Law Firm Ownership: Non-Lawyers In Canada

The question of whether a non-lawyer can own a law firm is a highly debated topic, with strong arguments for and against. In the United States, the general rule is that only licensed attorneys can own law firms, with exceptions in Washington, D.C., Arizona, and Utah. In Canada, the landscape is evolving, with British Columbia and Ontario instituting regulatory sandboxes similar to the Utah model, allowing non-lawyer-owned organizations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. This shift has sparked discussions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of non-lawyer ownership, including increased access to legal services, lower costs due to increased competition, and possible conflicts of interest.

Non-lawyer ownership of law firms in Canada

In Canada, non-lawyer ownership of law firms is not permitted in most jurisdictions. The general rule in the United States is also that only licensed attorneys can own law firms. Rule 5.4 of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Attorney Rule of Professional Conduct, entitled "Professional Independence of a Lawyer," places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. These include prohibiting a lawyer or law firm from sharing fees with a non-lawyer and preventing a lawyer from forming a partnership with a non-lawyer involving the practice of law. The ABA has recently reaffirmed its position that only lawyers should be allowed to own law firms.

However, there are a few exceptions to this rule in the US. In Washington, D.C., non-lawyers can hold minority stakes, and in 1991, the state began allowing lobbyists and public relations professionals to have ownership interests in law firms. Additionally, in 2012, Washington started a program that allowed non-lawyers trained in family law to "practice law on a limited license," but this was ended by the state supreme court in 2020. Arizona has also removed its Rule 5.4, allowing groups that include at least one lawyer to serve as compliance counsel and are partially owned by non-lawyers to provide legal services.

Canada has seen some recent changes in this area. Since 2020, British Columbia and Ontario have instituted regulatory sandboxes similar to the Utah model, allowing non-lawyer-owned organizations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. These changes have resulted in increased innovation and competition within the legal industry, improved access to capital, and diverse business plans.

There are valid arguments for and against non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Opponents argue that non-lawyer owners, who are typically not bound by professional conduct rules, may prioritize profits over meeting ethical duties and providing good legal services. They also argue that adding non-lawyers to the lawyer-client equation could breach attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. On the other hand, proponents of non-lawyer ownership highlight the benefits of increased access to legal services, lower costs due to increased competition, and the potential for multidisciplinary practices that offer legal and ancillary services together.

Regulatory sandboxes in British Columbia and Ontario

Regulatory sandboxes are tools that help federal regulators adapt to changing technologies and reflect current business realities, challenges, and opportunities. They allow for the testing of new products, services, and technologies in a controlled environment under a temporary set of rules and regulatory supervision. This helps regulators understand the real-life impacts of a new product or service in the marketplace and decide whether to make any permanent changes to how that product or service should be regulated.

In Canada, regulatory sandboxes have been implemented to improve access to justice by allowing non-lawyers to own law firms and provide legal services. Since 2020, British Columbia and Ontario have instituted regulatory sandboxes modelled after Utah's example, allowing non-lawyer-owned organisations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. These regulatory sandboxes have increased innovation and competition within the legal industry and improved access to capital and varied business plans for non-lawyer-owned firms.

The British Columbia program includes paralegals with enhanced authority to provide a range of legal services, such as operating an online platform to help residents create wills and powers of attorney. Ontario, which has the most lawyers and the most robust legal technology sector of any Canadian province, approved a five-year sandbox in April 2022 and will begin accepting applications soon.

Regulatory sandboxes must protect the health, safety, security, and well-being of Canadians and the environment, and regulators should consider this when deciding whether to run a regulatory sandbox.

Pros and cons of non-lawyer ownership

In Canada, since 2020, British Columbia and Ontario have instituted regulatory sandboxes similar to the Utah model, allowing non-lawyer-owned organizations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. This has resulted in increased innovation and competition within the legal industry, improvements in access to capital, and a variety of business plans.

Pros of Non-Lawyer Ownership:

One of the main benefits of allowing non-lawyers to own law firms is increased access to legal services for clients. With relaxed regulations, a wider range of non-lawyers can provide civil legal services, giving clients greater access to service providers willing to take on their cases. This increased competition can also drive down costs for low- and middle-income individuals and businesses, making legal services more affordable.

Another advantage is the potential for synergy between legal services and other professional services. For example, an accountant and a lawyer could jointly own a law and accounting practice, providing a convenient one-stop shop for clients.

Cons of Non-Lawyer Ownership:

One of the primary concerns with non-lawyer ownership of law firms is the potential conflict of interests between profits and professional duties. Non-lawyer owners, who are typically not bound by the same professional conduct rules as lawyers, may prioritize profits over meeting ethical duties and providing good legal services. This could result in a decline in the quality of legal services and a breach of professional independence.

Additionally, there is an increased risk to attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. With non-lawyers added to the lawyer-client equation, there are more opportunities for sensitive client information to be compromised, and lawyers may struggle to protect the confidentiality of client communications.

Furthermore, non-lawyers lack the extensive education and experience that attorneys gain through law school and preparing for the bar exam. This insufficient knowledge and expertise may result in non-lawyer owners providing inadequate guidance or making uninformed decisions that could negatively impact the firm and its clients.

Rules and restrictions on non-lawyer ownership

In Canada, the general rule is that only licensed lawyers can own and operate law firms. However, since 2020, the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario have instituted regulatory sandboxes, similar to the Utah model, allowing non-lawyer-owned organisations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. This development has increased innovation and competition within the Canadian legal industry and improved access to capital and diverse business plans for non-lawyer-owned firms.

In the United States, the default rule across all states, except Washington, D.C., has been that non-lawyers cannot own law firms. However, this is slowly changing, with states like Arizona and Utah relaxing this prohibition. Rule 5.4 of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Attorney Rule of Professional Conduct, titled "Professional Independence of a Lawyer," places several restrictions on lawyers working with non-lawyers. It states that, except under specific circumstances, a lawyer or law firm cannot share fees with a non-lawyer, form a partnership with a non-lawyer involving the practice of law, or practice with a firm if a non-lawyer holds any ownership interest, is a director or officer, or can direct or control a lawyer's professional judgment. The reasoning behind this rule is to prevent non-lawyer owners, who are typically not bound by professional conduct rules, from prioritising profits over ethical duties and providing good legal services. It also aims to protect attorney-client confidentiality by preventing non-lawyers from accessing client information.

In the United Kingdom, non-lawyers can own law firms since the country established a regulatory framework in 2011. Non-lawyers must take a fitness test to become firm owners and appoint in-firm personnel to ensure compliance with lawyers' professional obligations.

In Australia, the state of New South Wales passed authorising legislation in 2001, becoming the first common-law jurisdiction to allow non-lawyer-owned firms.

Examples of non-lawyer-owned firms in Canada

Since 2020, the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario have allowed non-lawyer-owned organisations to apply for the right to provide legal services to the public. This development has resulted in heightened innovation and competition within the legal industries in these provinces. There have also been improvements in access to capital and the implementation of diverse business plans.

However, I could not find specific examples of non-lawyer-owned firms in Canada. This is likely because, despite the regulatory changes, non-lawyer ownership of law firms is a relatively new concept in Canada, and specific examples of such firms may not be publicly available yet.

It is worth noting that the concept of non-lawyer ownership of law firms has been met with some concerns. Critics argue that it could lead to conflicts of interest, with the primary directive of a publicly traded company being to increase firm value and maximise profits, which may conflict with a lawyer's duty to their client and the profession.

Additionally, a report from Harvard Law School reviewed the impact of non-lawyer ownership in jurisdictions with unlimited non-lawyer ownership, such as Australia and the UK. The report found that access to justice did not increase in these areas, and under-serviced areas of law, such as family and criminal matters, remained under-serviced despite the presence of non-lawyer ownership.

Frequently asked questions