Dean Sossin's Blog | Moving Forward? The Brave New World of the ...

With the passage of the motion at Convocation in late November, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) has ushered the Ontario (and Canadian) legal community into the brave new world of the ?Law Practice Program? (LPP).? More questions than answers surround the LPP at this point. It is described as a ?pilot? with some skeletal features but the flesh remains to be ? fleshed out. Having participated in several discussions with faculty, staff, students and alumni, many of whom are asking ?what now?? let me try to summarize what we know and what we don?t, and highlight some of the most pressing issues which will need to be addressed.

What we know

Under the approved pilot project, candidates may either complete the traditional 10-month articling term (with enhanced quality assurance features), or an approximately four-month long Law Practice Program (LPP), which will also include an additional four-month co-operative work placement.

?

According to its press release, The Law Society will outsource the LPP and the establishment of the work placements will be the responsibility of the third-party provider (whether public or private), with the cost distributed by the LSUC to all members (as opposed to just those in the program or articling, as had first been proposed). The Law Society also indicated that it will ?oversee the assessments of defined learning outcomes necessary for entry-level practice for all candidates.?

?

The Report of the LSUC Articling Task Force adds that, ?One of the goals of the co-op work placement program would be to provide the co-op placements in areas where access to justice needs can also be served. This would include, for example, sole and small law firms providing services in areas such as family law and criminal law, and not-for-profit legal organizations that provide access to justice. Third party providers would be encouraged to seek out paid co-op placements wherever possible; however, it is not practical to require them to guarantee paid placements.?

?

The RFP is expected at the beginning of February.? There are many critical aspects of the new LPP scheme which remain unknown, and I will focus on those with particular impact on law schools.

?

What we don?t know

That not every detail has been set out is not necessarily a bad thing as it is hazardous to plan too many granular details in a vacuum. The goal of the Law Society appears to steer rather than row this initiative forward. ?This same vacuum, however, can create anxiety and legitimate concerns about the potential impact (intended and unintended) of the LPP. So, until the RFP process is complete and some approval process by the LSUC confirmed, the exploration of these issues and speculation on their impact will continue.

Osgoode?s Professional Development Centre, with a robust mandate for lifelong learning in law, has been exploring the establishment of an LPP, though much will depend on the RFP process. Whichever provider(s) of an LPP step up to respond to the LSUC?s RFP, I hope they look at this as an opportunity to develop and deliver the best and most innovative transitional training/education for practice. While there is a risk an LPP could be seen as an option only for those who do not obtain articling positions, and could in that sense create a group of stigmatized young lawyers, in my view this outcome is in no way inevitable. While articling will continue to be the preferred option for many (at least at first), one can also imagine the ways in which a more focused, more rigorous, more diverse, more comprehensive, better evaluated and better supervised program featuring a mix of instruction, interaction, engagement and practical experience could be preferable to articling. An LPP could address the uneven experience so many have had with articling (not to mention redress its? exclusionary features), and open up career avenues for graduates which have not played a significant role in articling (for example, small firms outside large cities, in-house legal offices, etc). ?Similarly, while there is a risk LPP placements will simply cannibalize existing internship placements, or ?existing pro bono, public interest and NGO programs, this also is not an inevitable outcome. There remain significant unmet civil legal needs to which placements in an LPP could be directed with some careful planning, determination and, most importantly, new resources.

Will an LPP produce lawyers who are ready to succeed in practice? Can an LPP contribute to a more inclusive and progressive legal community? ?Is it possible for an LPP scheme actually to enhance access to justice? Or, will the LPP be a short-lived interim measure between an articling culture and a culture of moving directly from law school to licensing exams, as the minority of the Articling Task Force has predicted. Or worse, will it simply fail on all counts and leave us worse off than we are now? At this point, any range of answers to these questions is possible.

One of the most intriguing of the unknowns (and most relevant for law school) is how the LSUC will view entire JD programs organized to meet the requirements of the LPP prior to graduation (e.g. the new Dean of Lakehead has floated the possibility that its new JD program may be modified with this in mind). Or, if not an LPP internal to a JD degree, how will the LSUC treat aspects of the LPP program taking place while students are still in law school, whether the ?course? portion or the ?placement? portion takes place in the summer between first and second or between second and third year of law school?

The Articling Task Force recommended that an LPP should take place after law school, but also concluded that ?this would not and should not preclude a law school that wishes to propose a Carnegie-like law degree from seeking approval from the Federation?s Common Law Approval Committee and exploring with the Law Society whether its practical component could satisfy part or all of the transitional training requirements.?

I have been quoted as saying I hope Osgoode students who participate in experiential programs (like the Intensive Program in Poverty Law at the Parkdale clinic) could receive credit as part of an LPP. This is not quite right. While clinical programs provide excellent exposure to the practice of law and the impact of law in action, our experiential programs such as Parkdale were designed for educational, not regulatory purposes. There are real risks inherent in downloading a regulatory role for JD programs, courses and clinics. That said, I support the creation of multiple rather than single pathways to practice, and to take a student-centred approach to the LPP/articling model that responds to the various preferences and needs of a diverse range of future lawyers.

While much remains to be settled, the decision of the Law Society to remove articling as the exclusive gatekeeper to the legal profession in Ontario is a significant step forward. As I have set out in previous posts, imposing a barrier to entry to the profession that is not merit-based is unsustainable and unjustifiable in a profession dedicated to advancing the public interest and promoting goals of equality and fairness. Opening a door is a first step. Getting right what should come through that door will be an even more important step.

Source: http://deansblog.osgoode.yorku.ca/2013/01/moving-forward-the-brave-new-world-of-the-lpp/

shea weber greystone sidney crosby at the drive in alternative minimum tax modeselektor gran torino