When I got Sirius XM Radio in my ride I stopped listening to talk radio on my commute and switched to satellite radio’s Fabulous Fifties channel instead. Now I groove my way to the office awash in the smaltzy lyrics of a simpler age. Continue reading “Goin’ to the Chapel—”
There was so much going on over the holidays that the feel-good story of the marriage of Akihiko Kondo and Hatsune Miku got lost in the shuffle. It was a romantic tale of true love conquering all to be sure, since the couple had to overcome so many hurdles in order to tie the knot. Continue reading “With this algorithm I thee wed!”
There is an old saying that managing lawyers is just like herding cats: neither likes being managed, herded or told what to do, as the Law Society of BC and the Attorney General discovered last week at the Society’s Annual General meeting, where the lawyers, hissing and scratching all the way, torpedoed the AG’s latest pet project. Continue reading “Herding Cats”
As the days grow short, rain rattles against the window panes and Christmas carols take over the Muzak in the mall, normal people start their Christmas decorating and baking while we lawyers, ever marching to a different drummer, lumber into action in a mad dash to complete our mandatory annual CLE credits.
In order to maintain our ability to practice for the coming year we must do several things: refrain from getting caught committing any indictable offenses; pay the law society an inordinate sum for fees, and lastly, provide proof of attendance of at least 12 hours of “lawyers school.”
Not being one to leave things until the last minute I resolved this year to bag all my necessary educational credits well before the 30 November deadline-whole days before, so I signed up for a course about what’s new and exciting in the world of wills and estates.
To my surprise I found the course most instructive: indeed I learned a lot about marriage. Now having been a husband for almost 40 years now, I thought I knew a thing or two about the institution-I even consider myself partially house broken; but, it seems there is always more to learn.
When I began my own journey into wedded bliss, a formal walk down the isle was the sole precursor to asserting any claims at all agains
t the property or income of a significant other, in the event that things didn’t work out, and marriage was defined as “the union of one man, and one woman, for life.” Pretty simple, straightforward stuff, that even a poor country lawyer could suss out.
Nowadays, as a result of the Family Law Act, the Wills Estates and Succession Act, the Charter, and a handful of other legislative changes, as interpreted by recent court decisions, its a whole new ball game. In modern times, one can, it seems, slide into matrimony without even knowing it!
Distinctions between “formal” and “common law ” marriages have long since been consigned to the dust bin, along with any notion that your spouse need be someone of the opposite gender. One can acquire significant support obligations in any relationship that endures for longer than two years, and a claim against some pension benefits can be advanced after only a year of togetherness.
The courts now instruct us that we need to run through a bit of a checklist of activities to determine if two people seen hanging out together may in fact be married in the eyes of the law. Are they doing things that suggest they are in a “marriage -like relationship”?
Do they live together, sleep together, pool their finances, vacation together, own things together, bicker, or complete each others sentences ? Now here’s where recent judicial pronouncement make it interesting. Courts have ruled that you no linger have to live together, or have sex, or pool your resources in order to be deemed to be married. You can inadvertently acquire a spouse if your relationship ticks a sufficient number of “marriage-like relationship” boxes.
This can be a big deal if you happen to die without a thoughtful estate plan in place, since your “spouse” steps to the head of the line to claim a big chunk of your estate, as well as life insurance, pension benefits, RRSP’s and the like. For most, their long term relationships are sufficiently “marriage -like” so the question doesn’t come up, but for many, it does. Consider seniors who acquire companions late in life, never thinking that their friend might displace their children for a share of their estate or those whose time together is punctuated by long periods of separation, or those who fall into long distance relationships.
We live in interesting times- it didn’t used to be so hard to tell if you were married !
So, the pointy heads at the law society have apparently decided to create a category of law society licensed individuals who would be allowed to do most, if not all of the things that lawyers can do, such as giving legal advice, drafting court documents and appearing in court, but all without the tedious and expensive requirement of a full law school education, or lengthy on-the-job training.
The Law Society’s working title for this new category of near-lawyers is “legal service provider”, and the rationale for introducing the category appears to be that it’s far too expensive for the public now to hire real lawyers, so partially qualified lawyers should be encouraged to practice, in the hope that they will work cheaper, and thus solve our access to justice problems.
As far as I know no one has ever actually asked the public whether they would buy into the concept of a multi-tiered, price differentiated market for legal services. Personally, I’m not so sure that they would opt for cheaper representation by lesser qualified individuals, when playing for all the marbles, but then I’m biased!
Of present concern however is, what on earth will we actually call them? Whenever something new, like a new vocation, is invented, it needs a colloquial name. Thus, our first dollar coin became a “loonie”, and spacecraft riders became “astronauts”. I can pretty much guarantee that “Legal Service Provider” isn’t going to stick- it sounds too much like something dreamed up a committee of bureaucrats. We need something better- a catchy name that captures the essence of these purveyors of cut-rate legal services will be all about.
Let’s be clear, they won’t be “lawyers”, and frankly, that term, or its derivatives, ought to be reserved for those of us who are fully credentialed. It would be misleading to describe them as some sort of hyphenated lawyer, such as as”mini lawyers”, “quasi lawyers” or “near lawyers”.
So, how to devise a name or acronym that doesn’t include the term “lawyer”? Well, consider that when Sir Robert Peel invented the metropolitan police, they quickly became known as “Peelers” or “Bobbies” after their creator. Perhaps then these new creatures of the Law Society ought to be dubbed “DABIs” ( short for Dumb Ass Bencher’s Idea)
Then again, since the intention is to create a less expensive class of legal professional, accuracy would seem to demand a reference to price in the chosen name, – like CRAP (for Cut Rate Alternate Provider) , or ECONO-PROs ( for Economy Providers), or CHEALTs (for cheaper alternative)
As an aside, just as lawyers can be expected to jealously guard our name, so too will we fight for our animals. We are, after all, the true legal beagles, and eagles, and the only legitimate sharks, so these new providers will have to content themselves with other mascots – (I think crows and dog-fish are still available)
So, the problem endures- a new class of legal service provider in need of a name- dear reader, we desperately need your help- are you the wit that will coin the perfect moniker for those half trained individuals providing legal services for reduced fees? Put you thinking cap on, let your imagination run wild, and give us your comments please !
Langley Law 