This is a great debate, and I'm going to jump in to respond to Pauline's
points. The problem that I have with the "what would I recommend to my
sister or best friend" test is this: here in Vancouver (and I don't think we
are that different from other places) the more experienced (which often
means, the better) lawyers are more expensive. If my sister (or best friend)
could only afford to pay $200 an hour, would I rather send her to a junior
lawyer that was committed to collaborative practice or would I rather send
her to a junior lawyer that was not committed to collaborative practice. Or
a junior lawyer that told my sister that he graduated from law school
wanting to practice collaboratively but couldn't offer her that service
because his local practice group wouldn't allow him to join. I also believe
in calling a spade a spade, and as long as we insist on a "number of years
of practice" requirement I believe that we are potentially setting up
collaborative practice as a model that is financially available to a
smaller, more elite group. It would be almost impossible to set it up as a
legal aid model, as many legal aid lawyers are lawyers with only a few years
out of law school. Of course we want to strive for highly skilled
collaborative practitioners, but I don't believe the best way to do this is
with a number of years ofpractice requirement. I think the "complex case"
scenarios that Pauline raises are matters of a lawyer (collaboratively
trained or not) taking on a case beyond his or her skill level. This can
happen in collaborative cases and in non-collaborative cases. Is a policy
that excludes junior lawyers (or other professionals) from joining
collaborative groups the best way to handle the question of lawyers (or
other professionals) taking on cases beyond their skill level?
Nancy Cameron, Q.C.
201-111 Water Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6B 1A7
phone: 604-689-1766
fax: 604-689-1760
----- Original Message -----
