Skip to content

LPP students make pitch for change

Lawyer in training vie for prizes in access to justice innovation challenge
|Written By Yamri Taddese

It was the Dragons’ Den of legal services. But instead of luring venture capitalists with the prospect of hefty profits, seven groups of students in Ryerson University’s Law Practice Program had to convince judges their ideas would make legal services faster, cheaper, and more effective.

LPP students Joshua D’Cunha, S.M. Karim, Zoma Ogbonna, and Malik Suliman pitch their winning idea. Photo: Yamri Taddese

It was an innovation challenge for greater access to justice and the students had just five minutes to make their pitch. Four judges, including Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur and Law Society of Upper Canada Treasurer Janet Minor, had another five minutes for tough questions.

The prize? A meeting and lunch date with Ontario Chief Justice George Strathy, who would talk to the students about where their ideas could go.

The winning idea? A web-based crowdfunding campaign that would draw from the expertise of volunteer professionals and the generosity of a socially conscious public.

It’s sort of an extension of the now scrapped Court Challenges Program, which provided financial assistance for important court cases. Only a small remnant of that program now remains after cuts by the federal government.

The students’ proposal would see people who have human rights or Charter-related claims retain a lawyer, and through the web initiative, be connected with a host of other professionals, including other lawyers, who would offer their expertise in exchange for continuing professional development credits.

Students Joshua D’Cunha, S.M. Karim, Zoma Ogbonna, and Malik Suliman also say the campaign would involve crowdfunding to foot the bill of the main counsel representing the litigant.

“People who are discriminated against are often people who don’t have a lot of money,” Ogbonna tells Law Times.

The students say the proposal, dubbed the New Court Challenges Program, would bring to light important matters related to race and ethnicity, disability advocacy, aboriginal claims, and sex and sexual orientation issues.

“Yes, it is goodwill funding but in a myriad of different ways,” said D’Cunha during their pitch. “Yes, we are asking people to donate their money but we are also asking lawyers, advocacy groups, professionals, and concerned citizens to donate their time, expertise, and efforts,” he said.

The judges were sold.

“We thought there must be something to crowdfunding — it worked for Obama,” said Minor during the winners’ announcement at a reception following the competition on Dec. 17. “We thought that, in fact, it was reasonably doable and a very interesting concept.”

The judges also gave a special mention to another group, which proposed a web-based platform to help litigants narrow their legal matter through a series of questions. Once the issue was identified, users would be able to connect to lawyers, mediators, and arbitrators on the same platform, according to students Temitayo Adesanya, Fese Elango, Sean Lal, and Ravinder Rai.

The majority of the pitches involved some type of help for self-represented litigants, leading one of the judges, Michael Carter of the Ryerson Digital Media Zone, to wonder aloud if the students were intending to put themselves out of the market.

Take for example the group that proposed a YouTube-like app that would use videos to train self-reps on the steps they need to take in order to, say, get a divorce. The group behind this idea said the free app would also allow users to connect with a lawyer via a webcast for an additional fee.

Another pitch offered an online service called LegalShephard.ca, where lawyers would bid each other down to take on a case described by a potential client. The web site would have a way of rating the services of the lawyer, something one of the judges, family lawyer Judith Huddart, said makes lawyers “nervous.”

Minor chimed in with a similar concern, noting the law society often gets completely meritless complaints about lawyers.

A lawyer who attended the event says she thought it was “heartbreaking” that much of the web-based ideas involved what she called a race to the bottom.

“The participants in the program are actually the ones I think who will be pulling the short straw here because they’re the ones who are going to be racing each other to the bottom if any of these eBay-type proposals were taken up,” says the lawyer, who did not want to be identified by name.

“They’re the ones who can’t get employment. I’m not going to put that in anything other than what it is — they didn’t get articling positions,” she adds.

The lawyer also said while innovative ideas are helpful, she worries some of these ideas may shift the responsibility of doing more for access to justice to individuals rather than governments.

“Frankly, this sort of gets the government off the hook as we move ever toward privatization of the responsibility for access to justice,” she says.

In a way, the complexity of creating viable solutions, including the need to innovate in a way that sustains the industry, represents the bigger challenge the legal profession faces. These complexities may also explain why the legal profession has been tardy in its move with the times.

Still, former attorney general Chris Bentley, now the executive director of the LPP at Ryerson, told the students not to be discouraged.

“Do not for a moment, not for a nanosecond, be deterred by the questions that are posed,” he told them. “Leadership is about taking the questions and finding the answer to yes. Your job as a lawyer begins when somebody says, ‘No,’ because if everybody says, ‘Yes,’ they’re not going to need you.”  

All participating students were a part of the first cohort at Ryerson’s articling-alternative LPP program. The law society approved it in 2012 following a heated debate around concerns with creating what some feel will become a two-tier system.

As of mid-November, Ryerson had secured 227 placements for its LPP students and of those 91 are paid, 73 are unpaid, and the issue of payment has not yet been determined for the remaining 63 placements, according to a report for Convocation in November. Meanwhile, the University of Ottawa, the other LPP provider, has 19 candidates and has secured paid placements for every student.

  • Relax Folks
    All the "race to the bottom" criticism of these student's ideas seem to fail to realise that this result was implicit in the assignment to make practice of the law "faster and cheaper" (assuming this article is correct that this was the assignment). Let's question those who put this forward as the goal, not the students who delivered the innovative products.
  • Canadian Law Student
    This absolutely disgusting. We already had two pro-bono/access to justice conventions in Regina, Saskatchewan and Windsor, Ontario. There are so many intelligent, motivated, and hardworking groups of people doing incredible things in the field of access to justice and here is an article focusing on a group of LPP students with some god awful and unsustainable ideas. It is so clear that these students have no ideas what issues are involved with Access to Justice. What lawyer would want to work because they are the lowest bidder? Why can't Chief Justice George Strathy met with some of the people out there who have dedicated their lives to Access to Justice and hear their ideas out? Why can't we support current tested and working Access to Justice programs? This just seems like a way to help glorify the LPP program with no incentive of actually progressing the Access to Justice agenda in Ontario.
    -Not Impressed
  • Malik Suliman
    The LPP is a fresh air in the legal profession. With due apologize, it is not designed to fail but to strengthen the beleaguered legal system in Ontario.

    Through this program, students are trained in the seven different areas of law from beginning to the closing. Student from all over the Canada and abroad had the opportunity to work in harmony and benefit from their multidisciplinary experience.

    Students graduated from this program will break a new ground in the field of legal profession. It will be highly injustice to criticize this program without waiting its results and impacts on justice system.
  • Bob Smith
    [quote name="Malik Suliman"]
    Students graduated from this program will break a new ground in the field of legal profession. It will be highly injustice to criticize this program without waiting its results and impacts on justice system.[/quote]

    If we should hold off criticizing the LPP program until we see results, surely it would make sense to hold off on making facially silly comments like "students graduated (sic) from this program will break a new ground (sic) in the field of legal profession" for the same reason." They may turn out to be collosal failures.

    Certainly, one would have good reasons to expect a program designed to train those students who, for whatever reason, are unemployable in traditional articling positions to produce a disproportionate number of adverse results. Some people can't find articling positions for a reason.
  • Sam Altman
    The lawyer in the article who commented on the race to the bottom got it spot on.

    Access to justice via crowd funding is a sad and perverse joke on the legal system. It will not come close to meeting demand, or fulfilling genuine needs of the public. It will no doubt be grabbed by the government as an idea they can use for window dressing.

    Going through the LPP is now a career killer, you are branded as a second rate student who couldn't get articles. Universities profit from law students so they admit far more students than the market can bear. After collecting tuition and granting the degree, they leave them to flounder when the phony promises of admission are seen in reality.
  • Jason Currie
    The LPP is a scarlet letter that's designed to fail. Lawyers already in the field won't want anything to do with these students. It also created a lot of resentment between LPP students and those with articles because the cost of the program was dumped on everyone through their licensing process fees. They've almost doubled in the past four years. A lot of lawyers, including me, argued that the cost should be spread among the profession since we're the ones benefiting most from having better-prepared colleagues.
  • Patrick Chan
    "Lawyers already in the field won't want anything to do with these students." I beg to disagree with your statement. Getting acquainted with the LPP will make you realize that "guaranteed legal related task" were given to the LPP participants,unlike the traditional legal articling students who must do all kinds of "task" beneficial to their principal including but not limited to doing personal errands.

    It's not designed to fail, but an alternative pathway to the LSUC.

    As what was told, when you will appear in court it's not the lawyer who will standout but the case itself. Credentials will just be an embellishment, but not a requirement.
  • Lauren Stringer
    Sam, you are so right about this. Not surprising that the "judges" chose as a winner the crowd funded campaign with a zero cost to the government. And they liked the idea of lawyers bidding each other down. Imagine the quality of legal service from the lowest bidder. Only the absolute bottom would even put in a bid I suspect. So sad.
cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


It's unknown how widely police in Ontario utilize controversial surveillance techniques that can capture private data from non-targets in criminal investigations. Do you think there should be formal requirements to release this information?
RESULTS ❯