<![CDATA[Clifton Kok LLP Legal Counsel - ConsiderableMatters]]>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:26:34 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[A little knowledge...]]>Mon, 01 May 2017 22:52:32 GMThttp://cklegal.ca/considerablematters/a-little-knowledge So why bother with a formal education?

Believe it or not, that’s not an uncommon attitude.  There are lots of people who are suspicious of teachers and educational institutions, as well as of anyone who has received a formal education in, well, just about anything (though, if you ask them about using an unqualified mechanic or doctor – other than themselves, of course – they would probably opt for the properly trained type instead).

The famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was frustrated by formal education, and it is what he wrote after leaving academia behind that has made him most famous.  For him, “high culture” should be regarded as the better teacher.  For others, it is “real experience” or “the school of hard knocks” that really counts.  Still others like the sound of the status of being “self-taught”.

Of course, a little scepticism, even of educated and qualified professionals, is reasonable.  Everyone is just another human being who is capable of error.  But there should be little doubt that to the same extent that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” having lots of it can help reduce the risk of serious error significantly.

Often more important than mere knowledge, however, is the way in which it is gained.  One can read a book or watch a video alone and gain some knowledge by it; but what most formal educational programs usually offer, that such self-study options cannot, is the refining experience of butting up against somebody else’s perspectives.  

In our practice as lawyers to many condominium corporations, we frequently encounter both directors and other unit owners who presume their self-taught versions of condominium law are more accurate than whatever the experienced lawyers might tell them.  Some do a decent job of it – affirming the fact that intelligence is not actually measured by formal educational achievement – but others are not so much on the mark; and it is often, ironically, those characters who display the most arrogance about their ideas, perspectives and self-acquired information. 

The worst of these are the owners or directors whose pursuit of knowledge regarding condominium law has been narrowly focussed on simply justifying and supporting their private ideas or agendas.  They aren’t really interested in knowing or applying the law as it is (which, unfortunately, is not always what anyone, including us, wants it to be); they just want to find an argument to use as a hammer or a shield in the effort to get their own way.  It is in these cases that the dangers of a little knowledge are most pronounced.

Anyone whose objective in learning is simply to support, verify and justify what they think they already know, and who pursues it primarily through self-study, is most likely to come out of the experience not more educated but more entrenched, not with insight expanded but with tolerance for disagreement diminished. They will have heard what they want to hear and seen what they want to see and have done everything they can to avoid any information or opinion that might differ from their desired position.

News flash: That’s not a very good education.
 
Typically, the best education – the most valuable and enriching – is never done alone.  Just as iron sharpens iron, that educational experience is best that gives you the opportunity to hear opinions you don’t like, to learn things you didn't know, and to correct ideas you might have wrong.

Our advice to every condominium director and unit owner who wants to learn more about the law that governs their communities is as follows:  Don’t try to do it all alone, and don’t look only for those opinions that sound like your own. Instead, find others to study with, engage in discussions that challenge your perceptions, actively look for the opposite point of view, and try to sincerely understand why somebody else might think it is right. 
Post-Script

Currently, in Canada (almost country-wide), the best opportunity for condominium owners and directors to obtain this kind of education is through the courses offered by the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI). Other organizations try to compete, but few have access to the breadth of professional and non-professional experienced condominium stakeholders who are willing to share their knowledge and opinions about how condominiums work best, and none have the depth of experience and information that CCI has acquired for its courses over 35 years of serving the Canadian public.

We also note that under the recent changes to the Condominium Act, 1998 – yet to come into force – condominium directors in Ontario are going to have an obligation to be educated through one or more online government-supplied courses.  However, as an online, individually accessed resource, these likely won’t provide the opportunities and benefits that engaging in a CCI class, seminar or conference will provide. ​
]]><![CDATA[Software vs. Being Aware]]>Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:01:38 GMThttp://cklegal.ca/considerablematters/software-vs-being-awareThe trend of more than a few decades (if not over a century) has been toward replacing human activity - human work in particular - with technological innovation.  Innovation is largely invested in automation.  While that's not necessarily a bad thing, it does come with inherent risks and possible losses.

In the field of legal services, several inventions have served to make our work more profitable not only for lawyers but also for clients.  Long gone are the days when recreating a legal document required painstaking calligraphic skill, and preserving the only original signed copy was a vital aspect of preserving evidence of one's rights, title and interests.  It was not so very long ago, after typewriters had replaced quill pens, that carbon copying was replaced by photocopying, and that, in its turn, was replaced by the scanning we all now utilize with the result that an "original" document might now include a digital copy of the signed page, or even a digitally signed document.

All these and many other technological innovations have increased the speed and accuracy of legal work, and, thus, have also reduced some of the cost of particular legal activities (though we are sure it doesn't seem that way when you look at some lawyers' bills). They also allow lawyers to serve a greater number of clients, and to spend more time on learning, analyzing and applying law rather than exercising clerical skills in producing its representations on paper.

But working in this way requires some additional efforts.  Digital documents are not necessarily easier to preserve than paper ones.  Digital copies can be erased by an accidental slip of the thumb on a hand-held device.  If proper back-ups are not retained in multiple locations and accessible formats, the entire history of a transaction can be lost forever. Working through email and other electronic forms of communication also raises concerns about the protection of personal information.  (One need only look to some of the incidents relative to the 2016 US presidential campaign to see how easily email-related issues can undermine credibility and confidentiality.)  But perhaps the most significant potential loss arising on account of technological innovation in legal services, is the possible loss of the human touch.

Today, lawyers have available to them various programs that seek to make their work in particular areas of practice more efficient.  There are multiple forms of law practice management programs, from the old standard, Amicus Attorney, to the newer players including Firm Central, Jarvis Legal and Abacus Law; but of more direct impact on legal processes (rather than practice management) are specific practice area programs such as: Conveyancer, which will produce all of the documents needed to carry out and complete a residential real estate transaction; LienRight, which is intended to make condominium lien processing more accurate every time; and Dynamic Legal Documents with its "Will-o-matic Wizard", which they advertise with the slogan, "Why pay $400 for a simple will from a lawyer?"  Why indeed?  Well, to answer that particular question, I'll turn you toward our Estates Nutshell blog, in which the intricacies and various considerations necessary for ensuring the will you make is right for you are discussed in some detail. 

The fact is that whatever programs are used, there is never enough information available through current artificial intelligence to match or replace the insights that one-to-one dialogue with a living lawyer can provide.

Our office uses Conveyancer, for example, to simplify our real estate transactions; but the documents it produces by default are almost never the ones we prefer to use.  Any experienced real estate lawyer or clerk will tell you that every transaction is in some ways unique, and every time we produce documents for one of them, we have to consider what changes should be made to suit it.  

Likewise with condominium liens.  Though we handle numerous liens for many condominium clients, we have not bought into any lien processing software.  Although much of lien work is somewhat automatic, there is always an element of reasoning that has to be involved.  Otherwise, there is a significant risk that lien processes can be initiated in improper circumstances, such as where the basis for the lien is not actually a legal common expense, or in cases where there are other more viable and appropriate means of resolving the situation in the best interest of the client condominium and its unit owners that, at this stage in history at least, only human intelligence may be able to perceive.

It might seem stylish to advertise an automated process - it might even give clients a sense of security or confidence, but that is based on the illusion that automation ensures accuracy every time.  For our part, we prefer to practice law on the personal level.  We think it makes our practice better, and our experience is that it makes it more likely that the outcomes we achieve are the most appropriate for the people we are serving. 
]]>