The Biz-Ification of Law

“Aggressive markets will not be a lot enjoyable for sellers” – Richard Posner It’s widespread information that the billable hour is holding again the occupation. Moreover, it’s clear that skilled conduct guidelines insulate attorneys, stop different professionals from getting concerned, and stifle innovation. But, regardless of the billable hour nonetheless going sturdy and no adjustments in skilled conduct guidelines, we’re seeing an unprecedented increase in modern authorized providers. It seems like one thing larger should be occurring. Market cycles Whereas the literal quantity of attorneys stays a vital issue, extra essential is its ratio to finance, insurance coverage, and actual property (“FIRE”) employment. When banks and insurance coverage corporations lend extra money, when companies and people insure in opposition to extra threat, and when actual property transactions develop, attorneys have loads of work. As you possibly can see within the chart beneath, for a very long time the expansion in lawyer numbers didn’t stray removed from the ratio of about 9.43 FIRE staff (or the purchasers of authorized providers they symbolize) for each lawyer: Though folks typically complain about attorneys being insulated from competitors it’s fairly clear that, for fairly some time, attorneys usually didn’t stray too removed from the remaining of the economic system. The provide and demand cycle functioned how one would anticipate: “As extra authorized work turned accessible, extra folks determined to go to legislation college. As extra attorneys turned accessible, the worth of their providers declined”. If this cycle had been all that occurred, we should always anticipate the rising flurry of innovation to ultimately go away. Because the market corrected itself, issues would ultimately shift again right into a sellers’ market. Nevertheless, the ocean change that truly seems to be occurring appears outdoors the bounds of these typical market cycles. Biz-ification A big improve within the provide of attorneys ought to result in the market correcting by supplying fewer attorneys. However what occurs when legislation colleges continue to grow and new ones pop up whereas we’re already in a consumers’ market, and the demand for authorized providers slows down? The ensuing lawyer logjam has led to excessive oversupply. Because the market worth of attorneys has diminished, we haven’t seen a corresponding discount within the quantity of attorneys. Though legislation the authorized job market started to stagnate earlier than the 2008 recession, new attorneys stored getting licenses. Finally, the ratio turned so totally different for thus lengthy that the market began to regulate to a brand new regular. The quantity of authorized jobs at all times fluctuates, however now the very nature of authorized jobs is altering. The time period “lawyer” continues to balkanize. And even when guidelines round self-regulation had used to maintain entry to authorized providers a scarce useful resource, there at the moment are too many attorneys doing too many alternative issues for such guidelines to be efficient. As we transfer from a “occupation” to an “business”, now we have entered “the biz-ification of legislation.” Loss of market energy Attorneys who weren’t in companies moved into three areas which have every pushed this biz-ification: in-house authorized departments, authorized out-sourcing corporations (and ALSPs), and authorized tech. First, in-house attorneys propelled the biz-ification of legislation by massively reducing the fee and threat of switching companies. Corporations used to depend on legislation companies to (1) diagnose what authorized providers they want, and (2) guarantee the standard (each pre- and post-purchase) of the authorized providers they obtained. As a result of of these info asymmetries, purchasing round for a greater value was not well worth the threat of shedding a dependable legislation agency (type of like discovering a very good mechanic). Full service companies advanced as a strategy to accommodate their purchasers’ issues towards switching by effectively monitoring referrals to specialised attorneys. But when corporations started to deliver extra attorneys in-house, they internalized theses prognosis and high quality management features. Lengthy-term relationships turned much less essential – they had been now extra of a pleasant to have and fewer a technique of managing one’s authorized wants. Corporations had acquired the flexibility to observe the work of outdoors counsel, [1] which enabled them to cut price over value. That capacity not solely drove costs down, it massively modified the market’s dynamics. In-house counsels started to pick their very own specialists. The rule turned to rent attorneys, not companies. Some giant corporations have used as many as 700 legislation companies at one time. Take a minute to consider that stat. Now take into consideration the ability such an organization will need to have to then minimize ties with 680 of these companies in simply six months. That requires cancelling relationships with 113 companies each month. That’s the excessive energy of only one (very giant) firm. It will get even worse for personal observe when you think about that the quantity of in-house attorneys has tripled since 1997. It’s not an exaggeration to explain the present in-house revolution as tantamount to the “elimination” of attorneys’ market energy. Second, even after the enlargement of in-house authorized departments there are nonetheless simply so many attorneys. This lawyer glut fueled the primary wave of authorized outsourcing (e.g. doc reviewers for eDiscovery). It additionally provides attorneys to ALSPs. As consumers get much more choices, it additional dilutes the market energy of legislation companies. Lastly, many former attorneys have determined that, in the event that they’re already resigned to working lawyer-esque lengthy hours, they could as nicely have a stake within the total success of what they’re working towards from the beginning. As extra folks be part of authorized tech corporations, they bring about with them the required experience to coach AI programs, additional complicating life for legislation companies. The obligatory elements for attorneys to keep up their id as autonomous craftsmen have gone away. Although the beneath two graphs don’t cowl the identical time span, they do reinforce the significance that the provision/demand ratio has on the authorized occupation. I believe that the hole between attorneys and FIRE staff has continued to widen. And I’m assured that the extra the inhabitants of in-house attorneys grows, the much less market energy legislation companies can have. A structural shift The quantity of attorneys stored rising far past what a typical market cycle may maintain. There’s nobody trigger: maybe as a result of of a tragedy of the commons (legislation colleges and legislation societies are each being incentivized to develop the quantity of attorneys), or the provision/demand suggestions loop turned too delayed. Regardless, excessive oversupply pressured attorneys to search out jobs outdoors of legislation companies, taking salaries that authorized departments or authorized corporations had been prepared to pay. By internalizing diagnostic and high quality management features, corporations lowered the fee of switching sufficient to drive the biz-ification of legislation. The present adjustments within the authorized occupation will not be merely one other consumers’ market. Law companies look like caught flat-footed. However it’s onerous accountable them, given we’re witnessing an unprecedented structural shift. In fact, lowered switching prices for corporations has made legislation extra transactional, however what else? As companies acquire extra market energy, they are going to proceed to demand extra from their authorized suppliers. As an alternative fixing authorized issues, companies will need attorneys to unravel “enterprise challenges that increase authorized points.” This would possibly really feel like semantics, it’s price pondering of the rising quantity of corporations creating strategic accomplice packages to do exactly that. It’s additionally price fascinated by how a lot market energy purchasers should now have to have the ability to pull competing legislation companies right into a room and have them cooperate. Not solely will the authorized providers market change, however the authorized job market will change as nicely. The historic continuum from attorneys as generalists, to specialists, to undertaking managers will proceed to splinter into new titles akin to authorized information engineer, authorized technologist, authorized threat supervisor, and so on. The id of what it means to be a lawyer will change into extra amorphous, making it tougher to manage. With out the market energy to withstand it, authorized work will change into extra multi-disciplinary. The shift towards multi-disciplinarity exhibits up in “attorneys who code” debates and the truth that extra folks than ever are going to legislation college to not change into attorneys, however to “purchase transferrable expertise”. Lastly, authorized regulators will battle to remain related. Guidelines supposed to guard consumers of authorized providers don’t appear to matter as a lot when the most important consumers have already dropped any issues over non-lawyer possession in favour of ALSPs. Law companies themselves appear to be much less involved over sustaining a conventional partnership mannequin as they add on roles akin to VP and CTO. Attorneys who really feel constrained by the foundations have already discovered methods round them, simply ask one Atrium co-founder: “[deregulation] has no influence on something I take into consideration.” And what do you do about folks like Josh Browder who, regardless of having no authorized coaching, is getting folks out of parking tickets along with his app? Authorized regulatory our bodies are already being pressured to evolve and are exploring methods to take care of their altering function by way of regulatory sandboxes, commissioning experiences, or making an attempt to develop their scope. What to do about it? For starters, I wouldn’t put a lot confidence in professionalism guidelines defending your observe. As one investor put it, “the market will proceed to chip away at each half of a legislation agency that’s not the pure provision of authorized recommendation.” As a result of of excessive oversupply, any competitors that had been dammed up by “non-lawyer” guidelines has now flowed proper over prime of it. Based on Clayton Christensen, there three potential methods that legislation companies may use. Technique #1 in all probability received’t work, which is to make use of advertising and marketing in order that prospects’ demand the efficiency enhancements that you would be able to present. GC purchasers are refined consumers they usually have fixed stress to decrease their authorized spend, so I’d be stunned if a legislation agency may persuade them that they want extra authorized providers. Both of the remaining two, “consciously pursued, may be profitable,” although each require robust selections. Technique #2 would retain the options of a typical legislation agency. Christensen’s recommendation is to “ascend sustaining tech into even increased tiers”. For legislation companies this implies discovering new areas of enterprise or expertise that can deliver new authorized issues with them. We see this technique within the rising recognition of niches. The problem with this technique is that the agency should “in the end [abandon] lower-tier prospects” as these observe areas mature. Technique #three is for individuals who need to march in lock-step with the given wants of their present prospects. Christensen warns that “traditionally, this seems to have been troublesome to do.” Certainly, David Maister additionally warns that following a observe space down its life cycle requires “reworking the elemental nature of [the] agency.” The sources required for constructing better experience and for constructing better effectivity don’t align; and doing each beneath one roof will make it troublesome to keep up a constant firm picture. To deal with these difficulties, some companies have created off-shoots akin to Osler Works or Seyfarth Lean. Conclusion From the 1930s to 50s, legislation was a consumers’ market and almost all billing strategies had been worth primarily based. Because the economic system started to develop within the 1960s, way more authorized work turned accessible and we entered a sellers’ market. When the economic system slowed down, the quantity of attorneys didn’t decelerate with it. Oversupply was compounded by shrinking demand for authorized providers and still-growing legislation colleges. Finally, the worth of attorneys dropped sufficient to entice attorneys into in-house roles, out-sourcing corporations, and beginning corporations. These reactions to oversupply have precipitated a structural shift out there for authorized providers, altering it from a occupation to an business – what I name the “biz-ification” of legislation. The billable hour, the partnership mannequin, and rules over …

Data compliance goes global

As in-house counsel for Shopify, Vivek Narayanadas has to navigate a always altering panorama relating to privateness and knowledge safety legal guidelines around the globe. The key, he says, is to look to the longer term. “Being a privateness skilled, particularly proper now, is a component fortune teller, half crystal ball teller,” says Narayanadas, affiliate basic counsel privateness and knowledge safety officer for one in every of Canada’s fastest-growing e-commerce firms. “You simply must have a finger on the heart beat — not solely of what the legislation says now. You actually must have a way of the place it’s going as a result of your product groups don’t actually admire having to revisit selections that you simply made six months in the past simply because a brand new legislation simply got here into impact.” Within the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Europe’s adoption of the Normal Data Safety Regulation, privateness and knowledge safety legal guidelines around the globe have been multiplying at a dizzying charge — a lot of them with extraterritorial purposes and all with considerably completely different provisions. South of the border, the California Shopper Privateness Act is scheduled to enter impact on Jan. 1, 2020. In the meantime, a number of different states are within the means of adopting their very own privateness legal guidelines and there are initiatives on the U.S. federal degree as effectively. Brazil has adopted a Normal Data Safety Regulation that goes into impact in early 2020. Total, in keeping with the United Nations Convention on Commerce and Growth, 107 international locations now have on-line knowledge safety and privateness legal guidelines whereas others have launched draft laws. “It’s a significantly difficult time on the planet of information safety and privateness legal guidelines,” says Michael Scherman, an affiliate at McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s know-how legislation group. However with change and problem comes alternative for attorneys throughout Canada who specialise in privateness legislation. Elisa Henry, a accomplice with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, says privateness and cybersecurity legislation are the fastest-growing areas for her agency. Constructing that observe is one in every of its strategic priorities. “I believe attorneys who’re capable of advise on GDPR as a result of they’re certified to advise on the GDPR have seen a giant improve within the demand for his or her providers and, in consequence, typically, by elevating GDPR sort inquiries to your shoppers, you find yourself realizing that they have been not likely in compliance with Canadian requirements. “The attention triggered by the GDPR additionally triggered extra session and extra advisory work on our finish on Canadian legislation, too.” One place the place there was little change in privateness laws has been Canada. Federal Privateness Commissioner Daniel Therrien has referred to as for amendments to modernize the Private Info Safety and Digital Paperwork Act. The legislation, which governs private-sector privateness, hasn’t been considerably up to date because it was adopted in 2000. In late Could, Navdeep Bains, the minister answerable for innovation, science and financial growth, unveiled the federal government’s Digital Constitution — a sequence of ideas to information modifications to Canada’s federal privateness legal guidelines. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s authorities shouldn’t be anticipated to desk concrete laws or rules earlier than the following federal election in October. Within the absence of legislative change, Therrien has been doing what he can. In April, prompted by his workplace’s investigation into a knowledge breach by Equifax, he launched a session right into a proposed reinterpretation of PIPEDA to require consent for an organization to switch a person’s personal info exterior Canada for processing. In late Could, solely days after the federal government unveiled its digital constitution, Therrien introduced he was suspending — however not cancelling — his session into cross-border knowledge flows. “The historic OPC place gave nice weight to the accountability precept in defending privateness in a transborder context,” Therrien advised a convention of privateness professionals in Toronto. “But, we have now seen in Equifax that this precept, as at present framed, doesn’t all the time present efficient safety. Throughout our investigation, Equifax officers had problem answering fundamental questions as to who was answerable for their shoppers’ private info as between the Canadian and U.S. associates.” Scherman says firms have been relying for a decade on the prevailing steering that transferring knowledge to a 3rd occasion for processing didn’t require extra consent. He says Therrien’s proposed change actually threw “the business right into a little bit of a panic.” “Getting a consent to an act is a really difficult matter — particularly whenever you’re not doing it on the time of assortment,” Scherman says. “Acquiring the consent afterwards could be an unbelievable, labour-intensive act. So, going again to all of your present clients and probably having to request that consent might be very important.” The largest change on the worldwide privateness legislation panorama has been the GDPR, which is taken into account by many to be the brand new gold normal in privateness regulation because it took impact in Could 2018. It outlines guidelines for dealing with the personal info of European residents and backs them up with the prospect of stiff fines — as much as 20 million euros or 4 per cent of an organization’s worldwide annual income for the earlier yr, whichever is increased. Any firm around the globe that breaks the principles can face fines — even when it has no institution in Europe. One of many GDPR’s key measures is privateness by design — an idea developed by former Ontario privateness commissioner Ann Cavoukian. Privateness by design requires privateness concerns to be included from the beginning. Beneath the GDPR, firms should notify affected clients inside 72 hours of turning into conscious of a knowledge breach. Consent to make use of somebody’s info should be obtained utilizing clear language. European residents can withdraw their consent or ask to see their info that an organization has collected. They will take their knowledge with them in the event that they swap to a different firm. The GDPR additionally contains the precise to be forgotten, which permits a person to ask for details about them to be erased. The GDPR has been prompting different international locations to beef up their very own privateness safety regimes. Up to now yr, European knowledge safety authorities have been energetic, issuing orders and levying fines, says Henry. “We’ve seen plenty of exercise coming from the French CNIL with the Google determination — the 50-million-euro superb towards Google by the French knowledge safety authority. The Germans even have been very energetic. The ICO within the U.Ok. has been very energetic and the Dutch DPA has been very energetic. “Northwestern Europe has been very energetic total.” Within the U.S., the Worldwide Affiliation of Privateness Professionals has recognized 14 states, together with California, the place privateness safety laws has been proposed or adopted. Kelsey Finch, a Seattle-based senior coverage counsel for the Way forward for Privateness Discussion board, says the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the GDPR have prompted large modifications. “I believe plenty of it’s a response to the GDPR and plenty of our multinationals having to do the compliance work to return into compliance with that after which wanting round and saying, you realize what — it doesn’t make sense to supply two completely different regimes and two completely different units of privateness rights to people within the EU versus within the U.S. We’ll simply roll it out all over the place.” Historically, the precept privateness safety within the U.S. has been the Federal Commerce Fee, which has the ability to guard customers and penalize misleading or unfair practices. The company fined Google US$22.5 million in 2012 for what it advised customers about the way in which its instruments tracked them. It has been negotiating a settlement with Fb over the Cambridge Analytica scandal that’s anticipated to run into the billions. However Finch says there was a multiplication of privateness laws being launched throughout the U.S., beginning with California’s legislation, which was adopted as a poll initiative. “We’re seeing the states stepping in, fairly actively and fairly rapidly and taking up plenty of completely different approaches. We’re seeing federal proposals begin to emerge as effectively, though that’s slightly bit slower.” Finch says she is seeing a variety of proposed privateness laws — from algorithmic accountability and the usage of biometrics equivalent to facial recognition to greater than 400 completely different scholar privateness payments. On the municipal degree, she is beginning to see surveillance ordinances. Nonetheless, Finch says there’s additionally a draw back to the prospect of getting so many various legal guidelines being proposed throughout the U.S. “It’s actually arduous to have 50 completely different legal guidelines apply and it’s actually tough for folks to adjust to 50 completely different legal guidelines on how you can get consent and how you can course of knowledge and what sort of notices to provide. “I believe that buyers would get a sure degree of fatigue. If each time you accessed a web site from a distinct state you needed to undergo a distinct course of, I believe people would get sick of that fairly quick.” Henry can be watching the varied proposed privateness legal guidelines throughout the U.S. and around the globe. “Following the Californian pattern, the federal laws within the U.S. is a bit gradual, however we noticed now laws popping out of Washington, out of Massachusetts, of Utah, of Vermont. So, completely different states — and it’s actually the state legislators which can be very energetic in that area within the U.S. as a result of a federal legislation will take a very long time, if ever, to be adopted — [are] actually pushing for client knowledge safety and restriction to authorities entry to knowledge. “So, we see that as a significant pattern, and elsewhere, we noticed Brazil adopting its basic knowledge safety legislation that’s similar to the GDPR and that applies to any firm that provides providers to the Brazilian market. “Actually, it’s a global pattern.” Melanie McNaught, a accomplice with Toronto-based Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP, says the various privateness legal guidelines around the globe can even pose a problem on the employment entrance. Canadian firms might discover themselves topic to privateness legal guidelines in different international locations as a result of that’s the place an worker has chosen to work. “Individuals can work from anyplace now. So, you may need a teleworker they usually may be working from Europe after which the query arises, as a result of they’re located in Europe, are they now topic to the GDPR, whereas, in a month, perhaps they’ll be in Thailand or elsewhere. “The workforce is more and more cellular and private info is extraordinarily cellular.” One pattern privateness legislation specialists like Henry are seeing is worldwide privateness legal guidelines turning into a part of company due diligence. She says firms within the EU or the U.S. are asking Canadian companies for proof they adjust to sure privateness regimes earlier than they’ll rent them. “Increasingly more, you see vendor due diligence carried out by massive firms who, earlier than they contract with you, make it possible for your privateness infrastructure is strong sufficient to not put them in danger. “So, these inquiries, these questions from shoppers, mainly, push them to undertake and to enhance no matter framework they’d in place.” Henry says a lot of the demand for authorized providers up till now has been on the advisory degree — shoppers making an attempt to find out whether or not varied privateness legal guidelines in several international locations apply to them and how you can comply. Nonetheless, Henry expects to start out seeing pushback in coming months as firms problem the flexibility of regulators to implement privateness legal guidelines in international locations the place an organization doesn’t have an institution. “I believe the litigators, additionally, will likely be busy quickly.” Because it will get extra sophisticated to adjust to privateness legal guidelines that change from one nation to a different, some …

On Second Thought… an Administrative Tribunal’s Common Law Ability to Reconsider Its Decisions

An acquaintance of mine just lately accused me of being an “knowledgeable” on administrative legislation now that I’ve been usually writing on the subject. His alternative of phrases, not mine. Right or not, I took it as a complement. Then, primarily based upon his misguided perception, he put an fascinating query to me, which supplied with some inspiration for this text. The query associated to an unspecified administrative tribunal with no statutory attraction provision and no statutory reconsideration provision. Apparently, the tribunal found that it had made a demonstrable and embarrassing denial of pure justice, failing to invite submissions on a jurisdictional query, ensuing within the dismissal of the matter earlier than it. On this situation, the tribunal knew that the applicant was unlikely to request judicial assessment. The query: might the executive tribunal apply for judicial assessment of its personal determination, or apply for standing to accomplish that, as it’s the solely viable means to right a identified error? The grounds can be {that a} failure to rehear the matter would carry the administration of justice and the fame of the tribunal into disrepute. I requested my acquaintance if this was a legislation college examination query. I definitely appeared like a legislation college examination query. I used to be assured that it was an actual world drawback. I can’t consider a case involving an administrative tribunal initiating a judicial assessment continuing in order that it might revisit one among its personal choices. I additionally can’t consider a scenario by which a court docket would enable it to accomplish that. Normally, the query is whether or not an administrative company has standing to take part in a judicial assessment of its personal determination, commenced by another get together. In that regard, the courts have been traditionally restrictive, notably following the choice in Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. v. Edmonton, [1979] 1 SCR 684, though the restrictiveness of that case has been tempered by Ontario (Vitality Board) v. Ontario Energy Technology Inc., [2015] three SCR 147. The executive company’s potential to take part might also be set out in its governing laws. At most, the one judicial course of to which a tribunal can avail itself is the acknowledged case, by which an administrative company could ask the court docket to resolve some extent of legislation that’s crucial to resolve to ensure that the company to decide a matter that’s earlier than it. Nonetheless, an administrative company can solely ask a court docket to tackle a acknowledged case if the company has statutory authority to accomplish that. Furthermore, as a acknowledged case is just meant to resolve questions of legislation, it will not function a method for a tribunal to get hold of any type of order directing it to rethink one among its personal choices. In any other case, the probably course of would contain a standard legislation proper of reconsideration, particularly if the tribunal’s governing statute doesn’t have any assessment, reconsideration, or attraction provisions. I directed my colleague to take a look at Chandler v. Alberta Affiliation of Architects, [1989] 2 SCR 848. In that case, the bulk famous that absent statutory authority, the final rule is that after an administrative tribunal has reached a ultimate determination on a matter, the tribunal can’t revisit the choice as a result of it has modified its thoughts, made an error inside its jurisdiction, or as a result of there was a change of circumstances. In any other case, the tribunal could solely accomplish that if there was a slip in drawing up the choice or an error in expressing the manifest intention of the tribunal. That is based upon the coverage floor that favours finality of proceedings. Nonetheless, the court docket acknowledged that the tribunal’s mandate could not have expired if it makes an error as a result of it acted exterior of its jurisdiction or statutory authority, failed to discharge its obligation, or in any other case fulfill its function. For these of you who benefit from the Law Latin1, in such instances the tribunal wouldn’t be functus officio. In Chandler, the bulk discovered that the tribunal in that case had performed a legitimate listening to, however then issued a call that was a nullity. The court docket acknowledged that, historically, a tribunal that makes a dedication which is a nullity is permitted to rethink the matter afresh and render a legitimate determination. In Fraser Well being Authority v. Staff’ Compensation Enchantment Tribunal, 2014 BCCA 499, the bulk adopted the ideas in Chander, in addition to Powell Property v. Staff’ Compensation Board, 2003 BCCA 470 and confirmed {that a} tribunal’s frequent legislation proper to rethink an in any other case ultimate determination was restricted to circumstances by which it had acted exterior its jurisdiction. The bulk mentioned that the authority to right a jurisdictional error didn’t prolong as far as to enable a tribunal to rethink its personal determination primarily based upon its personal dedication that the choice was patently unreasonable. (Keep in mind, British Columbia preserved that customary of assessment by statute. Take that, Dunsmuir.) The bulk mentioned that the “jurisdiction” referred to in Chandler relates to what Dunsmuir referred to as a matter of “true jurisdiction”. A call that could be patently unreasonable is just not on par with a call that exceeds a tribunal’s jurisdiction. In a really transient evaluation, the vast majority of the SCC in British Columbia (Staff’ Compensation Enchantment Tribunal) v. Fraser Well being Authority, [2016] 1 SCR 587, 2016 SCC 25 confirmed the BCCA determination on this level. Returning to my colleague’s query, with out additional element evidently the situation he described fell throughout the circumstances described in Chandler. If the tribunal acted in a fashion that denied pure justice and resulted in a call that was an error of true jurisdiction, the entire continuing could have been vitiated, requiring the tribunal to begin anew to remedy the defect. As for the defect in my colleague’s opinion of my experience, I see no cause to remedy him of the phantasm. ___________ 1 I’ll warning these of you who do. My spouse, who studied Latin for a few years, finds Law Latin comically amusing, notably the way in which attorneys pronounce the phrases. On Second Thought… an Administrative Tribunal’s Common Law Ability to Reconsider Its Decisions

Friday Jobs Roundup

Every Friday, we share the most recent job listings from Slaw Jobs, which options employment alternatives from throughout the nation. Discover out extra about these positions by following the hyperlinks beneath, or find out how you should use Slaw Jobs to realize precious publicity in your job adverts, whereas supporting the good Canadian authorized commentary at Slaw.ca. Present postings on Slaw Jobs (latest first): http://www.slaw.ca/2019/06/21/friday-jobs-roundup-2/