Juda Strawczynski

2Hi, I'm great. Thanks so much for inviting me to your show.

4No, I, I actually was born and raised in, in Ottawa and and then I had gone and done my undergrad in Montreal at McGill. For me, I was looking at law schools, and I know that U of T Law is known for its proximity to Bay Street. It's known for its solid corporate commercial. Many of its— many, many of the alumni had been practicing on Bay Street or in New York and then coming back north if they so chose. For me though, it was their amazing public law offerings at the time that drew me there. Amazing constitutional law lectures, amazing practical opportunities as well, and really a robust public law environment that made me decide when I was thinking about where to go, to relocate to Toronto.

6I

8So, so Erin took the, the the path. I think if she studied international relations, it was probably more rigorous than what I did. But my undergrad story is one of confusion and multi-paths. So I started in business and I thought it was going to be about, you know, the bigger policy questions about how we structure our society and why we have businesses in particular ways and what types of structures we can use to advance social value. And of course, that's not what a business program is. But I was young and stupid and didn't really know that a BCom degree is much more hands-on, much more case-driven, much more practical, and much more grooming you for corporate cultures and startup cultures, and was less about the philosophy behind it all.

9So I decided I wanted out, and I moved and took an arts program, and part of the selection— I will be quite blunt about my double major in Humanistic Studies and International Development Studies— is I knew if I took those, I was not going to lose time. I was not going to lose a semester for having started in a different program. They were both very interdisciplinary programs, and so I was able to count my business programs as electives and graduate on time. So it was partly that, but partly, yes, the International Development Studies was a really interesting pivot for me because I was curious about international human rights and about social equality and about about those bigger questions about how we can move towards, you know, this sounds lovey-dovey, but a better world.

10And so I was very curious and followed that program.

12I was pretty Type A when it was high school. I was one of those keeners. I think there are a lot of people on this show who did high school debate team. I was one of those people. So I studied hard. I played, I had friends. I wasn't a total, you know, recluse or anything, but I definitely worked hard in high school. I was a very nervous person. I had an entry scholarship to McGill, but it was conditional on academic progress, and I was very worried about losing that funding. And so really applying myself at times where many others, as Mark Twain said, were not letting schooling interfere with their education. So, you know, I was a bitty bit wound up, but also, you know, trying to make to have fun and enjoy the experiences as I went.

13But, you know, I think it's family background a bit as well. I come from a family that much of my family settled in Canada after the end of the Second World War from— with Holocaust survivors on both sides. And, you know, that will impact my parents, it impacted us. It was one of those defining pieces about, about your worldview to be born in Canada, to be born in safety, to be mindful of, of how privileged we are to be where we are and to be safe. That also made me think about how we can try to extend that and how we can work to protect people. And so, you know, I think that in high school, if you'd ask me, I was definitely going to law school.

14I'd gone to debate team, I loved it, I met great people through it, I enjoyed the academic rigor of it. By the end of high school, I was looking for a purpose for those skills that you develop around oral advocacy, around logic, around around the use of reason and the efforts to advocate. But then undergrad was sort of like many other people's undergrads. It was a bit of an exploration time academically as well to try to figure out, you know, where your path is. And so I started in business, which was a mistake, and that's okay. And so I had to pivot. And during that time, I maybe wasn't that sure about law school, but by the end of undergrad, I was back there.

16Oh, sorry. So I went, I went to high school in Ottawa. I went, I went to undergrad at McGill though, and, and I studied there in English except for one year that I took abroad in France where I studied in French.

18Yes.

20Well, the Montreal connection is McGill, but also much of my family was in Montreal at the time. So my immediate family was in Ottawa, but grandmother, cousins, aunts, uncles, all in Montreal, grew up going there regularly, cheering for the Expos, cheering for the Habs, you know, and And so for me, going to McGill, which was just a 2-hour drive down the road, to somewhere where I could go and visit my grandmother on a weekend, there was some security and joy in being able to do that.

22Well, the Habs won a cup back then, so we can start with that. And we had a baseball team that, you know, was in the National League and competitive. But, you know, and we had a World Series championship Toronto Blue Jays, so there were some good things happening in the '90s. You know, I think that the biggest thing that That strikes me about the '90s versus now is Quebec separatism was a significant issue. When I was in high school, we went, loaded up the family van with family and friends and played hooky on school and went to the No rally. And it was massive, right? It was unlike anything I'd ever seen. It was peaceful.

23It was ginormous. And I'm not a guy who loves big, big crowds, and I don't really go for big political rallies usually, but it just felt like we were on the precipice there. And, and that was significant. And people debate whether there was utility to that rally and whether it was necessary, and I don't have answers for that, but I did go. And, you know, I just don't see that as being a type of event that we would need to rally around at the moment. And I think for the better.

25I don't know. I don't know what has driven the downward slope or what seems to be a downward slope on Quebec sovereignty movement, but but I don't think it is as prevalent in the national consciousness now or in Quebec, but, you know, that's from a guy who's now living in Toronto, so I'm not making any claim to expertise here at all.

27It was, actually, yeah. So I went back to the nation's capital.

29Oh, it's fantastic. So the federal court has an incredibly odd jurisdiction because the Canadian Constitution has an incredibly odd way of slicing and dicing responsibility. And so the judges I worked for could hear anything from a 2-hour judicial review of an immigration decision to a highly complex patent dispute around a pharmaceutical product or around something that was developed in the oil patch in Alberta or anything else dealing with intellectual property rights. So it was a really wide range of subject matter. They did admiralty law, you know, in landlocked Ottawa, mostly landlocked Ottawa. They've got rivers and a canal, but it's not exactly where you would think these big disputes about ships and in rem type rights would be heard, but there we were.

30And there was also, you know, public inquiries that would have judicial reviews or federal decisions, a lot of admin law. And, you know, for anyone who's watching who's in law school and doesn't understand admin law, I hear you. It's the sort of thing that clicks when you actually see it in in motion and where you see that it actually matters and is how much of our justice system is determined. But until you see it in motion, it can feel a bit esoteric.

32It was full-time for 4 months and then part-time for 4 months, so it was about an 8-month gig. I think it was about 20 hours a week for the last little bit. And, you know, that was partly about funding and pockets of funding and partly around, you know, where projects were at and knowing that I wasn't going to be staying on. But it was a wonderful experience to be able to go live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and walk to work every day through Harvard and show up at this wonderful organization that had turned its focus on some of the domestic issues around terror post-9/11.

34Yeah, kind of. I actually, I asked my boss, you know, we knew people on advisory boards and whatnot who were linked to Harvard. And so they, I asked, is it okay if I go and sit in on the occasional international constitutional law lecture? And I got to do that and got to meet some really cool people, some Canadians actually, who were taking their LLMs there at the time. And, and, you know, it, it was really an incredible time to be able to, you know, on the full-time stuff, work hard on important and, you know, front headline type of work around enhanced interrogation methods in the War on Terror and the stain that is Guantanamo Bay.

35But it was also a time where, you know, when you're at 20 hours a week, you can step back and go audit classes or go watch whoever happens to be passing through Harvard on that day and see some amazing presentations and take up some hobbies and that sort of thing. So it was a pretty magical time.

37It's like your major league ballpark tour, only for Ivy. Yeah, exactly. And that's awesome. They're magical. I've done some road trips too. And I remember parents loaded us up into the van and we'd go cross country a couple of times and camp along the way. Seeing Madison and seeing the campus there. It was astounding if you're a kid. So I share that. And yeah, it was magical to be able to live 2 blocks off Harvard and from Harvard campus and walk through every day to go to work. I mean, these are lovely places to experience in one way or another.

39Yes,

41That's right.

43Sure.

45It was all pretty much policy work. You know, the, the Law Society is the regulator of lawyers and paralegals and is a public interest regulator and the They have a policy group that tends to sort of be the go-between working with operations to try to develop solutions to policy issues that have been identified by the board by convocation as priorities. And so I got to work on a real mix of material, but, you know, just to back up for a second, the And it's going to come full circle here, but when I was in private practice, I worked for two different firms. And one— and I got to do some great work, some real, real range of work, but I kind of realized I don't love argument.

46And so advocacy was maybe not the best place for me. What I did, I did do some work on a public inquiry, and I did do some work for private clients. And one of the groups that I did work for across both the firms that I was at was work for LawPro. And I really enjoyed that work. And I saw meaning in that work, being able to defend lawyers who were alleged to have engaged in in negligent acts and oftentimes were just being brought in because they were the mouthpiece of a client or had acted for the other side in a bitter, acrimonious dispute and were being tagged. It's pretty easy as somebody who wants to see our rule of law protected or who wants to ensure the smooth operation of a justice system, it aligns really nicely to be able to go bat for the lawyers who are simply being tied up when they're doing their job.

47And so, you know, I had those sorts of cases, and I mean, I had others as well, of course, but LawPro was a common theme. And I'd started to see patterns in some of the transactions and some of the cases and some of the issues, and thought, okay, there are also areas where lawyers make mistakes, and there are areas where we could be doing things differently. And so when an opportunity came up with the Law Society to do more policy work that was more on the regulatory side than on the litigation side, I thought this could be an interesting pivot, and it turned out to be a really, really interesting pivot.

49So I think that at times that was the case. At times I worked mostly on the professional regulatory side of the policy questions, as well as on things like legislative monitoring and government relations assistance. I wasn't leading any of that work, but I'd get to monitor bills and see what impacts they may have for the legal profession or for the Law Society, and had opportunities to contribute on submissions and But also on the regulatory stuff, I worked on things like alternative business structures and on the advertising regulatory changes, the referral fee changes, the contingency fee reforms that are going to come into full effect later in 2021. So more on public protection, consumer protection, transparency, but that in turn also make lawyers, you know, better at delivering quality services to consumers with reduced chances of friction or displeasure.

51Yeah, it was a move, but not that far down the road. I mean, LawPro is independent from the Law Society. It's owned by the Law Society, but it's independently owned, independently operated, and reports into FSRA, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, and is bound by, you know, different legislation than the Law Society. But, you know, one of the issues that the Law Society works on is risk management and proportionate regulation to protect the public. And at LawPRO, the work is around trying to ensure that lawyers and paralegals who work with lawyers and staff who work with lawyers are practicing safely. And I run PracticePRO, which is LawPRO's risk prevention and claims management— claims prevention risk management program.

52And, you know, in a certain way, we're always trying to look at the data to figure out what the trends are and to try to help lawyers steer clear of hotspots. And so it's, it's narrower than what the Law Society has to deal with as the regulator of all lawyers, regardless of their practice setting. It's, it's it's focused on private practice lawyers and it's focused on risk and preventing risk, whereas at the Law Society there are all sorts of other considerations that go into the mix. But yeah, it's a natural step, it's a natural progression, and it's one that I'm enjoying.

54Yeah, I mean, I think that if you look at the Law Society Act, it actually talks about all of the different principles that are supposed to govern how it regulates. And so public interest regulation is one, as a duty to facilitate access to justice, to regulate in a way that is proportionate to its objectives. So there are lots of principles that govern the Law Society, and And certainly they're a public interest regulator in that respect. LawPro is a different group, and we're known primarily for being the mandatory professional liability insurer for lawyers in Ontario. And certainly we have coverage for that, but we have other programs as well. And so I think I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that we, you know, we do also offer excess insurance for people who want to, you know, better protect their risk.

55And we have a title insurance line and title Plus. And so there are other pieces of the puzzle, but we're, we're an insurance company for sure. And so we're there to provide coverage for lawyers. And but also, just like many other insurers, we try to take steps to help our insureds reduce their risk and reduce their needs to reduce the likelihood of claims. And so that's where the PracticePro program comes in.

57Yeah, so we are a company that is regulated by the Corporations Act and by the— by FSRA, by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority. But we— the profit, so to speak, is rolled back into the company. We're not— we don't have shareholders where we're trying to generate profits. We're trying to make sure that we can have mandatory insurance that's available across the legal profession. And so that is our goal.

59Yeah, the Law Society owns the law, owns LawPRO. They're the ones that created LawPRO. Before LawPRO, the Law Society ran its own insurance program, but there was a task force in the '90s that looked at it and realized it, it, it was being run in a way that was not sustainable, and that insurance is a separate beast. It requires actuarial science, it requires to it needs to be run in a commercially viable way, and so it can't just be about, you know, what members of a guild would like. It really does require to be run with the expertise of risk management that an insurer is able to provide, and so they decided as a matter of policy that an independent organization should be established in the Law Society Act permits them to create a separate company for the purpose of developing insurance.

60And so LawPRO was born.

62That's a good question. It predates me by a lot. The current CEO, Dan Pennington, was the vice president responsible for the program for the better part of his career. It's at least 20 years. It's a bit more than 20 years in the making, and I think that one of the things that speaks to the success of the program, and I can't take any credit for this, but the number of lawyers in private practice has typically gone up year over year in Ontario, but the number of claims has, you know, sort of more or less stayed at a steady state. It hasn't really gone beyond that 3,000 claims a year mark. And when we talk about claims, we're really talking about any time that somebody reports to us with a potential error or omission or a potential issue that they need some, some direction on.

63It doesn't necessarily mean they've been tagged in a lawsuit yet. So, you know, none of that is it happened on my watch. But I think that when we compare the Ontario situation to certain other jurisdictions where where insurance costs skyrocket over time, or where you know, significant claims spikes have occurred we're, we're doing pretty well.

65Yeah, we're part of LawPro, and we just run a separate site and a sister site avoidacclaim.com The two of them collectively provide resources and information and education for lawyers. And so we do that in all sorts of ways. We publish updates, we let people know through the blog what about particular changes in the law. We do a lot of education around common mistakes that lawyers make, talk more positively around it, around tips that people can incorporate into their practice. And we give some resources that are a bit more, you know, really, really ready to go in the can, you know, take it and modify it. So we've got standard retainer agreements and checklists and other resources that lawyers can take and adapt as they need for their areas.

67Let's dream a little bit. So you're saying like, imagine if there was a made in Ontario for Ontario lawyers practice management software. For example, that was either created by or stamped by LawPro as, you know, good to go. PracticePro would have a role in that. Our actuaries would have a role in that about what sort of risks we'd be taking on. You know, we're not there. I don't know if we ever would be. I don't know if we'd want to be there. I don't know if we have the mandate to be there. But, you know, one of the things we do is we publish about legal tech. And so even on PracticePro, I think if you go to practicepro.

68ca/technology, you'll see our articles about technology. And one of the things that we did is, you know, for work from home, we wrote some articles around, around the, the technology that you need for effective video conferencing. We developed some articles and, and do as we say, not as we do, as I'm basked in, in overhead lighting. But we do have tips on on how to look great on Zoom and how to sound great on Zoom and how to set yourself up securely. We helped with articles and resources about how you can deliver legal services online safely. We've got a checklist that actually some Ontario lawyers developed initially, and then we revised slightly and made available so you can make sure that you're safely providing legal services online.

69And we also developed a bit of a tech cheat sheet, and this was a bit new for us, but we actually list examples of providers, and it's a document called Technology Products for Lawyers and Law Firms. We have an equivalent for paralegals that's a bit pared down because of different scope of practice. But the idea there was we know that there's decision fatigue out there, and we know lawyers often don't pivot because they don't know where to start and they don't know how to choose. And we're not endorsing any of these products, but we are sort of dividing them into examples and linking to document tutorials so that you can see the types of products that are available that can help lawyers use technology to innovate their practices.

70So we try to provide the supports, but we don't dictate. And I think that there's a line there between thou could and thou shalt, and we're trying to walk that carefully.

72Okay.

75For sure.

77Sure.

79Yeah.

81Yes.

85sure,

88for sure

90Yeah,

92These are good problems to have, right?

94Yep.

96So it's a, it's a good question, and you know, you're right. Let's, let's start with the legal tech piece. Okay. Technology used properly won't solve all of our problems, but technology can help as a significant aid for productivity and for quality assurance and for avoiding redoing the wheel. And there are certain parts of legal practice that lawyers should not be doing by hand or spending any time on. And though if we can automate certain key parts, that frees up the lawyer time to be more creative or to spend with clients or to think through issues for their clients. We all win. So there are certain standard forms, there's certain standard pieces where there are great templates out there and where there is great template work that's being done.

97And you know, for those who are dubious about this, I mean, there are great pro bono programs with great full motion records where you can punch in the names of the people and you're 90% of the way there. And then the lawyer's task is to make sure that that's all factually correct and to add advocacy along the way. A notice of motion to get off the record. You're absolutely right. There are risks in going too far in what you're disclosing. You should be cautious about that. You should be just saying that there's been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. There are particular ways that you can go into more detail depending on the case, but you're right that that is a relatively routine type of motion.

98And for sure, when I was in private practice, there were precedents out there, and there were different types of precedents, but they generally all got to the same place. So why does PracticePro not do it? And I think the main answer for the moment is resources and going into particular areas of law in ways that would require a lot of work. And where when we look at the risks, are those the areas that lead to claims? So we don't provide, for example, Wills software. But there— the other piece of this is that when there are problems in the market, there tend to be providers who come and solve them.

99And there are, there are providers of Wills software, there are providers of, of, of contracts that are standard form and that have clause databases that you can work with. So automation in law is definitely something that is happening. Automation in law is something where there are legal publishers and others who are serving that market, and where using those products with caution is often better than starting from scratch with whatever it is that you have inherited from some lawyer from God knows when. And that's about using technology and legal expertise and having people who are monitoring case law putting it all together for you. So I agree with you there are lots of products.

100Lawyers need to be careful about what those products are and be assured that they have confidence in that product and know the limitations of those products. But I think you and I are actually in violent agreement that these sorts of things are important for the legal profession to deliver effective services to the public. In terms of the relative expertise though, PracticePro covers all the 29,000 insured lawyers in private practice. We cover litigation, real estate, wills and estates, you know, corporate, commercial, anything that somebody is doing in private practice, we cover. And so for us, knowing that there are legal publishers out there, knowing that there are claims developers, and some of them are mentioned in the, in the tech sheet we have, For us, it's always a balancing act.

101What can we go out there to hit key risks versus developing these sorts of products that will likely be developed by others? And so, you know, if you did work— if you do have a subscription to one of the litigation tools, for example, that will automatically create forms for you, those sorts of providers could consider in the future whether they can develop the motion record bare bones to start you on the right path for a Notice of Motion to get off the record, for example. So I'm not trying to punt, but at the same time, there are others who are perhaps better at developing those resources. And I would say that, you know, we're on our way.

102We have others on the access to justice side You know, not only are pro bono providers using technology and in-house departments and law firms using in-house technology, so we're not reinventing the wheel every time we see a similar fact pattern, but also, you know, in the access to justice space, we have things like Steps to Justice offered by CLEO that is using that sort of logic and allowing people to log in and create their own forms. So I think that You're right, Pulat, this is the way of much of the future of law, is being able to create the value out of the top of the pyramid and making sure that we get excellent product to clients without having to spend lawyer time on crossing T's and dotting I's and doing things that have already been done.

106So I think that you and I are again agreed that legal tech is awesome. There are real opportunities in legal tech. We have to be careful around some of them. Lawyers need to, you know, use their due diligence, which we're strong at, to make sure that we're using technology not because it's a shiny thing, but because it's actually serving a use case that we need fixed, a pain point that's being addressed. That we're doing it in ways that make sense, that are ethical, that protect client data, that where the firm has bought in, where the individuals have bought in, where staff have bought in, and all the rest of it. But I don't think we actually need LawPro in the game for this to continue because it's already vibrant.

107And because we are an insurer, that's our— that's what we do. We're not a big player, by the way, compared to banks or other insurers of particular sizes. We are— our funding is really to cover the costs of an insurance program for our insureds. That's what we do. When we look at legal tech, you can call it tech, you know, sometimes it's aimed at the legal market, sometimes it's not, and there are different categories. There's direct-to-consumer tech, there's business-to-business tech for law firms or for solos or for others, but it's a vibrant space and Canada is particularly vibrant in it. So we have the Legal Innovation Zone at Ryerson. We have innovation spaces in different forms at law schools.

108We have seed capital that is increasingly available. We see that legal tech is a growing international market. We've crossed the billion mark on venture capital funding for legal tech. And we also have massive companies, established companies, Canadian companies like Thomson Reuters, based in London and Toronto, that are there. And we have startups like ROSS, which is now not operating, but is still in litigation around the future of law. So we've got a lot of incumbents, we've got startups, we've got some that will fail, we've got some that will thrive. But it is an ecosystem that is growing. It's an ecosystem that is maturing. It's an ecosystem that is already developing solutions that are being used.

109It's also something that's been around for decades. So some of the incumbents around time management and bookkeeping, you've got PC Law, they've been around for decades. You've got Soluno out of Canada that is some of the former creators of PC Law now doing it as a SaaS. So a 2.0, but the 1.0 also works. You've got project management and, you know, law office management software, practice management software. Clio's based out of Canada. Cosmolex has come to Canada. We have a vibrant market here already. And so when we talk about tech, it's not one thing. And when we talk about legal tech, it's not one thing. And I think it's really important for lawyers to think about what their needs are first, and then think about what the solutions that are already available are, and to use those wherever possible and wherever it makes sense, wherever it's ethical, wherever it's cost-conscious.

110And a lot of that will lead to automation of tasks. I mean, you know, Calendly and Doodle are fundamental game changers for lawyers who used to have to write out on a chart on their desk who is available when, and then tear it up a week later when somebody gets their motion called on, on that weekend, and, and you go back to try to figure who's free when. But that's not a legal tech solution, and it's not a cost— it's not a significant cost to have those tools in your practice. At times you can do it for free. So yes, technology is great. Automating where possible is great. Saving time where possible is great.

111But, you know, a lot of this is going to be addressed by those in the market. And LawPro currently has a lot on its plate as it is defending and responding to claims and reducing claims. And so what we try to do is educate about the choices that fit and that are available out there. Because Pulat may not need what a 500-lawyer firm may need. But if Pulat's out on his own, we want to make sure that, you know, you're at least thinking about what can help you get to your next level and take some of that grind time off of your plate so that you can focus more on your clients and on your business development or on your free time, which is also something worth celebrating from time to time because we're busy, but we don't have to be needlessly busy.

113Well, let me say first— well, thank you for— thank you for that plug. I mean, it's great when it comes from others, and it's great to hear that we're reaching you. I will say this, I mean, we're shut down right now. We're recording in, in February 2021 for those coming from future state into this recording, but you can still reach out to the Great Library. You can still contact them. They're still out there. They're still doing great work. You have resources available. They're just available in different formats right now, and so if you need help on the legal research side, they're fantastic, and I say that uncategorically, they're just, they do great work. At the same time, yeah, things are changing rapidly.

114And so I recommend that you subscribe to our avoidacclaim.com, our blog, and that way you can see all of our updates when they get posted. But just know that we're there. And if there are questions that you have, feel free to reach out.

116Yeah, it's been a pleasure. Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity, and it's, it's great to join the show.