FamilyLegalServicesReviewSubmissiononUnbundling&LegalCoaching1

May15,2017

NikkiGershbain,M.A.,LL.B.

NationalDirector,ProBonoStudentsCanada(onleave)

ResearchFellow,NationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject

UniversityofWindsor,FacultyofLaw

Introduction

MynameisNikkiGershbainandIamtheNationalDirectorofProBonoStudentsCanada

(PBSC). I am currently on leave from PBSC to complete a one-year fellowship in

partnershipwiththeNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject(NSRLP)toexplorethe

conceptof“legalcoaching”asapracticemodelinfamilylawthatcanincreaseaccessto

justiceforlargenumbersofotherwiseself-representedlitigants(SRLs).Mypreliminary

research includes interviews and meetings with over 45 family lawyers and policy-

makers,datafromasurveythathastodatebeencompletedby55familylawyers,and

preliminarydiscussionswithSRLs.

It is in this capacity that I amwriting toexpressmy strong support for the first three

recommendationsoutlinedinJusticeBonkalo’sReport,whichrelatetounbundlingand

legal coaching2. Please note that this submission does not touch on any of the other

recommendationsinthereport.

1Iwouldliketothankthefollowingindividualswhointheirpersonaland/orprofessionalcapacities

providedthoughtfulcommentsondraftsofthissubmissionthatgreatlycontributedtoimprovingmy

thinkingandrecommendations:John-PaulE.Boyd(ExecutiveDirector,CanadianResearchInstitutefor

LawandtheFamily&Co-Director,AlbertaLimitedLegalServicesProject),KariBoyle(Coordinator,BC

FamilyJusticeInnovationLab&Manager,BCFamilyUnbundlingRosterProject),BrianBurke(Secretary,

AssociationofFamilyandConciliationCourts,OntarioChapter),PhilipM.EpsteinQ.C.,LSM(former

BencheroftheLawSocietyofUpperCanada,formerChairoftheFamilyLawSectionoftheOntarioBar

AdmissionCourse,formerChair,FamilyLawSection,OntarioBarAssociation),AaronFranks(Director,The

Advocate’sSociety,AdjunctProfessor,OsgoodeHallLawSchool),RobertHarvieQ.C.(Bencher,Law

SocietyofAlberta&Co-Director,AlbertaLimitedLegalServicesProject),Dr.JulieMacfarlane(Professorof

LawandaDistinguishedUniversityProfessorattheUniversityofWindsor&ProjectDirector,NationalSelf

RepresentedLitigantsProject),JoelMiller(TheFamilyLawCoach),TamiMoscoe(Counsel,Officeofthe

ChiefJustice,SuperiorCourtofJustice,MinistryoftheAttorneyGeneral)andSharonShore(Chair,Family

LawSection,OntarioBarAssociation).IwouldalsoliketothankRebeccaRobinetandWilliamGoldbloom

fortheirexcellentresearchassistance.2JusticeAnnemarieE.Bonkalo“FamilyLegalServicesReview”(Toronto:MinistryoftheAttorneyGeneral,

31December2016)

<https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/family_legal_services_review/#top>:

Recommendation1:Lawyersshouldcontinuetoofferunbundledservicesandshouldtakestepstoensurethepublicismadeawareoftheiravailability.Lawyersshouldconsiderinnovativeopportunitiesto

offerunbundledlegalservices,includingaffiliationswithotherlawyersandonlineplatforms.

2

Thegoalofthisprojectistorefineandformalizelegalcoaching3,treatitasaspecialized

model of practice that requires education and training, and promote it as part of a

comprehensive access to justice plan in family law4. Themain deliverablewill be the

development of a training program for lawyers interested in becoming effective legal

coaches. This project has been made possible by the generous support of the Law

FoundationofOntarioandtheUniversityofWindsor,FacultyofLaw.

Myinterestinaccesstojusticeinfamilylawislongstanding.From2001-2004Ipracticed

familylawatEpsteinColeLLP,whereasignificantportionofmypracticewasdevotedto

probonofiles.IamaformermemberoftheLawSociety’sEquityAdvisoryGroup(EAG)

andamemberofLegalAidOntario’sFamilyLawAdvisoryCommittee.From2009-2010I

co-led, with ProfessorMichael Treblicock, the University of Toronto’sMiddle-Income

Access to Justice initiative. AsNationalDirector of PBSC, I doubled the size of PBSC’s

award-winning Family Law Project (FLP),which now operates in six provinces and 11

citiesacrossCanada.IntheFallof2016,IwasinvitedbyJusticeBonkalotoserveonthe

AdvisoryCommitteeforherFamilyLegalServicesReview.The Law Society,Ministry of the Attorney General & Justice Sector Partners ShouldAdoptandExpandUponJusticeBonkalo’sUnbundling&CoachingRecommendations

Inorder touphold itsmandate to govern the legal profession in thepublic interest, I

wouldsubmitthattheLawSocietyneedstonotonlyapprove,butalsotoexpandupon

these recommendations. This submission therefore elaborates on these

recommendations,andproposesseveraladditionalstrategiesthattheLawSociety,the

Recommendation2:TheLawSocietyofUpperCanadaandLawPROshouldcontinuetosupporttheexpandeduseofunbundledservicesandshouldoffercontinuinglegaleducationopportunitiesandtools

toaddresstheliabilityconcernsthatlawyershaveraisedasanimpedimenttoofferingtheseservices.

Recommendation3:Thelegalprofessionshouldsupportthedevelopmentoflegalcoachingandoffer

continuinglegaleducationopportunitiestoensurelawyersareequippedtooffertheseservices.Lawyers

shouldbeencouragedtotakethesetrainingprograms,andtoofferandadvertisecoachingservices.The

LawSocietyofUpperCanadaandLawPROshouldconsiderprovidingincentivesforlawyerstomakelegal

coachinganintegralpartoftheirpractice.3Throughoutthissubmission,Iwillrefertounbundlingandlegalcoaching.However,asIsetoutinmore

detailbelow,legalcoachingisatypeofunbundledservice.Whileitisimportantnottocreateanartificial

distinctionbetweenthetwopracticemodels,theconceptoflegalcoachingisdifferentfromthelegal

profession’sgeneralunderstandingofhowunbundlingisdelivered(typicallyadiscrete,one-offservice

directedbythelawyer).BecauseIbelievelegalcoachingoffersadvantagesthatthistraditionalformof

unbundlingdoesnot,Ihavechosennottosubsumethecoachingmodelintounbundlinginmy

terminology.Thatbeingsaid,lawyerswhoofferlimitedscopeservicesonthegroundinpracticeoften

provideacombinationorhybridoftraditionalunbundlingandlegalcoaching,dependingonclientability,

needandmeans.ThisistheapproachandpracticemodelIwillendorseinthissubmission.4Thisprojectisexploringlegalcoachinginfamilylaw,bothbecausefamilylawisthehighestareaofcivil

legalneedinCanada,andbecausethenatureofadivorcefilelendsitselfparticularlywelltothese

alternativepracticemodels.However,unbundlingandlegalcoachingarepracticemodelsthatcanbe

appliedtoandarecurrentlybeingofferedaspartofothercivilpracticeareas,includingemployment,

estatelitigation,generalcivillitigation,administrativelaw,andsoon.

3

Ministry of the Attorney General, and other independent justice sector partners can

adoptinordertopromoteandexpandunbundlingandlegalcoachinginOntario.

Justice Bonkalo’s first three recommendationswould see responsibility for expanding

these practice models shared by both individual members of the bar and our legal

institutions. While I strongly agree with these proposals, I would suggest that the

primary responsibility for these recommendations lieswith our legal institutions. This

includes theLawSociety, LawPRO,LegalAidOntario,CourtServices, the judiciaryand

judicialorganizations,thebarassociations,lawschoolsandgovernment.Itiscriticalthat

our legal institutions take leadership in promoting limited scope services, creating a

professionalculturethatisconducivetotheseservices,andeducatingconsumersabout

their availability. Individual family lawyers will not be successful in marketing,

advertisingandpromoting limitedscopeserviceswithout the institutionalizedsupport

oftheprofession.Movingbeyondanadhoc,individualizedapproachwillhelpscaletheavailability of these services and raise public awareness, thereby increasing access to

justiceinamoremeaningfulandsystemicway.5

There isnoonepanacea to thecomplex,multi-facetedproblemofa lackofaccess to

legal services in family law. Yet, basedonmy research and findings todate, I believe

that if limited scope services such as unbundling and legal coaching are mademore

available to the public by the family bar, and if there is greater awareness of the

existenceandavailabilityoftheseservicesbythepublic,thesepracticemodelshavethe

potentialtosignificantlyexpandaccesstothefamilyjusticesystemforlargenumbersof

Ontarianswhowouldotherwisegowithoutanylegaladviceorrepresentation.Ibelieve

that legal coaching in particular is a form of unbundling that responds even more

directly (than traditional unbundled services) to the needs and preferences of legal

consumers, and offers additional advantages for many primarily self-represented

litigants.Thismay include lowercosts, lessstressand isolation,morepersonalcontrol

overone’smatter,thedevelopmentofgenericskillsthatareusefulpost-separation,and

moreconfidenceintheprocessandinthejusticesystem.6

Delivering unbundling and legal coaching services also offers significant benefits to

family lawyers, including enhanced professional satisfaction, work-life balance and

5Foranexcellentpieceontheuseofthe“SocialLab”modelofsystemschangetodevelopsolutionsto

complexsocialchallenges,see:JaneMorleyQ.C.andKariD.Boyle,“TheStoryofBC’sFamilyJustice

InnovationLab”,WindsorYearbookofAccesstoJustice,forthcomingspecialeditiononInnovation&

AccesstoJustice.Iamgratefultotheauthorsforsharingthefinaldraftoftheirpaperinadvanceofits

publicationandbelievetheapproachtheysetoutfortheB.C.familyjusticesystem–“systemic,

participatoryandexperimental”–isworthexploringinOntario.6MediateBC,UnbundlingFAQsforLawyersandParalegals,(BritishColumbia:BCFamilyUnbundledLegal

ServicesProjectUnbundlingToolkitforLawyersandParalegals,January2017),p.5

<http://www.courthouselibrary.ca/docs/default-source/unbundling/1/unbundling-faqs-for-

lawyers.pdf?sfvrsn=10>.

4

expandedbusinessopportunities7.Courtsbenefitfromimprovedefficienciesandfreed

up staff and judicial time8, the justice systemmorebroadlyachievesbetteroutcomes

forfamilies9,andrepresentedpartiesalsosavecosts

10.

BackgroundtoLegalCoaching

Legal coaching is a form of unbundling that, as Justice Bonkalo notes, “is uniquely

characterizedbythelawyerequippingtheclienttomovehisorherownmatterforward

(by reviewing documents, preparing them for an appearance, etc.) rather than

personallydoingtheworkfortheclient.”

Whilethepracticeoflegalcoachingisnotnew–lawyershavebeendoingthisinformally

for years – the term “coaching” was coined by Dr. Julie Macfarlane in her

groundbreaking2013NationalStudyonSRLs,whichincludedinterviewsorfocusgroups

with 259 SRLs fromAlberta, British Columbia, andOntario, aswell aswith 107 court

staffandserviceproviders11.AgreatdealofattentionhasbeenpaidtoDr.Macfarlane’s

findingsregardingmotivation,challengesandimpact.Iwillnotreviewthesefindingsin

detail,butIobserveinsummarythatthenumberonereasonrespondentsprovidedfor

beingself-representedwascost,themainchallengetheyreportedwasdealingwiththe

complexity of the system, and the biggest impact they experiencedwas the extreme

stressandanxietyofnavigatingthiscomplexsystemontheirown.12

Intervieweeswerealsoaskedtodescribewhattheywouldhavewantedfromalawyer.

Heretheyidentifiedanumberofkeyqualitiesandservices,including:

1. Helpwithkeytasks;

2. Ongoingstrategicadvice;

3. Someonewhowouldcollaborateincarryingouttasks;

4. Valueformoneyinpurchasingprofessionalservices;

7NSRLP,TheNutsandBoltsofUnbundling,<https://representingyourselfcanada.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/11/Nuts-and-Bolts-FINAL.pdf>.8Asjustoneexample,onerespondenttomysurveywrote:“Iassistedaself-repwithherSettlement

ConferenceBriefforcourtinOshawa.Shecalledtotellmethatthejudge…didnotneedhertosay

anythingashermaterialwasclearandchild-focused.Shesaidthejudgewas"veryhappy"withher

material.Thenthejudgespenttimeworkingonthefather(whowasrepresentedbycounsel)andwas

verycriticaloffatherandhismaterial.”9MediateBC,UnbundlingFAQsforLawyersandParalegals,supranote6.

10LorneD.Bertrand,JoanneJ.Paetsch,NicholasBala&RachelBirnbaum,“Self-representedlitigantsin

familylawdisputes:ViewsofAlbertaLawyers”(2012)AlbertaLawFoundation,p.6.11Dr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeeds

ofSelf-RepresentedLitigants,May2013<https://representingyourselfcanada.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/09/srlreportfinal.pdf>.12OnthedifficultiesfacedbySRLs,seealsoRachelBirnbaum,NicholasBala&LorneBertrand,“TheRiseof

self-RepresentationinCanada’sFamilyCourts:TheComplexPictureRevealedinSurveysofJudges,

LawyersandLitigants”(2013)TheCanadianBarReview,p.85&91-93.

5

5. Transparencyinfees;

6. Activeparticipationinthesolicitor-clientrelationship;

7. Tobetakenseriously;and

8. Compassionandempathy.

While respondents to Dr. Macfarlane’s study may not have used the language of

unbundlingorlegalcoaching,theyclearlydescribedtheservicetheywant.Inessence,a

legal expert to provide them with ongoing, affordable support in a respectful and

encouragingmanner.ThesefindingsledtheNSRLPtoaskwhetheritmaybepossibleto

deliverunbundledlegalservicesinawaythatrespondsevenmoredirectlytotheactual

needsandpreferencesoftoday’slegalconsumer.Thisprojectismeanttoexplorethat

question.

DefinitionofLegalCoaching

Todate,verylittlehasbeenwrittenaboutlegalcoachingasapracticearea,andonlya

handfulofCanadianfamilylawyerscurrentlyadvertisethemselvesaslegalcoaches.

In a pair of 2013 blog posts introducing the concept, Dr. Macfarlane described the

model as one where the lawyer-coach “equip[s] the client to take the next steps

themselves.”Shewrites:“SRLcoachingisconductedontheassumptionthatthejobof

thelawyer-coachistoequiptheclienttotakethenextstepsthemselves.”13Thisisnot

tosuggestthatlegalcoachingisnotaseriouspracticemodelrequiringtheexperienceof

askilledlawyer:

[LegalCoaching] isdefinitelynot“lawyering-lite”.Coachingassistance is

just as challenging (perhaps more so) for our professional skill set as

traditional legal advice and advocacy. Coaching for self-advocacy

integrates legal knowledge with procedural know-how, attention to

apparently obscure details that lawyers understand to be important,

strategic savvy, advocacy tools (now shared with the client), and the

lawyer’sexperienceandunderstandingofhowconflictdevelopsandmay

beresolved.14

13Dr.JulieMacfarlane,“LawyersCoachingSRLsin“Self-Advocacy”?WhyThisParadoxicalProposition

DeservesYourSeriousConsideration”(2October2012)Slaw(blog),online:

<http://www.slaw.ca/2013/12/16/lawyers-coaching-srls-in-self-advocacy-why-this-paradoxical-

proposition-deserves-your-serious-consideration/>and“ProvidingLegalServicesinaCoachingModel:

TheWhat,WhyandHow”,(18December2013),Slaw(blog),online:

<http://www.slaw.ca/2013/12/18/providing-legal-services-in-a-coaching-model-the-what-why-and-

how/>14Dr.JulieMacfarlane,“ProvidingLegalServicesinaCoachingModel:TheWhat,WhyandHow”,ibid.Itis

worthnotingherethat47%oftherespondentstomysurveybelievethatalawyershouldhave3-5years

ofexperienceunderherbelttobeabletoprovideeffectivecoachingservices,while23%ofrespondents

believe6-10yearsisappropriate.16%saidnoexperienceisrequired,while12%selected1-2years.81%

6

JusticeBonkalocitestoadefinitionoflegalcoachingputforwardbytheOntarioChapter

oftheAssociationofFamilyandConciliationCourts,providedaspartoftheirsubmission

toherreview:“…answeringquestionsaboutprocess,preparingforcourt(e.g.,whatto

wear,whattoexpect,howtomakeanargumentandaddresseveryone),and[providing]

emotionalsupport”.15

While the definition Justice Bonkalo adopts captures some of what legal coaching

entails,inmyviewitisoverlynarrow.Indeed,asJusticeBonkalogoesontonote,legal

coaching can go beyond procedural coaching or emotional support, to “…involve the

provision of substantive legal advice…hearings coaching and/or negotiation and

settlementcoaching.”16

Basedonmypreliminaryresearch,andborrowingfromtheseotherarticulationsofthe

model,IproposethattheLawSocietyadoptthefollowingdefinitionoflegalcoaching:

Legal Coaching is a type of unbundled service where a lawyer-coachworksinpartnershipwiththeclienttoofferbehind-the-scenesguidance–procedural, substantive and “cultural” – providing a self-representedlitigantwiththestrategies,knowledgeandtoolsneededtoadvancetheircaseaseffectivelyaspossibleintheabsenceofcounsel.

WhatisUniqueAboutLegalCoaching?

Although legal coaching is a form of unbundling, it expands on lawyers’ traditional

understandingofhowunbundlingisdelivered,thatis,asadiscrete,one-offservicethat

the lawyer is responsible for (i.e.: by drafting a document or making a court

appearance),withminimalinputfromtheclient.Inpractice,manylawyerswhoprovide

limited scope services practice a hybrid form of unbundling and coaching. Indeed,

unbundling and legal coaching are often so overlapping in practice, in many ways it

seems neither necessary nor helpful to draw a bright line between the two service

models.

Nevertheless,becauseIbelievelegalcoachingisamethodofpracticethatcanenhance

thetraditionalunbundlingframework,itisusefultoidentifythewaysinwhichitdiffers

from limited scope services as they are conventionally understood and practiced in

somecases.

oftherespondentshavedeliveredunbundlingand/orcoachingservices,andsomostbutnotallofthe

respondentshavepersonalexperiencewiththismodel.15AssociationofFamilyandConciliationCourts–OntarioChapter,writtensubmissiontotheFLSRat18

citedinJusticeAnnemarieE.Bonkalo“FamilyLegalServicesReview”,supranote4.16JusticeAnnemarieE.Bonkalo“FamilyLegalServicesReview”,supranote4.

7

1. TheClientDoestheWork

Themaindifferencebetweenunbundlingandcoachingisthattheclient,notthelawyer,

istaskedwiththeresponsibilityofdoingtheworkofthefile.Just likeafootballcoach

doesnotgetontothefieldtoscorethetouchdown,a legalcoach isnottheretotake

over a task associated with the file.Without losing sight of the client’s capacity and

expertise, the legal coach will build the client’s potential to self-represent. While a

traditionalunbundledlawyermight,forexample,draftasetofpleadingsforaclient,the

roleofthelegalcoachistoworkbehindthescenes,guidingtheclientasshedraftsthe

pleadings,asmuchaspossibleonherown.

2. Procedural&CulturalSupportareAssumed

Thesecondmajordifferencebetweencoachingandunbundling isthatthe legalcoach

takes responsibility for a client’s procedural and “cultural” needs, as well as her

substantivelegalneeds.Unlikeatraditionalunbundledlawyer,whohavingdraftedthe

pleadings has likely fulfilled the terms of the retainer, the legal coach’s responsibility

includeshelpingtheclienttakethenextstepinthefile.Thismeansofferingguidanceon

the hard skills of lawyering, like drafting, negotiation and advocacy, procedural

assistancenavigatingtheprocessandunderstandinghowonestageoftheprocesswill

unfold and feed into the next, and what we might call assistance with the legal

“culture”,suchastipsoncourtroometiquetteanddecorum17.

In practice,many lawyers who offer unbundled legal services also assist their clients

with the procedural steps related to the unbundled task, often as a courtesy. The

differencewiththecoachingmodelisthatproceduralsupportandotherformsoflegal

informationarebuiltintotheretainer.Establishingthefullscopeoftheservicefromthe

get go is not only a best practice, it offers the client transparency and a better

understandingoftheservicetheycanexpecttoreceive.

3. ContinuityofServiceisPreferred

Unlikeunbundling,whichistraditionallymoreofaone-offservice(orforsomeclients,

one or more one-off services), legal coaching is most effective in the context of an

ongoingsolicitor-clientrelationship.

This is not to suggest that legal coaches shouldnot or donot accept clientsmid-way

throughthefile.Inpractice,legalcoachesareprovidingaslittleorasmuchguidanceas

aclientneeds,whentheclientneedsit.WeknowfromDr.MacFarlane’sresearchthat

more thanhalfof SRLs startwitha lawyer, then tryhandling the file themselves,and

17ForacomprehensivelistofculturaltipsseeNovaScotiaFamilyLaw,GoingtoCourt:Self-Represented

PartiesinFamilyLawMatters,pp.12-15<http://www.nsfamilylaw.ca/sites/default/files/video/revised_srl_workbook2.pdf>

8

onlythenseekoutunbundledservices18.LegalcoachesIhaveinterviewedtellmethat

evenasingle,short,focusedcoachingexperiencecanoffervaluetoanotherwiseself-

representedlitigant,andforsomeSRLsthiswillbethemostaffordableoption.

While it would therefore be neither realistic nor desirable to suggest that coaching

shouldonlyoccurfromthestartofafile,Istronglybelievethattheearlierintheprocess

aclientfindsacoach,themoreeffectivetherelationshipwillbe.This istruefromthe

perspective of both the client and the lawyer. Continuity of service is not onlymore

likely than not to produce faster and better outcomes for clients, assisting the client

fromthestartcanbeseenasariskmanagementtool.That is,byensuringthe lawyer

hasaccesstoallrelevantinformationasthefileunfolds,errorsdowntheroadaremore

likelytobeavoided.

4. TheLawyerandClientFormaPartnershipFinally, successful coaches will work to build a partnership with their client, while

mentoring and guiding them to take the next, discrete step on their own. A team

approachmeansthattheclientwillbeanactiveparticipantintherelationship,andwill

participate more fully than they would as part of a more traditional solicitor-client

model19.

Of course,many lawyersalreadypractice from a client-centred approach–working tomaximizetheclient’sautonomytotheextentpossiblewithina traditional framework.

For the legal coach,however,providing theclientwithmorecontroloverhermatter,

encouraginghertobeanactivepartner, listeningtoherandhavingconfidence inher

abilitytomakebothmoralandstrategic judgmentsabouther legalmatter–allofthiswill be vital to the successof the relationship. Legal coaching is not a practicemodel

thatwillappealtoallfamilylawyers,andmayrequireaparadigmshiftforlawyersnot

beusedtotheleveloftrust,communicationandfeedbackthisframeworkdemands.

HybridApproachestoUnbundling&CoachingWithallofthatsaid,thereisnoonewaytodevelopa limitedscopepractice.Because

membersofthepublicareunlikelythemselvestodistinguishbetweenunbundlingand

coaching services, the best model will be one that offers whatever combination of

services best supports the preferences and particular situation of individual clients.

While itmaybeconceptuallyusefulto identifytheways inwhichcoachingisdifferent

fromor expands on unbundling, as Justice Bonkalo observes in her report: “coaching

andunbundledservicescanbeprovidedhand-in-hand.”20

18Dr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeeds

ofSelf-RepresentedLitigants,supranote11.19SeeDr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNewLawyer:HowSettlementisTransformingthePracticeofLaw,UBC

Press.20JusticeAnnemarieE.Bonkalo“FamilyLegalServicesReview”,supranote4.

9

Most of the lawyers I have spoken with do not draw bright lines between the two

practicemodels.Rather,theyofferwhatisessentiallyahybridbetweenunbundlingand

coachingthatwilldependon,asJusticeBonkaloputsit,“theclient’sneeds,capabilities

andfinancialcircumstances.”21Inmyview,thisisthemostpractical,effectiveapproach,

andtheoneIamstronglyendorsing.

BenefitstothePublicReports, surveys and studies in Canada and elsewhere suggest that primarily self-

represented litigants benefit from these alternative practice models, or believe that

they would benefit from them. These reports suggest that the availability of limited

scopeservicesfillsanimportantgapinthejusticesystem,increasingthelikelihoodthat

caseswillberesolvedaccordingtothemerits.

Manyoftheself-representedlitigantswhoparticipatedinDr.Macfarlane’s2013study

looked for and believed they would have benefited from unbundled legal services

(althoughtheydidnotusethatterm):

Many SRL respondents described a fruitless search for a lawyer who

would“just”helpthemwithapartoftheircase….Respondentsdescribed

seeking assistance with completing forms; reviewing completed forms

and other documents; writing a letter to the other side; answering

questionsoflaw;preparingforahearing;andrepresentationincourtfor

onehearingonly….22

In2015,IpsosMORIonbehalfoftheLegalServicesBoardandLegalServicesConsumer

Panel in the United Kingdom conducted a study, Experiences and Perceptions ofUnbundled Legal Services. Based on 35 qualitative interviews with consumers of

unbundled services and 14 interviews with providers, the report found a number of

benefitstothepublicincludingcost,control,speedandoutcomes23.

In 2016, The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) released Public Perceptions ofAccesstoJusticeinOntario.ConductedonlinebyAbacusData,thepollsoughtfeedbackfrom1,500Ontarians to assesswhat the public thinks of the justice system. The poll

found that unbundledor partial legal serviceswas themost popular access to justice

initiative,with76%ofOntarianschoosingthisintheirtopthree.Notably,thisviewwas

sharedacrossincomebrackets.

21Ibid.

22Dr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeeds

ofSelf-RepresentedLitigants,supranote11at92.23AshleyAmesetal,“Qualitativeresearchexploringexperiencesandperceptionsofunbundledlegal

services”(IpsosMORISocialResearchInstitute,6August2015)at5

<https://research.legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/media/14-086345-01-Unbundling-Report-

FINAL_060815.pdf>

10

Also in2016,MediateBC ledtheBCFamilyUnbundledServicedProject, toencourage

more family lawyers in British Columbia to offer affordable, unbundled legal

services24.Theprojectsoughtinputfromthepublicthroughanonlinesurveycompleted

by46individualswhowereorhadbeeninvolvedinafamilydisputeinvolvingseparation

ordivorceinCanada(primarilyB.C.,just11%ofrespondentswerefromOntario).Atthe

end of the survey, respondents were asked whether they would seek unbundled

servicesiftheywereinvolvedinafamilydisputeinthefuture.71%saidtheywerelikely

orverylikelytoseekunbundledlegalservices.Thetwomajorreasonscitedbyclientsin

favourofunbundlingwerelegalcosts,andcontrolovercostsanddirection.Additional

benefits identified by the study included: price predictability; increased value for

money; improved outcomes; increased voice; enhanced empowerment; improved

confidence in the process and outcome; improved access to settlement processes

includingfacilitationofinformedsettlements;and,finally,accesstotailoredservices.25

As part of this project, I have startedmeetingwith current and former SRLs in focus

groupsandindividualinterviews,tosolicittheirinputonthispracticemodel.Atarecent

focusgroupIconductedinWindsor,8ofthe10participantstoldmetheywouldhave

hiredalegalcoachhadthatoptionbeenaffordableandmadeavailabletothematthe

time(theremainingtwoparticipantsexpressedsupportforthemodel,butfeltthattheir

personalities and cases were not conducive to coaching). Focus group participants

describedaseriesofadvantagestheyfeltlegalcoachingcouldoffer:

• Helpunderstanding“thebigpicture”:“someonetosetoutthedifferentsteps

and what might happen with each of them”; “help finding the logical

argument”;“insightanddirection”;

• Helporganizingtheircase:“helppullingallthepiecestogether”;“someoneto

tell you how to organize information and prepare for court”; “someone to

structureandhelppulleverythingtogether”;“helporganizingdocumentsinto

[thecorrect]formatforcourt”;

• Help from the get go: “help understanding the process from the start”; “a

morecompletepictureatthebeginning”;

• Proceduralassistance:“someonetooutlinetheprocess”;“helpnavigatingthe

courtandthebigpicture”;“anexplanationforeachnewstage”;

• Legaladvice:“anexplanationofhowtherulesapplytomysituation”;“legal

precedents you can use in your case”; “someone to help me better

understandtheoptionssoI’mnotjusttryingtostayabovewater”;“someone

toputprosandconsontable,butleavethedecisiontome”;“someonewho

canbehonestaboutmychances”;

• Courtcoaching:“howtopresentevidenceincourt”;“whattosayincourtand

when and how to address the judge”; “getme ready for court”; “helpme

24MediateBC,“FamilyUnbundledLegalServicesProject,SummaryofFamilySurveyResponses”(August

2016)<http://www.mediatebc.com/Education---Training/Family-Unbundled-Legal-Services-Project.aspx>25MediateBC,UnbundlingFAQsforLawyersandParalegals,supranote6.

11

make the best use of my limited time in court”; “tell me how much

informationIshouldprovideandwhatamInotallowedtoprovide”;“advance

trouble-shooting based on what could go wrong”; “an opportunity to

rehearse”;“tricksofthetrade”;

• Supplementary resources: “modules for each step so you can familiarize

yourself before [each stage]”; “a piece of paper for me to take home”;

“[appropriateandrelevant]resourcesforeachstage”.

The lawyers I have surveyed to date have also identified numerous benefits of

unbundlingand/orcoachingservicesforclients.IamintheprocessofdevelopinganSRL

survey,andwillhavemoredirectfeedbackfromthepubliconthelegalcoachingmodel

thissummer.Inthemeantime,thesearethebenefitsarticulatedbylawyers:

Table1Whatarethebenefitstoclientsinreceivingunbundledand/orcoachingservices,asopposedtotraditionallegalservices?(Selectallthatapply)

Thenumberonebenefitdescribedby95%ofrespondentsiscostsavingsforclients.This

is consistent with all the research that now shows the single greatest barrier to full

representationiscost.Whilefullrepresentationwillalwaysbethegoldstandardoflegal

services, limited scope services offer an alternative for clients who are unable or

unwillingtopayafullretainer,buthavemodestresourcesandseevalueinpurchasing

thelegalservicestheycanafford.

12

That said, the advantages of unbundled and coaching services go well beyond

affordability. Someof these responddirectly to the changeswearewitnessing in the

legalmarket. Behavioral economists and consumer trend experts report that the 21st

century consumer is knowledgeable, sophisticated and confident, and is looking for

more control, agency and respect in their professional relationships. The lawyer

marketing website Avvo describes a “consumer revolution”, where the widespread

availabilityoflegalinformationon-linemeanslawyersarenolongernecessarilyseenas

thegatekeepersofthelaw26.Today’sdivorcingconsumerismorelikelytogoogle“DIY

Divorce” than “how do I find a family lawyer?”. This is a massive cultural shift that

requiresanewwayofthinkingabouthowwedeliverfamilyservices27.

Theupside isthatunbundledservicesresponddirectlytomanyofthequalitiesofthis

new consumer. Indeed, for some clients, legal coachingwill not only be an attractive

option, it may even offer an improvement on traditional unbundled services. This is

because, by offering support over the course of the file, legal coaching is a form of

unbundling that addresses the key challenges identified by SRLs in Dr. Macfarlane’s

study (cost, complexity and stress). Legal coaching also expands on traditional

unbundlingbyrespondingmoredirectlytothequalitiesandservices20thcenturySRLs

value,includingongoingadvice,task-sharing,activeparticipation,andsoon.

BenefitstoLawyers

Assetoutabove,unbundlingandlegalcoachingarewin-winsforclientsandlawyers.Of

the lawyers I have surveyed to date, 81% indicate that they provide limited scope

services. Respondents describe a number of professional benefits to unbundling and

coaching:

Table2What are the benefits to lawyers in providing unbundled and/or coaching services, as opposed totraditionallegalservices?(Selectallthatapply)

26DanLear,Avvoandtheonlinelegalconsumerrevolution,Avvo(slideshow),online:

<http://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/16OSBFuturesConference/AvvoandtheOnlineLegalConsumerRev

olution_DanLear.pdf>SeealsoDr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNewLawyer:HowSettlementisTransformingthePracticeofLaw,supranote19.27TheNewLawyer,ibid.

13

The legal coaches I have interviewed one-on-one echo these findings. The most

consistent refrain is how “appreciative” and “grateful” their coaching clients are, and

how “satisfying” they find the mentoring, training and collaborative side of legal

coaching.AsoneOntariocoachexplained:“Inmy formerpractice,aclientwouldgive

metheirmaterials,and it feltas thoughtheywere literallydumpingtheirproblemon

mydesk,saying‘here,it’syourproblemnow’.Asalegalcoach,Ineverfeelthatway.We

areateam,workingthroughtheissuestogether.”

According to MAG, in 2015 57% of litigants in Ontario family courts were self-

represented.28Some estimates peg that figure as high as 80% in provincial courts in

someurbancentres.Giventhesenumbers,aswellasthefactthatcost isthegreatest

barrier to advice and representation, it makes sense that 63% (to date) of those

respondingtomylegalcoachingsurveyreportthatexpandingtheirclientpoolisakey

motivatorforofferingunbundlingorlegalcoachingservices.

Last year, the Ryerson Innovation Zone calculated that the annual, unmet market

opportunity for Ontario family lawyers is between $40M to $200M per year29. This

calculationisbasedontheconservativeassumptionthatonly50%offamilylitigantsin

Ontario each year are self-represented, or 80,000 per year. Not only is this a

conservativeestimate, itdoesnot factor in separatingordivorcing spouseswhohave

notfiledaclaim.Further,itassumesthatjusthalfoftheseindividuals,or40,000,would

bewillingandabletopurchasebetween$1,000to$5,000worthoflegalservices.

28“JustFacts”(June2016),online:DepartmentofJustice<http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-

lf/divorce/jf-pf/srl-pnr.html>29ChrisBentleyetal,“LegalInnovationZone’sFamilyReformCommunityCollaboration”(Toronto:

RyersonUniversity,February2016)at10<http://legalinnovationzone.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ryerson-

LIZ-Family-Reform-Report.pdf>.

14

TheNeedtoMatchSupply&Demand

Whilemostseparatingindividualsmaynolongerbeinterestedinorabletoaffordthe

traditional,fullrepresentationmodel,thereappearstobeamassive,untappedmarket

of potential family law clientswhowant and can afford topurchase some legal help.

Andyet,despite theexistenceof thismarket, the familybarhasnotembraced these

practicemodelsona systemic level.Aspartofmy research, I havemanaged to track

downabout twodozen family lawyersacross thecountrywhoareactivelyadvertising

thattheyofferunbundlingorcoachingservices,or inmostcasesacombinationofthe

two. To date, I have identified only a handful family lawyers in Ontario who have

developedpracticesbasedonthesemodels,andadvertisetheseservices.

Ofthe46respondentswhocompletedMediateBC’spublicsurvey,38%reportedusing

unbundled legal services during their family dispute. 47% of those said it was

“somewhatdifficult”or“verydifficult”tofindtheirunbundledlawyer.Onerespondent

commented:“I pursued this with lawyers until one finally provided the service

(information) I required. Itwasnoteasyandmost lawyers refused.”30Anothernoted:

“(I)neverheardtheterm[unbundling]before,that’sjustthewayIdidit.”Anothersaid:

“IwishIknewaboutthisoptionmuchmuchearlier.Toomuchmoneywasspentinthe

firstpartofmydivorce(ayear’ssalaryapproximately).”

Fewlawyerswhoofferunbundledandcoachingservicesadvertisethisoptionontheir

websites,orinotherwaysthatwouldmakeiteasyforpotentialclientstofindthem.Of

the62%respondingtoMediateBC’ssurveywhodidnotuseunbundledlegalservices,

31%saiditwasbecause“Icouldnotfindalawyertoprovideunbundledlegalservices”.

While 81% of the 55 lawyers who have to date responded to my national survey

reportedthattheyprovidingunbundlingand/orcoachingservices,only47%reportthat

theyadvertiseon theirwebsite,andonly40% list their servicesonapublicdatabase.

Thevastmajorityofrespondents,90%,relyonwordofmouthtoadvertise,aswellas

othermarketingtools:

Table3Howdoyoumarketyourunbundledand/orcoachingservices?(Selectallthatapply)

30MediateBC,UnbundlingFAQsforLawyersandParalegals,supranote6atp.2.;MediateBC,“Family

UnbundledLegalServicesProject,SummaryofFamilySurveyResponses”,supranote24.SeealsoDr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeedsofSelf-RepresentedLitigants,supranote11.Only14oftheSRLsinDr.Macfarlane’sstudywereabletofinda

lawyerwhowouldagreetoprovideunbundledservices.

15

Nor is the general public aware of the option of seeking out unbundled or coaching

services. 73% of the 46 respondentswho completedMediate BC’s public survey said

theywereunawarethatsuchservicesevenexisted.

Thisproblemisechoedbylawyers.Ihaveinterviewedseverallawyersworkingtobuild

anunbundlingand/orcoachingpracticewhoarehavingadifficult timefindingclients,

despite the untapped market identified by the Ryerson innovation Zone. One

respondenttomysurveyput it thisway:“Thechiefchallenge is lettingself-repsknow

thatthisserviceisavailablebecausetheyaren'tthinkingoflookingforit.”

Lastsummer,aspartofitssubmissiontoJusticeBonkaloforthepurposesoftheFamily

LegalServicesReview,theNSRLPconductedasmallvolumesurveyof50familylawyers,

65%ofwhomprovideunbundled services.When those respondentswere askedhow

much uptake there is for their services, 50% answered “some demand”. Only 15%

answered“lotsofdemand”,and35%selected“littledemand”.31

AliceWoolleyandTrevorFarrowdescribethisdisconnectbetweensupplyanddemand

asfollows:

There is certainly no lack of work to go around for those who are

interested inmatchinguptheirservicestothekindsof legalneedsthat

areoftenmostpressingandarenotcurrentlybeingmet.Theissueisnot

necessarily an over-crowded market; rather, it is the challenge of

31Dr.JulieMacfarlane,“MakingitLegal:SomeSimpleStepsforMovingUnbundlingtotheNextStage”(12

July2016),NSRLP(blog),online:<https://representingyourselfcanada.com/making-it-legal-some-simple-

steps-for-moving-unbundling-to-the-next-stage/>.

16

matchingupthosewhoarewillingandabletoprovideaccessibleservices

withthoseinneed.32

Thefamilybarfindsitselfataturningpointwhenitcomestothedeliveryofunbundled

and coaching services. On the one hand, lawyers will continue to be understandably

reluctant to risk a significant investment of time and energy in developing and

advertisinganewmodelofpractice,unlesstheycanbeassuredtherewillbesufficient

demandby thepublic and thereforea reasonable returnon their investment.On the

otherhand,unlessunbundledandlegalcoachingservicesaremadewidelyavailableto

everymemberofthepublicwhowantsandcanaffordtopayfortheseservices,these

practicemodelswillnotaddressthefamilylawaccesstojusticecrisisinanymeaningful

way.

In my view, unless the profession develops and implements a multi-pronged and

systemicapproachtotheexpansionoflimitedscopeservices,wewillfailtoleveragethe

potentialimpactoftheseinnovativemodels.Indeed,assetoutbelow,JusticeBonkalo’s

report is just the latest in an increasingly long line of reports suggesting that the

widespread availability of unbundled services will be a critical part of any

comprehensiveaccesstojusticeplan,particularlyinfamilylaw.33

PreviousCallsforUnbundlingandLegalCoaching

In just under a decade, every Law Society in Canada has amended its Rules of

Professional Conduct to define (and therefore implicitly endorse) limited scope

representation.TheLawSocietyofUpperCanadadidsoin2011,suggestingatthetime

that these amendments would facilitate the provision of limited scope retainers and

enhanceaccesstojustice.

In2013,theReportonAccesstoCivilandFamilyJusticebytheChiefJustice’sNationalAction Committee called upon the legal profession to expand the use of unbundled

servicesthroughlimitedscoperetainers.Notably,theNACrecommendedthatessential

legalservices,includingunbundling,“beavailabletoavailabletoeveryoneby2018”.34

32AliceWoolleyandTrevorFarrow,“AddressingAccesstoJusticeThroughNewLegalServiceProviders:

OpportunitiesandChallenges”(2016)3:3TexA&MLRev549at577.33ItshouldbementionedthatinCanadatherearenowthreedirectoriesoflawyerswhoofferunbundled

and/orcoachingservices.TheNSRLPhousesanationaldirectorythatcontainsthenamesofalmost200

lawyersacrossthecountryfromallpracticeareas.TheBCFamilyUnbundlingRosterisalistof90family

lawyersandparalegalswillingtoprovideunbundledservicesinfamilylawinparticular.TheAlberta

LimitedLegalServicesProjectisaresearchstudyinvolvingover50Albertalawyersofferinglimitedscope

retainers,fromallpracticeareas.TheresultsofthatstudyshouldbeavailablebyOctober2018,andmay

alsoinformOntario’sthinkingonthesemodels.34“AccesstoCivilandFamilyJustice–aRoadmapforchange”(Ottawa:ActionCommitteeonAccessto

JusticeinCivilandFamilyMatters,2013)at14.<http://www.cfcj-

fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/AC_Report_English_Final.pdf>.

17

Also in2013, theCanadianBarAssociationreleased its report,ReachingEqual Justice:An Invitation to Envision and Report. That report called for the availability of limited

scope legal services in situations where they meet the meaningful access to justice

standardby2020.35Italsocalledforthecreationof“bestpracticeguidelines,basedon

empirical studies of emerging limited scope service models and their impact on

meaningfulaccesstojustice”.36Finally,itrecommendedthefollowing:

• All law societies provide detailed guidelines to lawyers providing limited

scopeservices,includingadviceandprecedentsforlimitedscoperetainers;

• Barassociations,lawsocietiesandlegalaidorganizationsdevelopresources

to assist lawyers to provide limited scope services in an integrated,

seamlessway by equipping lawyers to inform clients about other service

providersandsourcesofinformation;

• The CBA provides professional development on coaching and other skills

thatsupport thedeliveryofeffective limitedscopeservices.TheCBA, law

societies,otherbarassociationsandlegalaidorganizationsworkwithPLEI

organizationstoinformthepublicaboutlimitedscopeservices;and

• The CBA and the Federation of Law Societies ensure the integration of

existing research and evaluations of limited scope service models to

formulate evidence-based best practices and identify further research

needs.37

Dr.Macfarlane’sSRLstudywasreleasedthesameyear.Sherecommendedthatthebar

encouragethedeliveryofunbundledservicesinpartbymaking“effortstofindanswers

to legitimate concerns about due diligence and insurance issues”.38She further

proposed that “CLE programming should be developed to offer skills training [in

unbundledservices].”39

Whilesomeprogresshasbeenmadeontheexpansionofunbundledlegalservicessince

2013, and there has been a significant increase in CLE programming relating to

unbundlinginthelastfewyears,asaprofessionwestillhavealongwaytogotomeet

thisseriesofrecommendations.

35“Reachingequaljusticereport:aninvitationtoenvisionandact”(Ottawa:TheCanadianBarAssociation,

November2013)at95

<http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2

014/CBA_equal_justice.pdf>.36“Reachingequaljusticereport:aninvitationtoenvisionandact”,ibidatp.95.

37Ibid.

38Dr.JulieMacfarlane,TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeeds

ofSelf-RepresentedLitigants,supranote11.39Ibid,p.123.

18

ConcernsAboutLiability

Notwithstandingyearsofresearch,jurisprudenceandpolicychangesthatadvocatefor,

andfacilitatetheuseof,limitedscoperetainers,fearofliabilitycontinuestobeoneof

themainbarriers to theexpansionof limitedscoperepresentation.Of the32 lawyers

theNSRLPsurveyedfortheJusticeBonkaloreview,79%expressedworryaboutliability

issues (even though almost as many indicated that lawyers should be offering

unbundledservices).40

According to LawPRO, the most common cause of claims against lawyers are

communication issues and inadequate investigation or discovery of facts. Although

LAWPRO suggests that these risks “are at least equally, if not more likely, to occur

during the provision of unbundled legal services”41, there would appear to be no

evidencethat lawyerswhoprovideunbundledorcoachingservicesaremore (oreven

as)likelytofacenegligenceclaimsorcomplaintstotheregulator.

Inapaperexploringmalpracticeclaimsinfamily law,LawPRO’sLitigationDirectorand

CounselYvonneBernsteinnotesthat:“domesticcontractsandsettlementsarethetwo

mostproblematicareasfromariskmanagementperspective.Combined,theyaccount

for42.81%ofalltheclaimsreportedbetween2009and2015[1240intotal]and63.2%

ofthetotalcosttotheprogram[$27.95million].”42Bycontrast,duringthissameperiod

claims relating to the scopeof the retainermadeup just5.8%of the claims reported

andrepresentedjust4.9%ofthetotalcostoftheprogram.43

Manyofthe lawyers I interviewedwhoregularlydeliver limitedscopeservicesbelieve

theirliabilityisactuallyreducedrelativetotheirfull-servicefiles.Onerespondenttomy

surveyreferredtotheliabilityissueas“aredherring”,addingthat“aslawyerswehave

bestpracticeswe’retoldtofollowandifwefollowthemit’sfine.Inanypracticeyou’ll

haveproblems,justbecauseit’salimitedretaineritdoesn’tmakeitworse.”One(non-

family)lawyerwhohasbuiltasuccessfulpracticearoundcourtcoachinghadthistosay

abouthisownexperience:

[Liability is] never an issue – the most over-dramatized issue. When

you’reonaLSRyouhavelimitedliabilitybecauseyou’reonlydoingone

40Dr.JulieMacfarlane,“MakingitLegal:SomeSimpleStepsforMovingUnbundlingtotheNextStage”,

supranote31.41“LimitedScopeRepresentationResources”LawPro(2017)online:

<http://www.practicepro.ca/practice/limitedscope.asp>.42YvonneBernstein,LawPRO,ManagingRiskinaFamilyLawPractice–papergenerouslyprovidedtothe

authorbyMs.Bernstein.43Theotherriskareas,brokendownbynumberofclaimsandpercentageoftheprogram,were

MissedLimitations/Deadlines(11.85%and7.75%);FeeDisputes(10.5%and4.4%);ClaimsbyParties

AdverseinInterest(7.1%and4.2%);Preservation/Non-DissipationofAssets(3.6%and3.4%);Pensions

(2.5%and3.4%)andMiscellaneous(15.6%and7.9%).

19

thing,you’renotresponsiblefortheoutcomeofthecase.Iseethisasthe

exactopposite–youhavelessliabilitynotmore.

The lawyers I interviewed andwho responded tomy surveywere consistent in their

explanations forwhy theybelieve their liability is reduced, including that their clients

aremoreinformedabouttheprocess,haveaclearunderstandingoftheservicebeing

provided, and a better appreciation for the challenges in the file (because they are

responsiblefortheoutcomeandareworkingincollaborationwiththelawyer).Lawyers

report that clients also tend to bemore satisfiedwith the service they received (see

Table2,above,where59%ofrespondentscite“clientsmoreappreciative”asabenefit

of this practice model). As one survey respondent put it: “With unbundled clients…

they’reholdingtheirowndispute–theyaremoreempowered,theyhaveabettersense

ofwhatneedstohappen[and]they’regratefulfortheassistancetheydoget.”Another

explained:“Theclientismoreawareofwhatisgoingonwiththeirmatter,andwhy.”

Some lawyers expressed frustrationwith their sense that the regulators, professional

associationsand insuranceproviderswerenotdoingenough toendorseand sanction

thesepracticemodels.Asonesurveyrespondentputit:“Stopscaringusaboutwhatisagainsttherulesandhelpusunderstandwhatwecandowithintherules!”

Thisisnottosaythatprovidingunbundlingandcoachingservicesdoesnotcarryrisks,

that lawyersarenot right tobeconcerned,or that theyshouldnotbecautiouswhen

delivering these services. There are unique challenges when it comes to providing

limited services.Givenwhatweknowabout LawPROclaims, the twomainchallenges

described by 83% of respondents tomy survey not surprisingly relate to inadequate

investigationordiscoveryoffactsflowingfromcommunicationissueswithclients:

Table4Althoughlawyerswhoprovideunbundledservicesgenerallyreportbeinglessworriedabouttheriskofanegligenceclaimoracomplainttotheregulatorthanthosewhodonotprovidetheseservices,somelawyerscontinuetoworrythatofferingservicesonalimitedscopebasismayincreasetheirrisk.Whatarethechallengesofprovidingcompetentserviceswhenofferingunbundledand/orcoachingservices?(Selectallthatapply)

20

Thatsaid,almostallof the lawyers Ihavespokenwithreport takingmultiplesteps to

manage the risks relating to communicationand fact-gathering (steps that full-service

lawyersarealsoexpectedtotake).Accordingto89%ofrespondents,thenumberone

practice that can mitigate risk is preparation of a detailed, limited scope retainer,

followedby86%whosuggestthatlawyersensuretheirclientsunderstandthescopeof

thatretainer,includingwhatisandwhatisnotincluded:

Table5Howcanlawyersmitigateagainsttheriskswhenprovidingtheseservices?(Selectallthatapply)

21

Meehanv.Good

ThissubmissionwouldnotbecompletewithoutadiscussionofarecentOntarioCourt

ofAppealdecision,Meehanv.Good44,whichhasgeneratedunderstandableconcernbylawyersinallpracticeareasregardingthedeliveryofunbundledservices.

Brieflyput, the factsof that caseare as follows: Lawyer1was retained to assess the

accountsof lawyer2,whohad represented the clients inapersonal injury claim.The

clientsthenbroughtanactionagainstthelawyer1,claimingthatheowedadutyofcare

toadvisethemofthelimitationperiodofapossiblenegligenceactionagainstlawyer2.

Lawyer 1was successful in obtaining a summary judgment dismissing the action. The

motions judge agreed that lawyer 1 did not owe a duty of care on the possible

negligenceaction,sincetheclientshadretainedhimonlyinrelationtotheassessment

of lawyer 2’s accounts. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of themotions

judge, because she did not “meticulously examine all of the relevant surrounding

circumstances, including but not limited to, the form and nature of the client’s

instructionsand the sophisticationof the client.”45This is theprocess that is required

“todeterminewhetheradutyisowedbeyondthefourcornersoftheretainer.”46

DespitethefactthattheCourtofAppealdidnotmakeadeterminationonthemerits,

thestrongperceptionisthatthedecisioninMeehanv.Goodhasunderminedthelegal

value of a limited scope retainer and therefore created a significant setback for

unbundling.Thisview isalmostuniformamong the lawyers Ihavespokenwithabout

thisdecision,notjustinOntariobutacrossCanada.

That said,havingnowalso consultedwith several lawyerswho specialize in solicitor’s

negligenceclaims, it ismyunderstanding thatMeehanv.Goodhasnot in factalteredthe existing law in Ontario. The Court of Appeal was simply pointing out that the

motions judge did not follow the process that has already been established by the

courts (andhasnotbeenalteredasaresultofthisdecision),orthat, ifshedidfollow

thatprocess,shefailedtoexplainherreasoning.TheCourtofAppealsentthedecision

totrialforareviewonthemerits.

Given the deep level of concern about this decision, and in light of the vital public

interestandaccesstojusticeprinciplesatstake,itisimportantfortheLawSociety,(as

wellasLawPROandthebarassociations)toadoptaclearandstrongleadershipposition

thatsupportsunbundlingandlegalcoaching,andtakeconcretestepstocreateaculture

thatisconducivetothecontinueduseandexpansionoflimitedscoperetainers.

44Meehanv.Good,2017ONCA103.45Ibidatpara5.

46Ibid.

22

As I will now set out, there are several concrete steps theMinistry of the Attorney

General,theLawSociety,andotherindependentjusticesectorpartnerscantakeinthis

regard.

Recommendations

Based on my preliminary research and analysis, I propose that the Ministry of the

AttorneyGeneralandtheLawSocietyofUpperCanada–aswellasother,independent

justicesectorpartners–takeimmediatestepstoincreaseaccesstofamilyservicesfor

Ontarians, by implementing and expanding on the unbundling and legal coaching

recommendationscontainedinJusticeBonkalo’sreport.Thismustinclude:

1. Activelysupportingandendorsingtheexpandeddeliveryofunbundledservices

andlegalcoachingbymembersofthefamilybar;

2. Ensuringtheseservicesarewidelyavailabletothepublic;

3. Ensuringthepublicisawareofthevalueandavailabilityoftheseservices;and

4. Collaboratingwithotherlegalinstitutionstoachievethesegoals.

Myspecificrecommendationsareasfollows:

I. RecommendationsfortheMinistryoftheAttorneyGeneral:

A.IncreaseAwarenessbythePublicofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

1. The Ministry of the Attorney General should launch a public education

campaign to raise awareness about the availability of unbundled legal

servicesandlegalcoaching;

2. The Ministry of the Attorney General should have information about

unbundled legalservicesand legalcoachingavailableon itswebsite for the

public;thesematerialsshouldbeavailablefordownloadbyboththepublic

and lawyers, who could then easily adapt them, post them on their own

websites,orincorporatethemintotheirintakeproceduresetc.;

3. TheMinistry of the Attorney General should educate all court staff, court

connected mediators and Information Referral Coordinators (IRCs) about

unbundled legal services and legal coaching, and train staff to provide

referralstolocalpractitioners;

4. The Ministry of the Attorney General should ensure that the Family Law

InformationCentreshaveup-to-daterostersofunbundledandlegalcoaching

practitioners, to help clients find local lawyers who will offer the services

theyareseeking;

23

B.ExpandtheAvailabilityofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

5. The Ministry of the Attorney General should work with an independent

service provider to develop interactive smart forms for themost common

familyforms,whichshouldbemadeavailabletothepublicwithoutcharge.

Being able to direct unbundled clients to tools that will assist them in

completing their documents on their own will facilitate the delivery of

affordableunbundledservicesandlegalcoaching;

6. TheMinistryoftheAttorneyGeneralshouldprovidespaceinthecourtsfor

practitioners willing to provide same-day unbundled and legal coaching

services47;

II. RecommendationsfortheLawSociety:

A.IncreaseAwarenessbythePublicofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

7. The Law Society should make detailed information about unbundled legal

servicesandlegalcoachingavailableonitspublicwebsiteportal48;

8. TheLawSocietyshouldexpanditsexistingdirectoryoflawyers(aspartofthe

Lawyers Referral Service) to identify unbundled practitioners and legal

coaches,andincludedetailedbillingmodelsandpricingoptionsforclients49;

9. The Law Society should encourage licensees to inform new and potential

clientsabouttheavailabilityofunbundledlegalservicesandlegalcoaching;

10. The Law Society should educate Lawyers Referral Service staff aboutunbundledlegalservicesandlegalcoaching,andtrainstafftoprovidecallers

withinformationabouttheseservicesandreferthemtothedirectory;

11. TheLawSocietyshoulddevelopon-lineandprintresourcesforthepublic,inordertocreateawarenessabouttheavailabilityofunbundledlegalservices

andlegalcoaching;

47Forexample,familylawyerStacyMacCormacinCobourg,Ontarioispreparedtooffertheseservices:

<http://maccormaclaw.com/maccormac/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/law-times-april-11-2016.pdf>.48TheLawSocietyofBritishColumbiahasstartedincorporatinginformationandresourcesonunbundling

onitswebsite:<https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/our-initiatives/legal-aid-and-access-to-justice/unbundling-

legal-services/>49SomehavesuggestedtomethattheLawSocietyconsiderwhetherlocalrostersshouldbeencouraged,

incircumstanceswherelocalcommunitiesofpractitionerswishtoestablishparametersonthedeliveryof

theseservices.Forexample,IunderstandthattherearefamilylawyersinBarrieOntariowhomaintaina

localpanel,butmembershaveagreedtoanincomethresholdforunbundledservicesof$75K/year.While

Ipersonallydisagreethatunbundledorcoachingservicesshouldbedeniedonthebasisofincome,the

developmentoflocalrostersmaybenecessarytogeneratebuy-infromlawyerswhowouldnototherwise

wanttobepartofadirectoryofunbundledpractitioners,orforotherreasons,andshouldbeconsidered.

Localrostersmayalsofacilitatebuy-infromthelocaljudiciary,andincreasethelikelihoodtheywillrefer

SRLstotheseresources.

24

12. The Law Society shouldworkwith the legal profession, including theOBA,Advocate’sSocietyandfamilybarassociations,LegalAidOntario,theFamily

Law InformationCentres, community legal clinicsandself-helpcentres, the

courts,publiclegaleducationorganizations,lawlibrariesandfamilylawyers

[hereafter “the profession”], as well as trusted intermediaries in the

community,tomaketheseresourcesbroadlyavailableon-lineandinprint;

B.ExpandtheAvailabilityofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

13. TheLawSocietyshouldencouragelicenseestoofferunbundledlegalservicesandlegalcoachingtoclientstohelpreducecosts,whereappropriate;

14. TheLawSocietyshouldeducate licenseesabout thebenefitsofunbundlingand legal coaching for lawyers, and profile members of the bar who are

takingleadershiponthedeliveryoftheseservices;

15. TheLawSocietyshouldcreatedetailedpracticemanagementguidelineson

limited scope services, treating it as a new business model that requires

trainingandencouragement;

16. The Law Society should continue to expand continuing legal educationopportunities inunbundlingand legalcoachingatanominalcharge,ensure

these programs are eligible for professionalism credits, and strongly

encouragelicenseestotaketheseprograms;

17. TheLawSocietyshouldconsiderthefeasibilityanddesirabilityofcreatingamandatorycertificationprogramforlawyerswhowishtoprovideunbundled

orcoachingservices;

18. The Law Society should provide financial incentives (e.g. fee discounts) forlawyers who complete training programs in unbundled legal services and

legalcoachingandprovidetheseservicestoclients;

19. TheLawSocietyshouldproposethattheRulesCommitteeconsidercreating

aspecialformthatunbundledlawyersappearingincourtcanpresenttothe

judge,tosetoutthescopeoftheirretainer50;

20. The Law Society should create unbundling and legal coaching resourcesincluding sample retainer agreements, a guide tobest practices, andother

practice materials and tools to support the delivery of limited scope

services51;

50SomelawyersIhaveinterviewedreportthatjudgesdonotappeartounderstandorinsomecasesdo

notrespectthelimitsoftheirretaineragreementwiththeirlimitedscopeclients.InOntario,Rule15(4)

states:“Subrule(3)permitsapartytoberepresentedbyalawyeractingunderalimitedscoperetainer,

butalimitedscoperetainerdoesnot,initself,makealawyerthelawyerofrecordfortheparty.”

Concernsaboutthelevelofawarenessofjudgesisabarrierthatpreventssomelawyersfrombeing

willingtoattendatcourtforunbundledclients.51ThesekindsofmaterialsarealreadyavailablefromLawPRO,MediateBC’sFamilyUnbundledLegal

ServicesProjectandotherjusticesectororganizations.Aspartofthisproject,Iwillbedevelopingalegal

coachingcurriculumthatwillalsoincluderesourcesandtoolsforlawyers.TheLawSocietyshould

evaluateand,whereappropriate,modifytheresourcesthatarealreadyincirculation,andtakeon

responsibilityformaintaining,expandingandsharingthesematerials.

25

21. TheLawSocietyshouldactivelysupportthedevelopmentofunbundledand

legalcoachingbillingalternatives(e.g.:flatfeebilling),andprovideguidelines

andprecedentsforretainerclausesandfeeschedules;

22. The LawSociety shoulddevelopbenchmarks for thedeliveryof unbundled

services and legal coaching in family law, collect statistics on that delivery

(usingmembers’annualreports),anddevelopevaluationtoolstoassessthe

benefits and limits of these service models from the perspective of both

lawyersandclients;

23. TheLawSocietyshouldusethisevaluationdatatodevelopevidence-basedbestpracticesandidentifyfurtherresearchneeds;

24. TheLawSocietyshouldgatherstatisticsonthenumberofcomplaintsagainst

familylawyersarisingoutoflimitedscoperetainers,andthesuccessofthose

claims relative to others, and make that information widely available to

licensees so they can make informed decisions about the risks of these

servicemodes;

25. The Law Society should create a staff position dedicated to the

implementationoftheserecommendations.Theindividualinthisrolewould

coordinate and liaise with theMinistry of the Attorney General and other

justice stakeholders, drive toward the development and sustainability of a

legalcoachingcultureinOntario,andcreatenewprogramsandpartnerships

that will increase awareness of these practice models by lawyers and

membersofthepublic;

III. RecommendationsforIndependentJusticeSectorPartners:

A.IncreaseAwarenessbythePublicofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

26. TheOBA,theAdvocate’sSocietyandthefamilybarassociationsshouldwork

with justice sector organizations to ensure all front-line legal service

providers are educated about unbundled legal services and legal coaching,

and can provide the primarily self-represented litigants with information

aboutthesepracticemodelsandlocalproviders;

27. Publiclegaleducationandinformationorganizationsshouldeducate“trusted

intermediaries” in thecommunityaboutunbundled legal servicesand legal

coaching, and train them to provide the primarily self-represented with

informationaboutthesepracticemodelsandlocalproviders;

28. The National Judicial Institute should ensure judges are educated aboutunbundledlegalservicesandlegalcoaching, includingaboutthebenefitsto

thepublic,thejudiciaryandthejusticesystemasawhole,aswellasthefact

thatalimitedscoperetainerdoesnot,initself,makealawyerthelawyerof

recordforaparty52;

52MediateBC’sFamilyUnbundledLegalServicesProjectiscurrentlydevelopingbrochuresforjudgesinall

threecourtsinthatprovincethatcanbemodifiedforuseinotherprovincesandnationally.

26

29. The National Judicial Institute, the Canadian Judicial Council, the ChiefJustices of Ontario and other senior members of the judiciary should

encourage judges to support the private bar in delivering limited scope

services, speak out in favour of limited scope services, and encourage

colleaguestoprovideprimarilyself-representedlitigantsintheircourtrooms

withinformationaboutthesepracticemodelsandlocalproviders;

B.ExpandtheAvailabilityofUnbundledServicesandLegalCoaching

30. The OBA, the Advocate’s Society and the family bar associations should

formally endorse the delivery of unbundled services and legal coaching,

distribute information about the benefits of these practice models for

lawyers, andprofilememberswhoare taking leadershipon thedeliveryof

theseservices;

31. TheOBA,theAdvocate’sSocietyandthefamilybarassociationsshouldoffer

continuinglegaleducationopportunitiesinunbundlingandlegalcoachingat

anominalcharge,andstronglyencouragememberstotaketheseprograms;

32. The OBA, the Advocate’s Society and the family bar associations should

encouragemembers to advertise on directories of unbundled practitioners

and legal coaches, and to include details about their billing models and

pricingoptionsforclientswhenincludedaspartofthosedirectories;

33. TheOBA,theAdvocate’sSocietyandthefamilybarassociationsshouldassist

family lawyerswith the development,marketing and promotion of limited

scopeservices;

34. The OBA, the Advocate’s Society and the family bar associations should

actively support the development of unbundled and legal coaching billing

alternatives (e.g.: flat fee billing), and profile members who are taking

leadershipindevelopingalternativebillingstructures;

35. TheOBA,theAdvocate’sSocietyandthefamilybarassociationsshouldwork

collaborativelytoinstitutionalizethedeliveryofunbundledservicesandlegal

coaching in family law. This might include: creating special committees or

sections on unbundling and coaching; creating executive positions within

these organizations designed to promote unbundling and legal coaching;

facilitatingthedevelopmentofprofessionalnetworksofunbundledlawyers

and legal coaches for peer support, the sharing of business practices and

resources, and the development of standards of practice; and creating a

discreteassociationdevotedtothesepractices;

36. Legal Aid Ontario should integrate the principles of unbundling and legalcoachingintothedeliveryoflegalaidservices,whereappropriate.Thismay

include using coaching principles to extend certificate hours, providing

coachingcertificates,creating rostersof trained legalcoaches,andcreating

publiclegaleducationprogramsforprimarilyself-representedlitigants53;

53BC’slegalaidprovider,theLegalServicesSociety,integratescoachingprinciplesintoitsFamilyLawLINE.

27

37. LawPRO should publish and widely share the statistics it gathers on thenumberofnegligence claimsagainst family lawyersarisingoutof a limited

scoperetainer,andthesuccessofthoseclaimsrelativetoothers;

38. LawPROshouldprovidefinancialincentives(e.g.policydiscounts)forlawyerswho complete training programs in unbundled legal services and legal

coaching;

39. Law schools should include information and training about how to offer

unbundledlegalservicesandlegalcoachinginthecorecurriculum;

40. Law schools should develop a practical course in how to develop a viablefamily lawpracticethat includespracticemanagementtoolsforunbundling

andcoaching;

41. Lawschoolsshoulddevelopexperientiallearningopportunitiestoexposelawstudentstothesepracticemodelspriortograduation;

42. Lawschoolsshouldconsiderofferingacertificateinlegalcoaching,alongthelines of programs currently offered in negotiation, mediation and conflict

resolution.

Conclusion

Istronglybelievethatlimitedscopeservicessuchasunbundlingandlegalcoachinghave

the potential to significantly expand access to the family justice system for large

numbers of Ontarians who would otherwise go without any legal advice or

representation.Ahybridofunbundlingandcoachingservicesthatisdrivenbyaclient’s

capacity,needandbudgetoffersthesinglebestalternativetofullrepresentation.That

said,untilthepublicismadeawareoftheexistenceoftheseservices,anduntilthelegal

professionoffersaclearandresoundingendorsementofthesepracticemodels,family

lawyerswill continue tobeunderstandably reluctant to invest in these relativelynew

models.Leveragingthepotentialoflimitedscoperepresentationasanaccesstojustice

tool requires nothing short of the commitment and leadership of all justice sector

players,andashared,multi-prongedandsystemicapproachtoexpansion.