LAW
What makes the perfect office?
The Sole Practitioner’s Perfect Office
Today, we will be shifting our focus from law to psychology. It is no secret that where we work can shape how we work. So it is within the best interest of all sole practitioners to consider where they work. After all, if the environment around us can influence the way we work, would it not be in the best interest to put ourselves within an environment which can influence us or our work in the best possible way? This is precisely why today’s question is on what makes the perfect office for sole practitioners.
Perfection implies the fulfillment of one’s purpose and the maximization of one’s potential. The office, on the other hand, is the place that is meant for people to conduct their business and has the potential for bolstering the conduct of business. When these two definitions are amalgamated, we may better understand the meaning of the perfect office: a workspace designated for conducting business which contributes, as much as an office possibly can, to the maximization of how well business can be conducted.
So how can the quality of business processes be improved by an office? This can be answered by asking ourselves three simple sub-questions:
- Will I enjoy going to this office?
- Will my office boost my productivity?
- Will my office enhance the customer experience?
Enjoyment
Going to work can be quite difficult and exhausting when there is no enjoyment there. The challenges are exasperated further when the person going to work is solely responsible for the current and future position of their business. This is why it can be important that people enjoy what they do. Enjoyment keeps us awake. It makes us want to go to work. One of the factors that contribute to the greater enjoyment is the perfect office.
The perfect office is an office which brings us as much enjoyment as an office possibly can. This can vary depending on the person, but general psychological findings indicate that most people enjoy going to an office with a natural look. Here is an example of an office with a natural look:
These are pictures taken from the office of Wolf Law Chambers. What makes it nice to look at? One of the best explanations for this is called “soft fascination”, which is said to elevate our moods (as well as replenish our capacity for memory and creativity).
This is not to say that every sole practitioner should strive to replicate this exact office. It is to simply show how people generally gravitate towards offices with some natural lighting, plants, and a green scenery. But even if a natural look is not possible, then there is research which suggests that even reminders of nature can play a role in putting us at ease while also making it easier to connect with others. Examples include aquariums, fireplaces, plants, wooden furniture, etc. Feel free to be creative within a natural image.
Productivity
A beautiful office is worth nothing if it hinders or fails to improve productivity. An office must contribute to at least some productivity. This is where choice can play a significant role. The sole practitioners has a choice to organize their office the way they like. Research indicates that this can contribute quite effectively towards the worker’s well-being and productivity.
The technology within the office can also contribute to productivity. The test for this could simply be to observe how quickly someone can complete their tasks when they have a fast and well-structured information technology or information systems. It is almost guaranteed that the person with greater information technology and systems will be more productive than the one who has none, given that they use it properly. If used improperly, productivity may be seriously hindered. This is why even a messy desk can result in greater productivity if it is an organized mess. It is not so much about the tidiness of an office but the organizational systems which make for greater productivity.
Customer Experience
As they always say, customers come first. This is especially true for lawyers. One of the factors which can contribute to the experience of a client is their experience at the lawyer’s office. The natural look of an office can certainly help in improving the image of the lawyer. Another factor, that is not already mentioned in the enjoyment section, is the concept of curved furniture. Research indicators that people generally prefer curved furniture over sharp furniture when all is organized well.
Final Remarks
In the end, what matters most in an office is that it is enjoyable and is conducive to higher productivity and a better customer experience. It is important to make sure that going to work can be enjoyable. Otherwise, completing tasks can become more challenging than it has to be, which can affect productivity negatively. An office can also play an important role in the customer’s experience between the moment they walk in and the moment they walk out. Thus, it might help any sole practitioner to create the place where client experience is positive.
-Aaron Rajesh
Conflict of Interest
Introduction
It is the lawyer’s duty to act within the interest of their client(s). This seems easy to understand but can be quite complex when putting to practice. The purpose of this article is to help sole practitioners with the question of how to avoid situations of conflicting interests that harm their ability to do their job properly. This is important because, pursuant to section 3.4-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest…” (1) Since lawyers generally do not want to lose their clients due to a conflict of interest, it might be beneficial to know how to avoid conflicts that affect their judgment.
Conflict of Interest
The Law Society of Ontario stated that a conflict of interest means “the existence of a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially or adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or third person. The risk must be more than a mere possibility; there must be a genuine, serious risk to the duty of loyalty or to client representation arising from the retainer.” (2) So according to this definition a conflict of interest occurs when a lawyer’s loyalty and representation is hindered by the conflicting interests between the client and themselves, other clients, former clients, and other parties. This alludes to four categories of conflict:
- Personal Interest Conflict
- Current Client Conflicts
- Former Client Conflicts
- Conflicts arising from Duties to Third Persons
Personal Interest Conflict
A lawyer’s own interest is capable of harming client representation and loyalty. This is relatively easy to understand in abstraction. Though the factual matrixes that may arise in this context are virtually infinite, just as there are virtually infinite numbers between one and two, a few examples should suffice. A good example is provided by the Law Society of Ontario, who stated, “where a lawyer is asked to advise the client in respect of a matter in which the lawyer, the lawyer’s partner or associate or a family member has a material direct or indirect financial interest”, the lawyer’s interest can impair client representation and loyalty. (3)
Another simple example is when lawyers charge or accept fees or disbursements. Normally, it is within the interest of a buyer to pay as little as possible for a purchase while it is within the interest of a service provider or ‘seller’ to earn as much as possible. So naturally there is some degree of a conflict of interest when determining the appropriate price, for all transactions contain some degree of conflict. However, pursuant to section 3.6-1, “A lawyer shall not charge or accept any amount for a fee or disbursement unless it is fair and reasonable and has been disclosed in a timely fashion.” (4) This puts the client first, for if the lawyer is to be paid any fee or disbursement, then it must be fair, reasonable, and disclosed in a timely manner. If either of these necessary conditions are not met, whereby for instance the lawyer failed to charge a fair or reasonable fee against the client, then the lawyer ought be paid nothing in accordance with this section of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Current Client Conflicts
A lawyer may have several clients. However, they may not have any clients whose interests are relevantly in conflict with another client’s. The exception will be addressed near the end of this article. An example of a strong rule against the representation of conflicting clients is the well-known section 3.4-3, which stipulates that “a lawyer shall not represent opposing parties in dispute.” (5) The rationale for this is quite clear: that “If the lawyer were permitted to act for opposing parties in such circumstances even with consent, the lawyer’s advice, judgment and loyalty to one client would be materially and adversely affected by the same duties to the other client or clients. In short, the lawyer would find it impossible to act without offending the rule in Section 3.4”, which is that lawyers may not act for a client where there is conflict of interest. Thus, since the lawyer’s obligation to loyalty and proper representation may be hindered by the circumstances, a lawyer shall not be permitted to act for opposing parties.
A less obvious example is where a lawyer attempts to divide the fees and disbursements between clients. Similar to the earlier example regarding the natural existence of conflicts in pricing interests between buyer and seller, clients may also be in conflict when a multiple of them are all interested in the ‘best price.’ To address this, section 6.4-4 may be applied, whereas the lawyer acting for multiple clients in the same matter should divide the fees and disbursements equitably between them unless they agree for otherwise.
In addition to these rules written by the Law Society of Ontario, the lawyer also has a common law fiduciary duty to act within the interest of their clients. In the case of Roth Estate v. Juschka, 129 O.R. (3d) 261, the Ontario Court of Appeal questioned whether a respondent lawyer breached his fiduciary duty to the appellants by acting for all parties where there was a conflict of interest and by failing to send them for independent legal advice. The respondent suggested a critical term in a transaction remain undocumented and perhaps unenforceable for the benefit of one client and to the detriment of another client. (6) The Court found the respondent liable to the appellants on the grounds that they breached their fiduciary duty and were negligent within the circumstance of conflicting interests. The lawyer failed to recognize the actual or potential conflict of interest between the clients which precluded him from acting for all clients. He also failed to ensure that the parties received independent legal advice.
Former Client Conflicts
Pursuant to section 3.4-10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “Unless the former client consents, a lawyer shall not act against a former client in (a) the same matter, (b) any related matter, or (c) … any other matter if the lawyer has relevant confident information arising from the representation of the former client that may prejudice that client.” (7) The decision in MacDonald Estate v Martin, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235 is a great example of this type of matter. In this case, Sopinka J. stated that “the test [for determining a disqualifying conflict of interest] must be such that the public represented by the reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.” (8) In other words, the reasonable person must be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur. If there is no satisfaction in this regard, then disqualification is due.
There are two questions for applying this test: (i) whether the lawyer received confidential information attributable to a solicitor and client relationship relevant to the matter at hand; and if so, (ii) whether there is a risk that such information will be used to the prejudice of the client. (9) Once both questions were answered in the affirmative, the Court concluded that there exists a conflict of interest which risks the prejudice of the former client.
Conflicts Arising from Duties to Third Persons
In addition to themselves and clients, it is possible that lawyers may hold others’ interests before the client to the detriment of their proper practice through representation and loyalty. As an illustration, suppose that a lawyer may act as the director of a company while being a trustee. If the lawyer acts against such a corporation or trust on behalf of a client, there may be a conflict of interest. (10) If acting for such a corporation or trust may affect the lawyer’s judgment and obligations to the client who goes against the corporation or trust, then there is a serious risk that the lawyer may jeopardize the protection of lawyer and client privilege.
Other Considerations
Some may have noticed, from the above categories, that there is a major exception to the rule which prevents a lawyer from acting or continuing to act for a client or clients where there is a conflict of interest. (11) The main exception to note is consent. Pursuant to section 3.4-2, “A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonable believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.” (12)
If a lawyer is ever allowed to represent or continue representing a client where there is a conflict of interest, there must be fully informed and voluntary consent. If there is no consent, the removal of the lawyer may not be overridden by this section. So in practice, if a lawyer comes across a situation of conflicting interests, and if it is in their best interest to represent and continue to represent their client, it is in their best interest to ensure that they obtain fully informed and voluntary consent for their representation. Besides this, at all times, it is an obligation of the lawyer to avoid putting themselves, other clients, former clients, or third parties before their client.
(1) Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, at s 3.4-1. https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/complete-rules-of-professional-conduct
(2) Ibid at s 1.1-1.
(3) Commentary, Ibid at s 3.4-1.
(4) Ibid at s 3.6-1.
(5) Ibid at s 3.4-3.
(6) Roth Estate v. Juschka, 129 O.R. (3d) 261, at para 43.
(7) Law Society of Ontario, supra note 5, at s 3.4-10.
(8) MacDonald Estate v Martin, [1990] 3 SCR 1235, [1990] 3 RCS 1235, [1990] SCJ No 41, [1990] ACS no 41, 1990 CanLII 32, at para 44.
(9) Ibid at para 45.
(10) Law Society of Ontario, supra note 7, Commentary at s 3.4-1.
(11) Ibid at s 3.4-1.
(12) Ibid at s 3.4-2.
Wolf Law Chambers Lunch & Learn
What a turn out! We can honestly say that the Lunch & Learn at the Wolf Law Chambers was a success. Thank you to all who attended the event, and a special thanks to Praveen Srinivasan of uLawPractice for his informative and engaging presentation. We would also like to give a special thanks to Prime Asia TV for attending and conducting interviews. It was a real pleasure to have them.
Wolf Law Chambers, on June 6, 2019, hosted a Lunch & Learn for Sole Practitioners and Small Firms. The purpose of the event was to get to know other practitioners going through the same journey. The sense of community is very important to Wolf Law Chambers, and there is no better way to gain a sense of community than to meet new people and make new connections. For those who were unable to attend, we understand. There are plenty more events to come, for we are just getting started.
Wolf Law Chambers had the privilege of attaining Praveen’s attendance. He provided a great presentation on uLawPractice, a legal accounting software meant to make any lawyer’s accounting experience easier than it has to be. He walked everyone through the desktop and mobile interfaces. It was fascinating to see how innovative his company’s services are. Wolf Law Chambers recommends any practitioner to consider uLawPractice, for it can make a big difference in how lawyers conduct their business.
Wolf Law Chambers is a multidisciplinary law practice, providing professional legal services to clients in several areas of law, including corporate, commercial, family, immigration, criminal, and real estate. The ability for a lawyer to run their practice and be accessible to clients, while having the freedom and flexibility to make use of a larger firm’s resources is powerful. The encouragement and freedom to consult legal ideas with other lawyers within the same field or across different fields, leads to better and stronger representation of client interests.
Conveniently located near Hurontario and Hwy. 401 in Mississauga’s business cluster, our premier location is minutes away from the Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court, Provincial Offences Court, and Downtown Mississauga Square One area.
We recommend anyone to come visit us. Wolf Law Chambers will be happy to connect with you.
Sole Practitioners and Small Firms are Invited to Lunch & Learn Featuring uLawPractice
Wolf Law Chambers is continuing to engage with the community of sole practitioners and small firms in the Greater Toronto Area by inviting them to a Lunch & Learn dedicated to any sole practitioner and small firm looking to chat with other lawyers and learn from none other than Praveen Srinivasan of uLawPractice.
The overall theme of the event will focus on financial technology and legal practice. Praveen Srinivasan is well-positioned to share his insights on the administrative needs in running a productive legal practice. Wolf Law Chambers is certain that guests will receive important information from his message.
DETAILS
The event will:
- Take place on June 6, 2019;
- Take place in 90 Matheson Boulevard West, Suite 101, Mississauga, ON;
- Serve guests with free admission and lunch;
- Serve guests with opportunities to assist us in advertising;
- Entail a special speech by Praveen Srinivasan of uLawPractice.
To RSVP for the event or inquire upon advertisements, please contact Dezso Farkas: [email protected].
“It is important in today’s legal marketplace for sole practitioners to work together to face key challenges in their practice”, says Dezso Farkas, Barrister & Solicitor of Wolf Law Chambers.
TOP 5 ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SOLE PRACTITIONERS
Sole practitioners in today’s competitive marketplace face some unique challenges. How they face their challenges can make it or break it when it comes to running an effective and efficient practice. A significant portion of a sole practitioner’s time is spent on administration rather than practice. So today, we will be counting down our top 5 technologies that every sole practitioner should consider purchasing for the administration of their practice.
For this list, we will be looking at both hardware and software products which can be conducive to higher productivity and improved customer service. These will be products which are not direct to the practice itself but may support the practitioner’s administrative processes. So products like CaseText, QuickLaw, or WestLaw will not make this list. We will also avoid mentioning products that seem too obvious to be on this list. So Office products such as Microsoft Word or PowerPoint will be exempt from this list.
As a disclaimer, our picks have not been decided as a result of any partnership or benefit conferred upon Farkas Law, Wolf Law Chambers, any of its members, or related parties. These are simply personal opinions or recommendations.
5) Microsoft Surface Pro
The Surface Pro has come a long way since its earlier models. However, one thing always held it back: short battery life. Microsoft has overcome this issue with the new Microsoft Surface Pro, which is popular for its detachable 2-in-1 features. For lawyers who are constantly on the go, it may be helpful to carry around the Surface Pro for meetings, hearings, or private brainstorming sessions. The cost with keyboard and pen is above $1,100, but it may be worth it for lawyers looking for a laptop, a tablet, smooth processing, and good battery life.
Honourable Mentions: Macbook, iPad with keyboard & Apple Pencil, Microsoft Surface Book 2.
4) Canva
Canva is a wonderful website filled with digital canvasses and templates for users looking to design their own business cards, logos, brochures, infographic, or much more. The potential benefits far outweigh the costs with this one. The only catch is that the quality of the final product depends on the quality of the practitioner’s vision for their business. But creating and striving towards that vision can have significant benefits in the long-run. With a clear vision for the business’ appearance and presentation, practitioners and their customers may have a clear understanding of the business.
3) Expensify
Expensify is one of the most popular receipt management applications. Some of its key features include unlimited receipt scanning, credit card import, corporate card reconciliation, receipt integration, advanced tax tracking, and GPS mileage tracking. A sole proprietor cannot go wrong in subscribing to and using this application for $5 or $9 a month. The main value of this app is that it saves time when saving receipts. This can be crucial for lawyers on the go.
Honourable mentions: Mint, YNAB
2) Contract Companion
The job of a lawyer requires lots of writing. However, when we write, we unfortunately find it difficult to notice our own mistakes even after proofreading ourselves. Furthermore, sole practitioners cannot always give their documents to a friend or coworker for proofreading. To solve this problem, users may use Litera Microsystem’s Contract Companion, an artificial intelligence which acts as a Microsoft Word toolbar that proofreads documents. The main value here is time and increased professionalism.
Honourable mentions: Drafting Assistant, Word Rake
1) WD My Cloud Expert Series EX2
There may come a time when a sole practitioner must store important or sensitive information digitally. The storage features of a desktop computer, laptop, or tablet may not suffice in the long-run. Furthermore, public clouds are not often recommended for this field. This is where the WD My Cloud EX 2 can help. This centralized private cloud device allows for high performance streaming and enough storage for any small business. The practitioner can access their client files from their office desktop, phone, or laptop in almost any location, making work hours and location time more flexible. This can improve the work-life balance of the sole practitioner.
Typically, 4 terabytes of space should suffice, but if more is required there are other versions with higher capacity available for purchase.
Concluding Remarks
We believe these products can significantly bolster the effectiveness and efficiency of how sole practitioners conduct their business. There are other important candidates who have not made this list, but these 5 should suffice as a helpful start for sole practitioners. Another to note is that business management software is almost necessary in the field of law today.
Honourable Mentions: uLawPractice, PracticePanther, & Clio.
First Law Practice Series 2019 = Success
Hi everyone!
I thoroughly enjoyed our first event of the Law Practice Series 2019, held at Wolf Law Chambers Mississauga.
I spoke about the challenges faced by sole practitioners, small firms and paralegals in the current market for legal services. I began delving into the strategies that we can employ to succeed in this market.
I received great feedback on the presentation and now realize more than ever how much sole practitioners, small firms and paralegals need this type of information and assistance.
I am also pleased to announce that we have two new lawyers coming on board at Wolf Law Chambers!
We look forward to helping each other to succeed in our respective areas.
-Dezso Farkas
A PROPOSAL TO ENCOURAGE UP-THE-LADDER REPORTING BY INSULATING IN-HOUSE CORPORATE ATTORNEYS FROM MANAGERIAL POWER
After the 2001 financial collapse of publicly traded Enron Corporation-caused by alleged accounting fraud-the US. Congress included Section 307 in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 307”). Section 307 requires in-house corporate attorneys to report instances of corporate wrongdoing and fraud at their companies “up the ladder” to senior management and the board of directors (“Board”). In certain circumstances, Section 307 also permits in-house counsel to “report out” wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC’). However, when complying with either the “reporting up” or “reporting out” provisions of Section 307, in-house corporate attorneys face possible pushback and retaliation from their senior executive team (including chief executive officers). This is especially true if senior executives are implicated in the wrongdoing. Additionally, given the influence of managerial power over a corporation’s legal department with respect to hiring, disciplinary action, and firing, in-house corporate attorneys will be hesitant to act as whistle-blowers and report up or report out instances of corporate wrongdoing.
The current debate on Section 307 centers on whether the provision permitting reporting out to the SEC conflicts with an attorney’s duty to keep her corporate employer’s information confidential. However, there is less discussion on Section 307’s reporting up provision, and how existing managerial power and governance structures discourage in-house corporate attorneys from reporting corporate wrongdoing up the ladder. There is also very little guidance on how corporate attorneys may immunize themselves from retaliation when they report wrongdoing to the very same senior managers that may be involved in the wrongdoing. This article’s contribution, therefore, is twofold. First, this article will examine how existing managerial and governance structures contribute to the risks that in-house corporate attorneys face when complying with Section 307’s reporting up provision. Second, this article proposes a normative, modified reporting structure that requires in-house attorneys to bypass the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and report directly to the Board. Our normative model would insulate in-house attorneys from retaliation and pushback from senior management. As such, corporate attorneys should be more willing to report corporate wrongdoing and fraud up the ladder to their company’s Board for corrective remedy. This increased reporting, in turn, should enhance corporate transparency and investor protection against fraud.
By: Kabir Ahmed & Dezso Farkas