Skip to content

Most responses to LSUC ABS proposals negative

|Written By Gail J. Cohen

At its monthly meeting of benchers last week, the Law Society of Upper Canada released an overview of the submissions it had received in response to its working paper on alternative business structures.

The overview lays out the wide-ranging perspectives the LSUC has received so far from the profession and other stakeholders on whether to let non-lawyers own law firms. It received more than 40 responses. And as the overview notes: “Many responses passionately expressed opposition to

any ABSs being introduced in Ontario.”

Many agreed with the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, which said the role of alternative business structures in fostering innovation is “overstated.” Others, like Cognition LLP, said alternative business structures would allow them to lock in capital more easily, thereby insulating firms from cash-flow troubles.

Still others conjured up a new concept, dubbed “ABS plus,” that the law society should be considering.

According to University of Ottawa Faculty of Law professor David Wiseman, new models will only have a “trickle-down” benefit for poor Ontarians who lack access to justice. That’s why he suggested the law society look into an enhanced version of alternative business structures.

The attached chart provides a quick overview of the responses received by the LSUC. Read more about it in this week’s Law Times.  All of the submissions are available on the law society's web site.

Update March 3: Chart updated to better reflect LawPRO's stance.

  • lawyer

    Ken Chasse
    Your "chart" of ABS responses is suspect. It lists mine as a "mixed" response. In every one of its 67 pages it is against ABS's.
    Who summarized the responses and made up the chart--the benchers who are promoting the ABS proposals?




  • clawbies 2015
    clawbies 2014
  • clawbies 2013
    clawbies 2012
  • clawbies 2011
    clawbies 2010