematic perspective for research integrity.

At the risk of mounting one of my hobby horses, citation practice is a core component of writing substantive content like this. It is not put there to be decorative or to give a document the appearance of gravitas. In The Independent, Justin Brake reported that “Those citations reference research articles which don’t exist but were used to support claims related to virtual care, monetary recruitment and retention incentives, recruitment strategies, and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers. In at least two cases, the citations also named actual researchers who did not author the fabricated articles.” Though it is time consuming to verify whether citations exist, it is more so to verify if the referenced material actually says what it is asserted to say, especially in a situation where a system has been used that is designed to provide text that seems like the kind of thing it would say.

One of my foundational professional memories is teaching a class on research to first year students at the University of British Columbia Library when I was still a student and having one of the students respond on the evaluation form that the most important thing they learned in the session was “that works cited has a real purpose.” When she read it, my supervisor looked me in the eyes very intently, asking: “What exactly did you say?” My answer as I recall was that it places your writing into a wider dialogue with what others have written, gives credit to others for their ideas, and increases your credibility by showing that you have researched the topic and are not simply writing your own thoughts.

I was recently told that developers of legal information online have been exploring ways to better integrate their content into the emerging environment of AI generated snippets in online search. At the Law Via the Internet Conference in November, Craig Newton, co-director of the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, said that providing text in a format that is suitable for this use can mean that online reach is significantly inflated over site visits, with a potential audience of millions. However, the information at the bottom of the snippets that references websites as support for the content is misleading: it appears that these are intended to be citations, but in fact they are AI generated lists of sites that include the kind of information included in the snippet. It is impossible to know from this display where the actual text came from.

Breaking down the network of citations and treating it as an afterthought to research and writing is a concerning trend, though it didn’t start with the launch of widely available generative AI platforms. In response to this, I would encourage you to learn and teach others how to use citation management software. These are mature products that work well, and which have many attractive options (my personal favourite is Zotero). These applications will allow you to manage your research for immediate use, but also over time, and they integrate well with word processors to allow you to avoid the chore of manually inserting and updating your references. There are excellent ways to approach how to manage tracking the sources of the ideas, and I encourage you to learn how to use them before you start a big project. I’m sure you can find a library with people who will help you with this if you need it. It can avoid significant difficulties.

— I would like to thank Jen Brubacher, Katarina Daniels, and Annette Demers, who discussed this with me on the Canadian Association of Law Libraries member forum before I wrote this column.

The post Hallucinated References, Government Reports, and Managing Your Citations appeared first on Slaw.

On January 23, 2026, a disturbing incident unfolded in the Oshawa courthouse that forced the Canadian legal profession to confront a truth many Black lawyers have long known but too often endured in silence. Sudine Riley, a Black woman and criminal defence lawyer, had just completed a trial and was working in a private interview room when uniformed Durham Regional Police officers challenged her presence in the courthouse. What followed, according to her lawyer, was a violent assault: her head was slammed onto a desk, knees pressed into her back and neck, her headscarf ripped off, and she was handcuffed, dragged to courthouse cells, and left injured and bleeding. According to Neha Chugh, counsel for Ms. Riley, she “committed no offence other than being a Black woman practising law.”

A Disturbing Stereotype

This incident is not merely about excessive force. It is about belonging. It is about the deeply entrenched, anti-Black stereotype that positions Black people in courthouse spaces as suspects rather than professionals; as bodies to be controlled rather than minds to be respected. In Ms. Riley’s case, the stereotype appears to have operated with brutal efficiency: a Black woman in a courthouse was perceived not as a lawyer and an officer of the court, but as someone who needed to justify her presence, someone whose legitimacy in that space was presumptively in doubt.

Courthouses are meant to be sanctuaries of the rule of law. Lawyers should be among the safest people within that space. When a lawyer lawfully present and engaged in professional duties is subjected to violence and humiliation like Ms. Riley, the harm extends far beyond the individual. It strikes at the integrity of the justice system itself. A legal profession in which some lawyers must fear physical harm or degradation while doing their jobs is one that has failed its foundational promise of equality before the law.

The Ms. Riley incident is extreme, but it is not anomalous. It represents the violent end of a spectrum of racialized treatment that Black legal professionals routinely encounter in Canadian courthouse spaces.

Not long ago, I encountered a more subtle, but no less revealing, manifestation of the same phenomenon. I appeared as a self-represented litigant in a Court matter. During a settlement conference, the presiding judge complimented me on my “well-written and structured” statement of claim, remarking that it exceeded the quality he typically encounters among self-represented litigants in his courtroom. The remark was delivered as a compliment, but I found it deeply unsettling. The compliment was not grounded in careful engagement with the pleading. Paragraph one of the statement of claim clearly identified me as a lawyer, a fact I doubt the judge even noticed.

As it did not appear to the judge that a Black, self-represented litigant capable of drafting a “well-written and structured” statement of claim could also be a lawyer, I did not see the need to inform him that I am also a law professor who teaches civil procedure (including the drafting of statement of claim) to future lawyers. The compliment laid bare a stereotypical frame that positioned Blackness and legal competence as incongruent. It reinforced a disturbing truth: in courthouse spaces, Black people are often imagined as occupants of inferior or suspicious spaces in that environment.

This is precisely the logic that animates the treatment of Black lawyers in courthouse environments. Blackness is read as deviation from the professional norm. Presence becomes something to be interrogated. Belonging becomes conditional.

Legal Recognition of Racialized Exclusion: Peel Law Association v. Pieters

In Peel Law Association v. Pieters, the Ontario Court of Appeal confronted a strikingly similar dynamic. Two Black lawyers and a Black articling student were sitting in the Brampton courthouse lawyers’ lounge when a librarian demanded they produce identification to prove they were entitled to be in that space. No white lawyers there were asked for ID. The librarian stated that she did not ask for the ID of the other people in the lounge because she knew that they were lawyers. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal found, and the Court of Appeal later confirmed, that the demand constituted racial discrimination. The Court acknowledged that racial bias often operates subtly and unconsciously, and that discrimination may be inferred from differential treatment in context.

The message in Pieters was clear: when Black lawyers are treated as presumptive outsiders in professional legal spaces, discrimination has occurred, even if no racial slur is uttered and no malicious intent is professed.

The parallels to the Ms. Riley incident are impossible to ignore. In Pieters, the stereotype manifested as a demand for identification. In Ms. Riley’s, it manifested as handcuffs, violence, and incarceration. In both cases, Black lawyers were effectively told: you do not naturally belong here. The difference is not one of kind, but of degree.

Racialized Surveillance and the Criminalization of Black Presence

Ms. Riley’s treatment also reflects a broader phenomenon scholars have described as racialized surveillance – the heightened monitoring and suspicion of racialized bodies in spaces of power and privilege. As Yale professor Elijah Anderson noted in his work Black in White Space: The Enduring Impact of Color in Everyday Life, “many Whites have not adjusted to the idea that Black people now occupy more positions of privilege, power, and prestige—or just appear in places where they were historically unwelcome. When they see Blacks in such places, many Whites, though not all, unconsciously or explicitly want to banish them to the iconic ghetto—to the stereotypical space where they think all Black people belong, a segregated space for second-class citizens. Not courageous enough to attempt this feat alone, many of these self-appointed color-line monitors seek help wherever it can be found—such as from the police.” (p. 146)

In courthouses, this surveillance is particularly insidious because it is exercised by those who wield state authority: police officers, court staff, and, at times, judges themselves. When racialized surveillance converges with coercive power, the result can be devastating. It was in Ms. Riley’s.

Anti-Black stereotypes have long associated Blackness with criminality. Within courthouse spaces, that stereotype translates into an unspoken assumption that Black people “belong” on the criminal side of the system – as accused persons, detainees, or security concerns – not as lawyers or professionals. Ms. Riley’s experience exemplifies this logic with chilling clarity. Her presence in a lawyer-only space was not read as normal; it was read as suspect. The violence that followed was the tragic consequence of that misrecognition.

Solidarity, Accountability, and the Demand for Reform

The response from the legal community has been swift and unified. The South Asian Bar Association of Toronto, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, and other organizations have condemned the incident and called for an independent and transparent investigation. Their statements emphasize not only accountability, but solidarity, recognition that what happened to Ms. Riley threatens the safety and dignity of all lawyers, particularly those from historically marginalized communities.

These calls must be heeded. An internal police investigation is insufficient where allegations implicate systemic bias and serious bodily harm. Independent oversight is essential, not only to determine responsibility in this case, but to restore public confidence in courthouse safety for all legal professionals.

Yet accountability alone is not enough. Structural reform is required. Courthouse security practices must be reviewed through an anti-racist lens. Training on unconscious bias and cultural competency must be meaningful and ongoing. Clear protocols must ensure that lawyers are not arbitrarily challenged, removed, or subjected to force. And perhaps most importantly, the legal profession must continue to name and confront the stereotypes that underlie these incidents.

Conclusion: Belonging Is Not Conditional

The question at the heart of this discussion is not merely whether Ms. Riley was mistreated. The answer is self-evident. The deeper question is why such mistreatment remains imaginable, and in some cases permissible, within Canadian courthouse spaces.

As Black lawyers, we do not need to prove that we belong to these spaces. We already do. We do by virtue of our legal training, our licensing, our service, and our commitment to justice. Our presence in courtrooms, interview rooms, and judges’ chambers is not an exception; it is a right comes with our qualification to practice law.

The Sudine Riley incident should be a turning point. It should force the legal profession to confront how anti-Black stereotypes continue to shape who is seen as legitimate, safe, and worthy in our most powerful institutions. It should compel us to ensure that no lawyer – no matter their race, gender, or religious expression – ever again has to fear violence for simply doing their job.

Courthouses must be spaces where justice is practiced, not betrayed. And justice cannot exist where Black lawyers are made to feel that they do not belong.

Cause, we belong here, too.

The post We Belong Here: Black Lawyers in Canadian Court Spaces appeared first on Slaw.

Law firms are often described as professional services businesses, knowledge businesses, or relationship businesses. All of that is true. But at their core, law firms are 100% people businesses.

Every outcome partners care about be that the client experience, quality of work, risk management, profitability, reputation, succession, these all flow through people. The results you will achieve in any of these domains depend on how motivated, focused, engaged, and well those people are. There is no separating firm performance from human performance.

And yet, many partners find themselves spending far less time than they would like on activities that are truly the highest and best use of their time, such as leading and mentoring their teams, cultivating client relationships, and doing the legal work that is the most satisfying to them and creates the most value. Instead, they are pulled into avoidable people issues, compensating for disengagement, or staying far too close to work and administrative matters that should not require their ongoing attention.

This is not a character flaw, and it is not a leadership failure. It is a systems problem.

If partners want to reclaim their time, energy, and enjoyment of practice, they need a motivated and engaged legal team. Engagement is not a “nice to have.” It is a prerequisite for leverage. And that requires a cultural operating system that reflects how human beings, including lawyers, are actually wired.

That operating system is RECLAIM.

RECLAIM: a practical model for motivation and engagement in law firms

The RECLAIM model draws on research from the fields of neuroscience and psychology to describe seven factors that consistently shape human motivation at work. These factors map to core domains of social experience that the brain is constantly evaluating as either rewarding or threatening with direct consequences for focus, collaboration, learning, and wellbeing in law firm life.

The RECLAIM model sits in a clear lineage of applied research on human motivation and flourishing at work. It builds on David Rock’s SCARF® model, developed through the NeuroLeadership Institute, which identifies five core social domains that the brain continuously evaluates as either rewarding or threatening. It also draws on Dr. Martin Seligman’s PERMA model of flourishing, which describes the conditions that support sustained wellbeing and optimal functioning.

RECLAIM translates and integrates these well-established frameworks into a form that is directly usable in law firm life — reflecting both the social realities of professional workplaces and the specific drivers of motivation, performance, and meaning in legal practice.

Importantly, RECLAIM is not about perks, personality, or generational preferences. Each element reflects conditions that leaders actively create or undermine through everyday decisions, structures, and behaviours.

R — Respect: mutual respect and recognition

Feeling respected means being listened to, taken seriously, and having contributions meaningfully acknowledged. It also includes access to opportunities to grow.

In practice, respect is undermined when input is dismissed, decisions are routinely overridden without explanation, or lawyers and staff feel invisible unless something has gone wrong. Respect is reinforced when leaders listen before advising, explain their thinking, acknowledge accomplishments in addition to areas for improvement, and treat legal team members as valued professionals.

E — Equity: fair treatment

Human beings are constantly scanning for what is fair and just. Law firms are no exception.

Equity in the RECLAIM model is about perceptions of what is fair and what is unjust. It shows up in how work is allocated, how policies are applied, how people are rewarded, how decisions are made, and how transparently those decisions are communicated. Even difficult or disappointing outcomes are easier to accept when people understand the rationale behind them. Perceived unfairness, by contrast, is a powerful demotivator and a reliable source of disengagement.

C — Clarity: clarity and predictability

Clarity is not just kind — it is a business strategy.

Knowing what is expected, the direction the firm is headed in, how decisions are made, and what the path forward looks like reduces cognitive load and stress. Confusion around expectations, performance standards, processes, or advancement is not neutral; it actively drains motivation and focus. Even in uncertain times, firms can create pockets of certainty through clear communication and consistent practices.

L — Learning: growth and development

Lawyers are deeply motivated by mastery. The drive to learn, improve skills, and tackle complex challenges is intrinsic to the profession.

Learning is supported when lawyers can see how their current work contributes to longer-term development, and when growth is treated as a shared priority rather than an individual hobby pursued off the side of a full workload. When development stalls, motivation often stalls with it.

A — Autonomy: control and ownership

Autonomy is about having meaningful control over one’s work and being trusted to take ownership.

When lawyers are supported to take responsibility for files or projects, with appropriate guidance, boundaries and support, autonomy and connection are both activated. Micromanagement, on the other hand, reliably undermines motivation, signals mistrust, and keeps partners trapped in work they should not need to be doing.

I — Inclusion: connection and belonging

Inclusion is about feeling part of the team and connected to leaders and colleagues. It is about creating an environment that supports exploring ideas, collaboration, asking questions, and learning from errors.

It shows up in who is looped into conversations, whose voices are heard, and whether people feel supported rather than isolated. Exclusion does not have to be intentional to be damaging; feeling left out of decisions or disconnected from leadership quickly erodes engagement and loyalty.

M — Meaning: purpose and impact

Meaning comes from understanding the “why” behind the work and seeing how one’s efforts create positive impact.

For lawyers, this may be helping clients through difficult moments, advancing justice, protecting rights, or solving problems that matter. When meaning is visible, work feels worthwhile even when it is demanding. When it is obscured, motivation drops — even among highly capable and committed lawyers.

Why this matters for partners

Our brains are constantly evaluating the work environment. When RECLAIM cues activate the brain’s reward circuits, engagement, creativity, and learning are supported. When those same cues register as threats, stress increases, rumination rises, and motivation drains away.

For partners, the implications are direct and practical.

When RECLAIM conditions are strong:

• lawyers and staff take ownership appropriately,
• problems are surfaced earlier,
• quality improves,
• and partners can spend more time on the responsibilities and work that truly require their experience and judgment.

When RECLAIM conditions are weak:

• partners become bottlenecks,
• people problems multiply,
• and the practice becomes heavier and less satisfying to run.

What comes next

This article provides a high-level introduction to the RECLAIM operating system and there is much more depth to explore.

I first presented the RECLAIM model at the TLABC Women Lawyers Retreat 2025, where the response from participants made it clear that this framework was resonating with real, lived experience in firms. Based on that response, I have since recorded a version of the presentation and created a resource kit for law firm partners who want to explore the model more deeply. It can be accessed here: https://www.thelawyercoach.com/the-flourishing-law-centre/

Over the coming months, I will be dedicating a separate SLAW article to each element of RECLAIM, with a focus on how partners can apply these principles practically inside real firms, not as abstract ideals, but as levers for improving performance, engagement, and sustainability.

If law firms are serious about being well-run people businesses, then motivation and engagement cannot be left to chance. RECLAIM offers a practical cultural operating system for getting there.

The post RECLAIM: A Cultural Operating System for Law Firms appeared first on Slaw.

Unprecedented market conditions are forcing law firms to choose if and how they meet demands of clients and the legal market itself with private equity being a major and, in many cases, deciding factor in enabling solvency and structural reformation.

My opinion column, The Law Firm Pyramid Rollover, that examined how artificial intelligence, pricing, and transience of the legal service sector’s workforce is causing the traditional law firm pyramid structure to rollover like an upending iceberg sparked two strong and opposing reactions: One was numerous republishing requests, reposts, and commentary while the other was dead silence.

The former reaction is flattering but the latter is more telling. In response to that column and others, the silent majority has told me privately that while they identify with my opinions and agree with many points raised, remaining silent is how they feel they must react publicly due to fear of retribution and consequences.

My message to the silent majority is that I hear and see you; I know that you are there and support you.

The Private Equity Puzzle

Legal services is the last sector to rebuff elements of business modernity. As a result, it is now facing an existential crisis. Cracks in the legal services façade and signs of increasing stress appear daily, which is why a silent reaction has always signaled that I’m on target.

While provoking thought is a desired reaction, initiating decisive action is my intention.

That is why in “Pyramid,” I intentionally chose not to discuss how and why private equity is making inroads along with its potential impact on the legal services sector. Because private investment is a major topic, including it would have been overwhelming.

Still, we need to face the PE factor head on. So, buckle up, buttercup; here we go.

Pioneering Experience

With a plethora of private equity articles floating around, I, like you, have been reading about issues pertaining to PE within the legal services sector. Generally, it seems to me that many or most of these articles are the work of individuals trained as lawyers whether or not they practice.

While this is fair and, frankly, to be expected it also seems that lawyers have a built-in proclivity to lean toward legal practice. Perhaps this is because of training and experience and, therefore, is what they know best. Still, it can result in a natural tendency to focus on how private equity could or will affect legal practice with a lesser focus on how outside investment can affect aspects of legal services business, which with a deep business background is what I know best.

Ironically, we’ve been here before, or at least I have. Oddly enough, and if recent prospective client inquiries are anything to go by, my experience with outside investment in law firms is coming back in fashion like turtlenecks, bellbottoms, and gold chains, but with much higher value attached.

Here’s why: I entered the legal services sector in 1998 with a strong business management background, particular experience restructuring and turning around businesses in trouble, and an entrepreneurial temperament. These traits lent themselves to spending three years as the sole markets advisor to Donahue LLP, a 130-lawyer, three-office business law firm that operated within Ernst & Young from 1997 to 2003 as Canada’s first, and so far, only Big Four multidisciplinary (MDP) business legal practice with a U.S alliance.

We were pioneers. The combination of Donahue’s MDP uniqueness with me being its only embedded markets advisor meant I learned the legal business and how to market, manage, and survive in it with the velocity of drinking from a firehose. I loved it. Working simultaneously with EY and Donahue during that time has served me and law firms I’ve worked with very well over the years since. It has also enabled me to write and speak about alternative business structures (ABS), multidisciplinary practice (MDP), and private investment from both a unique perspective and lived experience.

A Ground Breaker

Donahue was a groundbreaking ABS born and operating at a time before “alternative business structure” was a twinkle in the legal sector’s eye, never mind a term in its lexicon. As a pioneering MDP enterprise that went to market as a “one-stop-shop” for professional business services, we battled damn near daily with law regulators who argued that the closeness of lawyers within what was often referred to as EY’s “captive law firm” – imagine how much the lawyers liked that – and the accountants was too close in too many ways.

While, after a six-year, hard-fought run, Donahue wound up Canadian operations in 2003, I find it deliciously ironic – and as a management expert, am delighted and feel vindicated – that almost 30 years after Donahue’s breakthrough, the Big Four’s KPMG won entry to the U.S. market via licensing in Arizona in February 2025.

I also find it amusing that despite barbarians-at-the-gate fearmongering, pearl-clutching commentary, and the ninny-ness of lawyer “specialism,” many law firms worldwide – due to the triple whammy of artificial intelligence, pricing, and talent transience – have been spurred to learn about outside investment and the value of professional management to handle a firm’s operational infrastructure, all of which enables lawyers to do what they say they went to school for: Lawyering.

So, let’s get one thing crystal clear: Private investment is not just coming to legal services; it’s been here for a long time. Therefore, there is no sense standing on the brakes of this business-based advancement but rather keeping an open mind to learn if and how working with outside investment may have benefits for pioneering enterprises seeking new operating structures to survive in the legal services market of today and tomorrow. 

The Last Bastion

Modernization has come to almost every classification of economic activity in the world. The legal services sector is the last professional bastion to be breached by and accepting of modern operational business procedures and conduct. Because the legal services industry is the business world’s last holdout – and to avoid the echo chamber and angst of the legal-beagle set – it is advisable to look outside the law firm purview for change management direction.

Yes, I know; lawyers are different. Being trained to argue, they will often resort to whatever defence can possibly apply at that particular moment that lends some kind of support to whatever position they have taken. Furthermore, they often collect cronies to join them in a pile-on and are apt to consider themselves having won whatever fight they think they are in due to having what they believe is the last word.

Still, my concern is that a tendency to claim rightness may be a deciding factor in winning the battle but losing the war. Not that lawyers who are often subjected to over-simplification as a homogeneous class are the enemy in any way, shape or form, but a lawyer-like risk-averse trait of clinging like a barnacle to what was can often be fatal.

There are also times when I sense a self-selected destructiveness within the resistant ranks of legal services that supports Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory of “survival of the fittest” and an observation by that old Machiavellian, Napoleon Bonaparte, who allegedly quipped: “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

Money Talks

As to private equity, it would be a mistake to say that we have not been party to enabling PE to be active within the legal services sector.

Take, for example, Chambers Global that was bought in 2018 by U.K. private equity firm, Inflexion, that realized a 4.7x return on its investment when it sold Chambers Global to U.S. mid-market investors, Abry Partners, in 2023. After selling Chambers Global, Inflexion bought U.K. law firm, DWF, that same year.

However, Chambers Global being owned by Inflexion from 2018 to 2023 means lawyers and law firms that participated with and were listed in Chambers anytime during that five-year period were enmeshed with a private equity organization. Think about it: Not only did participating lawyers and law firms provide Chambers Global with reams of information – some of it borderline confidential – but also handed over what is often privileged but client-often-reluctantly-approved contact information in the hope that interviews with these contacts could culminate in lawyers and law firms having a chance to be listed in a blessed directory.

The same year that Inflexion bought DWF, Allen & Overy spun off its risk management business to Inflexion and Endicott Capital prior to merging with Shearman & Sterling with the intention to hold a “significant minority stake” in this business that provides finance sector clients with subscription-based online legal analysis pertaining to compliance topics.

As recently as November 2025, U.S.-based McDermott Will & Schulte acknowledged “fielding inbound interest” in private equity investment. When an AM Law 50 firm considers PE funding, any argument that this type of investment is suitable for only small- to medium-size law firms or boutique practices falls away and fails fast.

Private equity is also active in Canada. Speaking personally, in 2024, a venture capital company asked me to access efficiencies of targeted Canadian law firms and consult with the VC to decide which of these firms to approach for potential investment. I declined due to a myriad of reasons ranging from potential client conflict concerns to lack of capacity and general disinterest. It didn’t help that this particular VC had a notion that applying pressure tactics and time constraints was a strategy that would achieve their objective to retain me rather than the resulting zero-sum outcome. (Watch for that.) However, anyone who knows me is fully aware that I don’t take direction well. No independent advisor worth a damn does.

Still, I find it puzzling that when private investment has been active in the legal services sector for years, handwringing about it now seems to be the newest obsession rather than tackling more prevalent factors threatening the business of law, such as AI, pricing, and transient talent that are impacting the legal services sector right this minute. Then again, for some law firms, introducing private equity into their business back office may be a possible solution to solving parts of this puzzle.

Business, Not Practice

Private equity is interested in injecting new capital into legal business, not practice. This is evident in private equity’s investment in other sectors, such as dentistry where PE has bought into the business operations side because that is their strength. They’re not capable, licenced, or interested in drilling teeth.

The same can be said for the business of law where many firms long ago spun off their internal business services into a separate unit to house finance, IT, marketing and business development, professional development, human resources, and whatever else might be applicable, leaving the practice of law side of the firm as a unit unto itself.

It’s this spun-off internal business piece that is of interest to private equity because it’s ripe for conversion to a professionally Managed Services Organization (MSO). PE is well-able to ignite better efficiency aided by professional management, guidance, and resources to streamline operations starting with removing procedures and deadwood (as suggested in “Pyramid”) that seem to be sacred cows to many law firms unable or unwilling to execute this necessary efficiency requirement themselves.

Control Issues and Structural Flaws

The nut of this issue for law firms is the lawyerly trait of needing to have control along with a potential threat – real or imagined – of losing whatever control they think they have. However, running a business is not what most lawyers identify as a strength, nor do many of them want it to be.

Because of PE’s deep understanding of business and that money makes the world go around, there is no danger of them asking such questions as, “What does ‘variance’ mean?” This was a question I overheard a senior partner who – wait for it – practiced business law for 30 years ask another lawyer who didn’t know the answer. (Over the years, I’ve asked other lawyers this question and none has known the answer, which is that variance is the difference between budget and actual that is analysed and reported monthly.) Principles of finance are basic business, which is not taught in law schools, but it is the lifeblood of commerce and corporate management.

Ironically, the reason we’re talking about private equity at this point in time is a direct result of law firm structure history.

Consider what could have happened if law firms of yesteryear had had the sense to structure themselves like almost every other enterprise of commerce by employing both a strict business approach to money along with savvy financial professionals to manage it without interference, rather than what we’ve got now: Law firms that seem to treat their businesses as private clubs or banks, and drain the coffers each year to dole out doubloons to equity partners. If you think about it, the history and absurdity of this antiquated structure is mind-boggling to the point of completely bonkers.

The Problematic Pyramid

The pyramid structure of traditional law firms has always been peculiar due to relying on hierarchy and scaling from the bottom up. Now, due to hair-on-fire business issues that include AI, pricing, talent transience, and private equity, the pyramid structure is flawed to the point of faltering and in many instances, failing.

The hierarchical pyramid structure is the opposite of flatter structures that encourage and enable contributions of ideas, systems, and improvements from all team members regardless of tenure, status, or whatever label you want to put on people. It is how entrepreneurial entities work best and grow with assurance that is based on rock-solid business plans that are also engineered for flexibility within brightline boundaries.

This is why anyone who has worked outside of the legal industry prior to coming into it, quickly and fully grasps an understanding that law firms breathe rare air. How law firms operate and why is often completely mystifying to these people since law firms in general and their operations in particular usually defy both business principles and basic logic. As a result, there are many law firms that are successful by sheer accident. I should know having experienced this many times since 1998, and I’m not alone.

For outsiders who join legal services, their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual safety valves require taking the work seriously and either cultivating or being naturally blessed with both a sense of humour and the ridiculous. Otherwise, and without these personal and professional features, they will often up sticks and go elsewhere.

Backward, Then Forward

A strong sense of self is a sanity and safety mechanism because egos are a major factor within legal services. I’m not talking about one’s sense of identity or self-worth that is important for each of us to have and nurture, but rather about the fragility of humanity and its potential for failure than can manifest as toxicity and/or oversized perceptions of self-importance that demand constant validation.

Another factor is the notion of legacy. Legacy is a fallacy because changes or advancements made at the time of their doing tend to fade sooner than you think. Again, I should know having made systemic changes to structures and operations of various law firms only to see some of these improvements backslide and for a firm to eventually revert to its former state. Oftentimes, I’m asked to return and shore up what was lost. However, recognizing the overarching futility and that I’d be doing it solely for money – which runs contrary to my ethical streak – I usually don’t bother since without consistent management and reinforcement, improvements are often like sandcastles on a beach; the tide or a storm will eventually sweep them away.

Because the practice of law is an evidence-based profession, there is a strong reliance on using data as proof especially in troubling times. Management expert, Peter Drucker, said, “The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence – it is to act with yesterday’s logic.” I go one step further and suggest that a reliance on data means working with dated information culled from history since that’s what data is: Historical. This means that even with all the data in the world allegedly acting as proof, that old chestnut: “Past performance is not indicative of future results” is the perfect argument.

Therefore, the trouble for the legal services sector in coming to grips with the understanding that while precedence is a basis on which the practice of law sits, any data culled from history are not one whit predictive of the future pertaining to the business of law. This is why that terribly tired yet pervasive old question: “Who else has done it this way and been successful?” has been and always will be a sure-fire recipe for stagnancy and eventual decline.

Still, there are bright spots that happen when the way forward is illuminated by maverick law firms that, determined to pursue active and solvent futures, acknowledge a nodding acquaintance to the existence of data but, much more importantly, have the intestinal fortitude to break free of it to think differently, act accordingly, and shatter the mould that defines structures and cultures that confine exponential growth.

These traits are the hallmarks of law firms of the future.

Focus and Act

Distractions are aplenty in the legal services sector, which is why the topic of private equity is “flavour of the [ insert whatever timeline you want ]” and feeds into many lawyers’ professional and personal quirk of admiring the problem (for ages) before hammering out potential solutions, and discussing them ad nauseum before acting.

The problem right now is that the legal services sector is at a precipice. As noted in “Pyramid,” the traditional law firm pyramid structure is rolling over and will upend like an iceberg and by 2030, global legal services will operate much differently than they do now.

While I’m not advocating for private investment, law firms losing their lower tiers of legal talent along with operational stability due to the twin juggernauts of artificial intelligence and pricing are well-advised to consider PE for potentially better and sustainable business solvency. Yes, some degree of control will need to be forfeited to ensure better evolvement and survival, but that’s how both business and life works.

Time’s Up

Lorenzo Pietro “Yogi” Berra, an American baseball player who was probably more famous for his witticisms than his sport suggested, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Applying that wisdom to legal services where up to this point, many traditionally structured law firms have been successful by fluke rather than design, we’ve finally come to a critical fork in this sector’s road where law firms are now being forced by clients and the legal market itself to choose if and how they change.

There are essentially two paths: One leads to carrying on business as usual and hoping to survive the disintegration of an historically flawed and rapidly destabilizing traditional pyramid structure. The other requires vision, grit, and determination to change the business, its models and flexibility as well as welcoming a multidisciplinary and constantly shifting talent roster to work with and within newer, flatter legal services structures that merge with the modern world to realize solvent and successful futures.

Choose wisely. Be fearless.

The post The Law Firm Private Equity Puzzle appeared first on Slaw.

Melville’s Moby Dick, which fell flat out of the presses and was out of print in 1891 when he died, was thankfully revived 70 years later in the 1920s for it gave us access to not only one of the best books ever written, but a legal theory that will stand the test of time, that is, that possession is the whole of the law. How can this be so? By virtue of two simple principles:

I. A Fast-Fish belongs to the party fast to it.

II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it.

The story goes that a boat of whalers had harpooned a whale but capsized, and watched the whale escape with their harpoons stuck in it. Another group of whalers then came along and killed and seized the whale. To whom did the whale, the capsized boat, and the harpoons belong?

The boat belonged to the whalers who were on it and capsized, for they had held fast to it and let go only to save their lives. No one else had subsequently held fast to the boat, unless it can be said that the ocean held fast to the boat.

The harpoons held fast in the whale. When first struck, the whale was loose-fish, for it had not been caught. So at that time the proper owner of the harpoons was the whale. Then the second group of whalers caught the whale, and so the whale held fast to them. It followed, then, that the harpoons and the whale belonged to the second group of whalers, for the lot of it held fast to them.

Now more than 100 years have passed since Moby Dick and I cannot but be astonished at its applicability in our times. Let us take the a common tort in which a pedestrian is injured in a car accident. Now the pedestrian is loose-fish. Like the whale he is free and travels the oceans of sidewalks and roads. When the driver strikes the pedestrian, the pedestrian becomes fast-fish, having been harpooned by the driver. And so the driver is liable.

Suppose our case is more complicated. The driver loses control on a patch of slick ice which the municipality had failed to salt. Then the driver becomes loose-fish on the ice. The ice is fast-fish to the municipality, and so in turn the driver and pedestrian are fast-fish to the municipality. Thus the municipality is liable.

The principle is even more intuitive in contract law. A promise is made by a vendor to deliver a product. The product is defective, so it remains fast-fish to the vendor. The product is lost in shipping, so it is fast-fish to whoever arranged the shipping. The product spoils in storage, so it is fast-fish to the buyer. The product is destroyed by lightning, well, then it is loose-fish!

In family law spouses are fast-fish. Upon divorce the rope remains naturally tethered. Children, too, are fast-fish. Is it any wonder that families, which remain fast-fish to each other in nature, must in law support each other by child-support and spousal-support?

How far afield does the doctrine extend? In corporate law the business is fast-fish to the directors who manipulate it. Minority shareholders, being loose-fish, thus seek the oppression remedy from those who do the harpooning. And nothing could be clearer in securities law when insiders have the fast-fish of material non-public information, while the public are mere loose-fish. Thus the insider must act with care and the public may travel as they will; but they cannot be punished by those who claim the fast-fish.

And is not the battle of beneficiaries over their dead parent’s property nothing but a question of who is fast-fish and loose-fish? So the child who takes care of the parent in their dying years claims the child is fast-fish to the parent; and the spouse who marries into the family late claims he is fast-fish, while the child disputes, saying the spouse is mere loose-fish? And doesn’t it make sense that a will, in many jurisdictions, is deprecated upon marriage, for the creation of a new family creates new fast-fish?

We need not exhaust the cases to prove the principle. Rather be guided by the great seer:

What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men’s minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?

-Moby Dick, Herman Melville, 1851

The post You Are a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish appeared first on Slaw.

Two recent events in my professional life have me thinking (and worrying as is my nature) about the push and pull we lawyers experience when communicating with clients. In an increasingly connected world, how do we balance our obligation to respond in a reasonable timeframe with the client’s expectation to receive frequent and immediate responses via text or instant messaging?

The first event is the launch of the Public Concerns Pathway (PCP) from the Law Society of Saskatchewan. I was the Knowledge Engineer on this project that provides the public with clear information about common concerns with legal professionals and steps to resolution. The PCP identifies one of the most common concerns from the public as poor communication. The PCP breaks this concern into three sub concerns:

• Slow or No Response
• Not Explaining
• Not Keeping Me Informed

The ‘Slow or No Response’ sub concern explains the lawyer’s duty to communicate effectively with their client and expected practices including:

• keeping a client reasonably informed;
• answering reasonable requests from a client for information;
• responding to a client’s telephone calls; and
• answering, within a reasonable time, any communication that requires a reply.

To assist clients to better understand whether response times are ‘reasonable’, clients are asked to take the following factors into account:

• the urgency of their matter or request, such as if there are upcoming deadlines; and
• other demands on the lawyer’s or limited licensee’s time that they may need to prioritize – for example, multiple files and holidays.

The second event is the yearly presentation to first-year law students on the importance of effective communications that I co-present with my colleague from the Law Society of Saskatchewan. In addition to outlining the communication obligations as identified in the PCP, my Law Society colleague warns about using more ‘casual’ methods for professional communications. Specifically, text messages. The Code of Professional Conduct does not explicitly ban the use of text, but my colleague stresses that text messages and other casual methods should be avoided, if possible, for the following reasons:

• Sends the wrong message about seriousness, reachability/accessibility;
• Allows for “knee-jerk” responses where more careful consideration may be required; and
• More difficult to track and control.

However, my colleague does acknowledge that in certain circumstances text may be the client’s only method of written communication. If this is the case, the lawyer should:

• Set out boundaries for the client re: use and response expectations;
• Develop a procedure to preserve and file the text communications on the client file; and
• Maintain a professional tone throughout.

Fair advice and similar to that provided by the Law Society of Alberta in Effective Communication Part II – Managing and Documenting the File:

Consider carefully whether you want use text messaging as a method of communicating with clients. Cellular service providers may only keep records for a relatively short period of time. If you use text messaging with your client, you must have a system to keep a record of your communications for the file. You must also be able to prove that a client gave you instructions by text message. Email is a better choice.

If you do use text messaging for some communications, you should not use them for conveying subtle legal information; text messages are short and not designed for this level of information. Text messages also tend to lead to less formal communications and, in some cases, lawyers fall into the trap of using unprofessional or discourteous language when engaging with clients by text message. Texting may also lead the client to expect immediate responses from you at any time of the day or night.

While all the above points are important, I particularly stress the importance of setting healthy communication boundaries for the lawyer’s mental health. We do have an obligation to respond to professional communications within a reasonable timeframe, but not at the expense of our well-being. How do we explain this to clients who are used to receiving immediate responses, even outside of working hours?

The Law Society of Alberta provides practical advice focusing the potential increased cost to clients resulting from frequent communication:

While ongoing communication with the client is important, too much or too frequent communication is costly to the client and distracts from your substantive work on the file. For instance, you might have a client who calls you all the time to micro-manage the file. Presumably, you have already advised the client at the initial meeting or in the retainer agreement that you charge for your time and frequent contacts are costly. If the behaviour persists, remind the client that you charge for your time, that these communications distract from your ability to move matters along expeditiously, and that frequent contacts will result in increased cost to the client. Be certain to document these communications.

If the client is not swayed by the increased cost argument, do we have the skillset required to set a healthy boundary? Generally, the inability to set healthy boundaries is a factor that contributes to the poor mental health of our profession. The Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association (CLIA) identifies Assertiveness/Setting Boundaries as a valuable skill to preserve health in their Wellness Toolkit, a compilation of wellness resources to assist lawyers avoid claims. Four helpful resources are identified, and I suggest you review if you are having difficulty managing your client’s communication expectations:

• Best Way to Say No – CBA Dear Advy
• 24 Hours Demand: Tactics to Help Manage Expectation and Set Healthy Boundaries – CBA Well-Being Hour
• Five Mistakes Lawyers Make When Setting Boundaries and How to Fix Them – Bena Stock
• Boundaries for Lawyers Workbook – Bena Stock

While keeping in mind our obligations, remember that allowing clients to use text messaging may encourage more frequent communications outside work hours. We need to be available to our clients but not always available. Establish communications expectations early and be careful not only in what we communicate but how. The communications method we choose can help protect our wellbeing while ensuring we are meeting our professional obligations.

The post Healthy Communication Boundaries in a Connected World appeared first on Slaw.

Have you ever felt like running away?

In the middle of doing work or going through a stressful moment, you imagine how wonderful it would be to just go somewhere far away. Perhaps the image of a desert is something that you are imagining now as you read this. No one to bother you; just you, the ocean, white soft sand, and maybe someone to serve you a delicious meal?

Escaping the moment that is causing us stress or anxiety is something that the mind does in order to cope. When we go on vacation, we are giving our minds and bodies a moment to rest and recharge. This gives us extra energy, just like a rechargeable battery, to deal with our daily tasks when we come back to our daily lives.

Most of us find that going away for a week or two, does not seem to be enough to recharge. Just when we feel that we are getting calm and are able to enjoy time away, we are forced back into reality by having to come back from vacation.

Many people say that coming back from vacation is harder than leaving, as there is so much more to do to catch up. After a day or so, it feels like you are ready to pack up and leave again.

It’s not a coincidence that many European countries have more than four weeks of vacation per year. They seem to know that for a person to relax and come into balance, there needs to be a considerable amount of time for such relaxation to take place.

As most of us are not able to take a four week vacation, what can we do to still feel recharged and balanced so that we can go about our daily tasks with ease and calm?

The answer is simple. Take mini vacations throughout the day.

Studies haves shown that just looking at an image of a beautiful beach reduces the stress response. When we see an image that makes us feel calm, the body does not care whether it’s real or virtual. As long as the mind can relate it to something that in the past we considered as calming and safe, our body will go into a more relaxed state.

Here is how you can take a mini vacation in your mind:

1. Sit in a quiet space, with dimmed lighting.
2. Make sure you are comfortable.
3. Put a ten or fifteen minute alarm on your phone, so that you can take the time without being disturbed. Make sure the alarm is set to a soft sound that will not be jarring or uncomfortable when it sounds.
4. Have soft, calming music playing in the background. There are numerous audios and playlists now on various platforms that provide music for mediation and stress relief.
5. Close your eyes, and imagine a beautiful place where you feel completely at ease. It can be a beach with soft white sand and a turquoise ocean, or a forest with a canopy of trees that creates a cocoon around you.
6. If you are not able to imagine a place where you feel calm, then find images on the internet and look at the image on your phone before closing your eyes and imagining yourself in that place.
7. Take a few slow, deep breaths. Breathe in to a count of 5, hold to a count of 6 and release to a count of seven.
8. See yourself in that beautiful space, where there is no schedule, time limitations or tasks. You are alone and for the 10-15 minutes that you have allocated to stay in this mediation, you don’t have any responsibilities or worries.
9. If worries or thoughts creep into your calm space, kindly say to them that you will pick them up and deal with them later, but now is your time to be on vacation. There is a no disturb sign on the door to your mind and you kindly ask these thoughts and worries to wait outside.
10. You can also listen to a short calming meditation from YouTube or other sources while having the peaceful image in front of you or in your mind.

This may not be easy to do at the start, since you mind and body are not used to just sit and relax. The mind will start creating all sorts of excuses as to why you need to get up and DO things. However as you continue to do this practice every day, preferably at the same time of the day, the rewards will be tremendous.

The interesting thing is that you will be able to increase your productivity and be calmer in your daily activities, after you take these mini vacations throughout the day.

As you continue to practice, you will eventually find yourself looking forward to the “me time” vacation, which will reap more benefits than you can possibly imagine.

_________________

Disclaimer

The information in this article is not therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care/treatment, substance abuse care/ treatment, nor is it medical, psychological, mental health advice or treatment, or any other professional advice.

The information in this article is for information purposes only, and is not to be used as a substitute for therapy, counseling, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, mental health care, medical care, or any other professional advice by legal, medical or other qualified professionals.

This article is for information purposes only and is not to be construed as legal opinion, legal advice, or any other professional advice in any respect.

The information in this article shall not be recorded, copied or distributed.

If you feel that you may need medical or other professional help, please contact your doctor or call 911 if it is an emergency.

The post The Wellness Lawyer: “Running Away” appeared first on Slaw.

When I sat down with lawyer and author Katherine Reilly to talk about her new book Legally Zen, I surprised her by starting at the end. It felt right: the final chapter is where she introduces the idea that has stayed with me most—the concept she calls “Gen Zen.”

Reilly is not the stereotype of a mystical explorer. She is a senior civil litigator with almost twenty years in practice: formerly a partner at a national law firm in Vancouver, later counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General in Victoria, and now back in private practice. She has built a career grounded in evidence, logic, and the demands of high-pressure litigation.

That is precisely what makes her articulation of Gen Zen so compelling.

As she explains, Gen Zen is not a demographic but a mindset—a “group of people out there… for whom woo and spirituality are not necessarily bad words.” They include mainstream professionals from all walks of life—some whose paths look a lot like hers, and others whose lives look nothing like hers at all. What ties them together is “an open-minded, open-hearted approach to the world and a curiosity around inner work, around living an authentic life, and around spiritual practices.”

For years, Reilly thought she was alone in that curiosity. A “serious lawyer” —driven, professional, rational—she lived something of a double life. Her inner-world exploration, prompted by a series of major life events including significant health challenges, becoming a mother in the first week of COVID lockdowns and the breakdown of her marriage, unfolded privately. In spiritual circles, she avoided telling people she was a lawyer; among lawyers, she didn’t speak about her spiritual practices.

Her book is, in many ways, a coming-out story. Publishing it under her real name was “downright scary.” She considered a pseudonym but ultimately realized she couldn’t: “The purpose in putting this book out there was to own my story and integrate these pieces of myself in a public way such that I’m no longer living these dual lives.” Reilly wants to live with authenticity and hopes that by ‘walking the talk’, she will inspire others to do the same.

She expected judgment. Instead, she encountered curiosity, appreciation, and connection. “With this experience, as with so many others where I lean into vulnerability… I have been resoundingly rewarded.”

Why Gen Zen Matters for Lawyers

Reilly believes many lawyers may quietly recognize themselves in Gen Zen. Law is “demanding and highly rewarding,” but “does not leave a lot of room for your humanness.” For her, the practices she began exploring—spiritual, somatic, contemplative—became a kind of “secret weapon.”

“My inner landscape is much calmer,” she says. “I have this much broader perspective and a deeper appreciation for how people are acting and reacting in these high-pressure environments.” For lawyers who want to stay in the work they love despite its intensity, she sees these practices as a path forward: “This is a way to build your own capacity so that you can enjoy law more… and to find that really fulfilling, joyful experience in it.”

Our discussion also underscored how much overlap now exists between applied neuroscience and practices traditionally dismissed as woo: meditation, breathwork, somatics, grounding exercises. These are increasingly understood as practical tools for calming the nervous system and regulating emotional responses—approaches that support clarity, resilience, and even professional performance.

Reilly’s own experience mirrors this shift. “There is a lot of science behind a lot of these things,” she notes. But more importantly, her test is simple: they help. Whether it’s meditation, a breath practice before heading into court, or even something like a grounding crystal tucked in her pocket, “I feel better when I rely on these supports… and eventually I realized – maybe that’s all the evidence I need.”

A Memoir, a Guidebook, and a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure

One of the strengths of Legally Zen is that it functions as both a memoir and a guidebook. That combination did not come easily. Early drafts leaned too much toward pure instruction. The harder work was allowing more of her personal story onto the page. Yet that story is what animates the guide: it shows not only what she tried, but why and when.

She describes the spiritual realm as “a choose-your-own-adventure.” There are no prescribed beliefs; each person can build a toolkit that fits within their own “woo boundaries.” And those boundaries can shift meaningfully over time. Hers did—nudged not by mystics, but by “two highly credentialed medical professionals” treating her concussions, who encouraged mindfulness, mantras, and gratitude practices long before they were mainstream.

Writing the Book While Lawyering and Solo Parenting

I was inspired by what Reilly accomplished: completing this book while carrying a full civil litigation practice and raising her daughter largely on her own. She told me that many lawyers ‘have a book in them,’ and Reilly is someone who actually wrote hers.

When I asked her what advice she would give to other lawyers who want to write, she was pragmatic.

First: be realistic. “Do you have the time, the internal motivation, and the know-how?” Some people do. She recognised that she did not. So she hired help. “Just as I do better at the gym with a personal trainer… I knew I’d have a far better chance of getting this work out into the world if I hired people to help me.” Her book coach was a four-time New York Times bestselling ghostwriter; her editor was deeply experienced. They guided her through the rough patches, kept her accountable, and helped her shape the narrative.

The process took about 16 months: six or seven months for the first draft, then a substantial developmental edit, then the final stages leading to launch. Much of her writing happened in the early mornings from 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. or during the odd getaway retreat when she could immerse herself in writing. What mattered most was not just the time management, but creating a structure that supported her with writing during her most creative hours.

The Response—and the Tools

When hundreds, and then over a thousand people, added her book to their book shelves, Reilly was “astounded in the best possible way… heartwarmed and humbled.” Mostly, she says, she felt grateful that the book resonated and that people were curious enough to “walk along with me and see how I did it, why I did it,” and that they felt encouraged to explore their own paths.

For readers who want to try the tools she uses daily, Reilly has created a free Zen Extras kit: a downloadable bundle of meditations, mantras, breathwork exercises, and grounding practices. It is available at legallyzen.ca. “Even if you never read my story,” she says, “go get this free resource… it’s full of game-changing practices.”

Sitting at the Same Table

For Reilly, this isn’t about persuading anyone to hold specific beliefs. It’s about allowing logic, science, wonder, and spirit to sit at the same table. “These concepts can—and do—coexist.” Her life, she says, has grown “richer and fuller” since she allowed herself to sit at that table too. And if readers find some joy or begin their own small explorations, she will have achieved what she hoped for.

The post At the Table With Logic and Spirit: a Conversation With Katherine Reilly, Author of Legally Zen appeared first on Slaw.