Favors regulation grounded in public protection and the realities of running a practice. Its relevance to regulatory burden in independent and smaller firms is inferred; no size-specific compliance relief is proposed.
Topic 3 of 5
Regulatory Burden
Regulatory Burden on Solo and Small Firm
Positions from 7 of 38 candidates
What this topic covers: The demands and implementation of professional regulation for sole practitioners and small firms, including proportionate safeguards and support for compliance. More on this topic
Position summaries interpret each candidate's statements. They aren't the candidates' own words and haven't been endorsed by them. How positions are assessed
Candidate positions on Regulatory Burden on Solo and Small Firm
-
Rabie Ahmed
Full profile for Rabie AhmedEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
I am seeking election as a Bencher because I believe the profession is strongest when its regulation reflects both the public interest and the realities of modern legal practice.
Operating and growing a law firm has also given me a direct appreciation of the challenges faced by lawyers in practice: managing staff, technology, financial pressures, client expectations, professional obligations and access-to-justice concerns, while maintaining the standards the public is entitled to expect from the profession.
The stated regulatory principle is read alongside the discussion of firm management, financial pressures and professional obligations. Its application to solo and small-firm regulatory burden is inferred.
What this doesn't show
- The statement does not identify firm size, a fee reduction, a removed requirement or a particular compliance reform.
-
Saqib Javaid
Supports fair, transparent and proportionate regulation informed by firms of every size, expressly recognizing the cost and effort of trust accounting, audits, insurance and compliance without a large back office.
Full profile for Saqib JavaidEvidence and limits
Explicit · Policy principle, Issue recognition. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
I manage trust accounting, audits, insurance, billing and compliance myself, without a large back office. That daily experience has given me a practical understanding of the responsibilities lawyers carry for client funds, client confidentiality and risk, and of the cost and effort of meeting them in an independent practice.
Effective regulation requires sound judgment, fairness, transparency and proportionality. It requires an understanding of the practical realities faced by lawyers in firms of every size, and by the clients and members of the public who rely on them.
The statement expressly joins a proportionality principle, firm-size differences and the practical compliance burden of an independent practice.
What this doesn't show
- No specific obligation is proposed for removal, and no reduction in public protection is advocated.
-
Afshan Naveed, KC
Supports regulation that is fair to lawyers, proportionate to risk and deserving of public trust. Its relevance to solo and small-firm burden is inferred; no practice-size policy is proposed.
Full profile for Afshan Naveed, KCEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
This work has reinforced for me that effective regulation must be fair to lawyers, proportionate to risk and worthy of the public’s trust.
Risk-proportionate regulation is explicit. A specific position on the burdens of smaller practices is not.
What this doesn't show
- No particular compliance requirement, fee or safeguard is identified for change.
-
Kate Andrews
Favors practical regulation informed by different practice settings, including the pressures on smaller firms. The relevance to regulatory burden is inferred; no particular requirement or cost is targeted.
Full profile for Kate AndrewsEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
It is critical that a modern Bencher table include a variety of perspectives and experiences in order to regulate a widely-varied profession responsibly and practically in the public interest.
I understand the pressures on my colleagues in smaller firms, the challenges faced in a larger firm and the nuances of practicing in-house. As a parent of young teens, I also keenly aware of the balancing act required by many of my colleagues to sustain a legal practice while also committing to our families’ needs. I believe that these insights will contribute to the Law Society’s ability to better serve the public interest and support the profession.
The practical-regulation principle is connected to the candidate’s stated intention to bring smaller-firm perspectives to governance.
What this doesn't show
- No specific compliance assistance, reduced obligation or small-firm exemption is proposed.
-
Ryan P. Krushelnitzky
Supports fair, effective, proportionate and transparent regulation informed by practical understanding of the profession. Relevance to solo and small-firm burden is inferred; no size-specific reform is stated.
Full profile for Ryan P. KrushelnitzkyEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
A Bencher’s primary responsibility is to protect the public interest through fair, effective, proportionate, and transparent regulation, informed by a practical understanding of the profession.
Proportionality is an explicit regulatory principle, but smaller practices and their compliance burdens are not specifically discussed.
What this doesn't show
- No particular fee, reporting obligation, exemption or compliance program is proposed.
-
Adam Drew, KC
Supports fair, timely, transparent and proportionate conduct processes, together with guidance, training and practical resources that help members meet professional responsibilities. Relevance to smaller practices is inferred; no size-specific relief is stated.
Full profile for Adam Drew, KCEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
My experience in conduct and competence with the Society, alongside adjudicator training, has reinforced the importance of processes that are fair, timely, transparent, and proportionate. This promotes public protection, confidence in the profession, and fair treatment of lawyers.
My work at the Society has given me insight into how training, mentorship, and practical resources support lawyers and students-at-law in developing core skills and meeting their professional responsibilities.
Proportionate process and help meeting obligations are explicit. Their application to solo or small-firm burden is inferred because the statement discusses members generally.
What this doesn't show
- No firm-size distinction, reduced fee or removed safeguard is stated.
-
Bianca Kratt, KC
Supports practical, fair and proportionate regulation that evolves with the profession. Application to solo and small-firm burden is inferred; no size-specific measure is stated.
Full profile for Bianca Kratt, KCEvidence and limits
Inferred · Policy principle, Inferred relevance. A narrow, reasonable interpretation or topic connection that is not directly stated. Read the reasoning and limitations.
As the legal profession evolves, regulation must evolve with it. I believe good regulation should be practical, fair and proportionate.
The proportionality principle is explicit, but the candidate does not apply it specifically to solo or small-firm compliance.
What this doesn't show
- The statement does not support an inference of lower fees, fewer audits, exemptions or reduced public protection.
No candidates match.
Not stated
The statement does not provide enough topic-specific evidence. It does not mean opposition or lack of relevant experience.
- Amina Younas
- Yameena Ansari
- JC Rees
- Yue (Roger) Song
- Kyle Kawanami, KC
- Shannon G. Emery
- Sandra Petersson, KC
- David Girard
- Damian J. Rogers
- Jonathan Selnes
- Koren Lightning, KC
- Michelle Kai
- Erin Runnalls, KC
- Fatima Shariff
- Elaine Ahn
- Stephanie L. Dobson, KC
- Allison Sears
- John Lemieux
- Kelsey J. Meyer, KC
- Michael G. Bates, KC
- Gavin Price
- Pat Heinsen, KC
- Suzanne M. Alexander-Smith, KC
- D. V. Tupper, KC
- John D. Evans, KC
- Ronald A. Sorokin, KC
- S. Peter MacKenzie, KC
- R.J.A. Gregory, KC
- P. L. Moreau, KC
- C. J. Skrobot
- Jim Lutz, KC
