Wake Up! Speak Up! Shake Up!

The great increase in the percentage of unrepresented litigants is not due to a loss of public confidence in the justice system. It is due to the unavailability of legal services at reasonable cost. Litigants don't choose to represent themselves. They have no choice, other than to do nothing about the legal problems that otherwise compel them to go to court without lawyers. They don't want to suffer the embarrassment of fumbling in court, of coping poorly with rules of procedure, and with the necessary documentation. They don't want to endure the high probability of losing, and thus being forced into bankruptcy by court costs. And worst of all, having to suffer the family break-up that is caused by extreme financial difficulties.
The confession that the legal profession is unable to cope is well documented and made patent in the Federation of Law Societies of Canada's (the FLSC's) published text, "Inventory of Access to Legal Services Initiatives of the Law Societies of Canada" (Sept. 2012). Our law societies' "initiatives" it says are of 3 types: (1) self-help; (2) the use of people less competent than practising lawyers; and, (3) pro and low bono. That is a confession of inadequacy that justifies government intervention by way of rolling back law societies' monopoly over the provision of legal services and the profession's freedom from government intervention in the provision of legal services. This "Inventory text" abandons lawyers in favour of less competent people, and its best "initiative" is the great uncertainties of volume, availability, and timing of pro and low bono. Such is the nature of such gift-giving because paying clients must come first. This "Inventory text" does not say that its inventory of solutions is temporary. Nor does it say that the FLSC is attempting to meet the problem head-on by way of a solution that will bring the middle and low income client back to lawyers' offices because legal services at reasonable cost can be developed. The absence of such statements shows that the FLSC does not understand the cause of the problem. That is why the legal profession can be said to be facing its most serious problem ever. It doesn't know how to make itself relevant again to the legal problems of the majority of Canada's population.
Governments can see that law societies have been fumbling totally inadequately for decades. Middle and low income clients are the majority of the clients, and the legal services they need are the majority of legal services needed. And those clients pay the majority of the taxes and have the majority of the votes. Therefore, surely governments fear that the internet, social media, and news media can very quickly make this problem a leading political issue, one serious enough to force an election upon a minority government as exists in Ontario. But apparently the FLSC has no such fears. Wherein its Inventory text is there a reference to the fact that this problem can "go viral" almost over-night, leaving its member law societies with insufficient time to make a persuasive response?
The cause of the problem is the present method of delivering legal services, which is the "handcraftsman's" method, whereby the same lawyer or group of lawyers performs all parts of the work necessary to deliver a legal service to a client. It's too slow and cost-inefficient. Instead, other professions, and all of large scale manufacturing, use the "support services" method, i.e., those parts of any service or product that a professional person or firm or manufacturer is inefficient at performing or making, are given to a specialist or special manufacturer. For example, there are many different types of specialized surgeon for a family doctor to choose from, and automobile manufacturers contract out such difficult parts to special parts companies. The support services method enables everybody to be cost-efficient and make a profit. But not the legal profession. That failing is the cause of the unavailability of legal services at reasonable cost.
The only example in Canada's legal profession of such an effective support service is the LAO LAW division of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). It is a centralized legal support service that has a 34-year history (since July 1979) of success, popularity, and of saving LAO millions of dollars that otherwise would have been paid out on lawyers' legal aid accounts. It also provides draft document services, and several other support services developed from its initial legal research services. Therefore, it is an example of how the problem can be solved. But, there is no reference to it, let alone analysis of its methods, in all of the reports that have been written, and conferences held concerning this, our most serious of problems. (One exception-Professor Trebilcock's 2008 report on LAO mentions it at page 41). But why no relevant analysis of LAO LAW? Because those reports and conference speeches were written by lawyers. But the problem is not a legal problem, nor one solved by a more intensive use of previously used solutions, which is what is recommended. Without actual experience solving the problem, we lawyers do not have the necessary expertise. Law societies, left to their own skills, will never solve the problem. Here is the appropriate analogy: a horse-powered transportation system cannot be made to have the capacity, speed, and cost-efficiency of a motor vehicle powered transportation system. But that is exactly what the FLSC and its members are trying to do. Unless support services methods of delivering legal services are adopted, government intervention is required so as to bring back legal services at reasonable cost to the residents of Canada.
I know these statements to be true and valid because I was the first Director of Research of LAO LAW. Therefore I know the necessary technology well. And, I've had the necessary prolonged experience to make it successful. What other lawyer can say that? All other recommendations are therefore speculative. Mine are not.
But ironically, it is the FLSC that has the necessary solution in its hands. It is the sponsor of CanLII, the Canadian Legal Information Institute, which now provides excellent online access to caselaw (court and tribunal decisions), statutes, and regulations. So the obvious solution is to have CanLII provide the services that LAO LAW provides. But CanLII would provide them to all lawyers and judges in Canada, and in all major fields of law. Therefore, the Ontario and federal governments, being the financiers of LAO, should be very willing to give CanLII, a copy of LAO LAW's database of materials. And willing to finance the hiring and training of the necessary lawyers. CanLII will provide such services at cost, from which monies the governments' start-up financing will be paid back. In this way, the problem can be solved in 2013. The legal profession can thus be proud of itself again. So, let us demand that the FLSC be able to publish this, "CanLII support services solution to the problem of the unavailability of legal services at reasonable cost, before the end of September.
— Ken Chasse, member, LSUC (1966) & LSBC (1978).

_{Source: slaw.ca}