Summaries interpret each candidate's statements. They aren't the candidates' own words and haven't been endorsed by them. How perspectives are summarized
AI
AI and the Practice of Law
Speaks to AI's benefits and risks for lawyers: it can save time and cost but can also produce wrong answers and put client information at risk, while confidentiality, competence and supervision still apply. Also identifies the public's growing use of AI-generated documents and unregulated providers, and treats how the public learns their limits as a question to answer on the evidence, with input from members and the public and fairness to honest providers.
Addressed
AI use and client service
AI risks and regulation
Technology competence and training
Evidence and limits
Addressed · 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.
Effective regulation also requires an understanding of how technology, including artificial intelligence, affects client confidentiality and the duties lawyers owe to the public. These tools offer benefits and present risks, and both call for careful, evidencebased consideration with input from members and the public.
For lawyers, it can save time and cost, but it can also produce wrong answers and put client information at risk. Confidentiality, competence and supervision don't go away because a tool is new.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
For the public, more people are using AI to produce contracts, wills and separation agreements, and some turn to unregulated providers for the same documents.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The questions a Bencher faces include how the public learns the limits of AI-generated documents and unauthorized legal services, what a lawyer's advice provides that a template does not, and how people find help they can rely on. The answers depend on the evidence, on what members and the public say, and on fairness to the many honest providers who help people with everyday needs.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The election statement identified AI's benefits and risks and set out evidence-based consideration with input from members and the public. The supplemental statement of October 23, 2026 adds what those benefits and risks are for lawyers, the professional duties that still apply, and the public's use of AI-generated documents and unregulated providers.
What this doesn't show
No specific AI rule, guidance or restriction on unregulated providers is proposed; the candidate describes these as questions to answer on the evidence.
The candidate presents the supplemental statement as a perspective, not a list of commitments.
Identifies distance, fewer colleagues nearby and the difficulty of finding someone to take over a practice as affecting how legal services reach rural and remote communities, and says regulation works best when it takes those realities into account, informed by listening to members and clients across the province.
Addressed
Rural and remote client access
Rural practice sustainability
Rural lawyer support
Evidence and limits
Addressed · Issue recognition, Policy principle. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
Distance, fewer colleagues nearby and the difficulty of finding someone to take over a practice all affect how legal services reach rural and remote communities.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
Regulation works best when it takes those realities into account, and a Bencher can learn about them by listening to members and clients in every part of the province.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The election statement didn't address this topic. The supplemental statement of October 23, 2026 addresses it directly, naming client access, professional isolation and practice succession in rural and remote communities, with a principle for how regulation should take them into account.
What this doesn't show
No specific rural program, recruitment or succession measure, or change to a particular rule, is proposed.
The candidate presents the supplemental statement as a perspective, not a list of commitments.
Speaks to fair, transparent and proportionate regulation informed by firms of every size, recognizing that in solo and small practices the lawyer personally handles trust accounting, audits, insurance and reporting. Frames the questions for any requirement as whether it protects the public, is clear and can be met in offices of different sizes, to be answered on the evidence, and sees value in education and practice guidance before problems arise.
Addressed
Compliance cost and administration
Proportionate regulation
Compliance guidance and support
Practice realities in regulation
Evidence and limits
Addressed · 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.
In a solo or small practice there is no compliance department, so trust accounting, audits, insurance and reporting are done by the lawyer personally, alongside client work. I understand the reasons for each requirement, which are to protect client funds and public confidence.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The questions a Bencher can ask of any requirement are whether it protects the public, whether it is clear, and whether it can be met in offices of different sizes.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
In my experience, helping people meet a standard before something goes wrong often protects the public better than correcting it afterwards. Education, practice guidance and mentorship matter.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
A Bencher can bring only one set of experiences to the table, which is why listening to members in different places, practice areas and firm sizes matters. That is a point about the quality of information behind decisions, not about any group's interests.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The election statement joined a proportionality principle, firm-size differences and the compliance burden of an independent practice. The supplemental statement of October 23, 2026 adds the reasons the candidate sees for each requirement, the questions to ask of any requirement and an emphasis on education and practice guidance before problems arise.
What this doesn't show
No specific obligation is proposed for removal, and no reduction in public protection is advocated.
Attention to firm size is framed as a matter of the information behind decisions, not any group's interests; it doesn't establish support for lower fees, fewer audits or exemptions.
The candidate presents the supplemental statement as a perspective, not a list of commitments.
Speaks to articling, admission and the assessment of lawyers trained elsewhere as bearing on competence and ethical conduct, each working best when it is fair, clear and well explained, and sees good mentorship as helping new lawyers and, through them, the public.
Addressed
Practical training and qualification
Early career support
Entry standards and accountability
Evidence and limits
Addressed · Policy principle. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
Articling, admission and the assessment of lawyers trained elsewhere each bear on competence and ethical conduct, and each works best when it is fair, clear and well explained.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
Good mentorship helps new lawyers and, through them, the public.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The election statement didn't address entry to the profession, and its account of public service in Pakistan remains context only. The supplemental statement of October 23, 2026 addresses entry directly, applying a principle of fairness, clarity and explanation to articling, admission and the assessment of lawyers trained elsewhere, and valuing mentorship for new lawyers.
What this doesn't show
"Lawyers trained elsewhere" isn't specified as foreign-trained or trained in another province, so no NCA, foreign-trained or mobility subject is assigned.
No change to articling, admission or the assessment of lawyers trained elsewhere is proposed.
The candidate presents the supplemental statement as a perspective, not a list of commitments.
Identifies that many people look for legal help outside a lawyer's office, and frames the role paralegals and other allied professionals might play in safe, affordable help as a question for the Society: one tested by the public interest in the administration of justice and answered on the evidence and other jurisdictions' experience, with attention to training, accountability and consumer protection.
Addressed
Access through allied legal providers
Safeguards for allied services
Reform and evaluation
Evidence and limits
Addressed · Issue recognition, Policy principle. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
Many people look for legal help outside a lawyer's office. The Society has to ask how the public can get safe and affordable help, and what role paralegals and other allied professionals might play.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The test is whether an approach serves the public interest in the administration of justice. Answering that takes a look at the evidence and at other jurisdictions, with attention to training, accountability and consumer protection.
From the supplemental statement of October 23, 2026
The election statement didn't address this topic. The supplemental statement of October 23, 2026 addresses client access through paralegals and other allied professionals directly, with a public-interest test, attention to evidence and other jurisdictions, and safeguards.
What this doesn't show
No new or expanded role for paralegals or other allied professionals is proposed; the candidate treats their role as an open question.
Allied professionals other than paralegals aren't identified, and no regulated status is specified.
The candidate presents the supplemental statement as a perspective, not a list of commitments.
I am seeking election as a Bencher of the Law Society of Alberta with 26 years of experience in law and public service, in regulation, prosecution, rule-making and now private practice. I understand the responsibilities that come with membership in a self-regulating profession, and the Society’s purposes under section 2.1 of the Legal Profession Act: ensuring the integrity, competence and ethical conduct of lawyers, regulating the practice of law, and supporting and assisting lawyers in serving the public.
In Pakistan, I served as District Attorney, District Public Prosecutor, Under Secretary in the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department and Additional Secretary in the Home Affairs Department of the Government of Balochistan, and sat on committees of several ministries. That work included prosecution, drafting and vetting legislation and rules, and public policy, where decisions had to be fair, proportionate and explained.
Since 2019 I have practised in Edmonton as principal of SJS Law, in real estate, corporate, and wills and estates law. 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. It also requires listening carefully, considering differing perspectives, and deciding objectively on the evidence and in the public interest. Effective regulation also requires an understanding of how technology, including artificial intelligence, affects client confidentiality and the duties lawyers owe to the public. These tools offer benefits and present risks, and both call for careful, evidencebased consideration with input from members and the public.
In public service and in practice, I have learned that trust in a regulator is earned through openness, timeliness and reasoned decisions made in the public interest.
A Bencher’s duty is to the public interest in the administration of justice, not to any group of lawyers. I would approach the role with independence, diligence and an open mind, and would be honoured to contribute my experience to the Society’s work of protecting the public and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.
Supplemental statement
Sent by the candidate to this site on October 23, 2026.
My candidate statement on the Law Society's election site sets out my background: 26 years in law and public service, including prosecution, rule-making and, since 2019, my own practice in Edmonton. This note adds my perspective on some of the questions members are discussing. It describes how I think about them. It is not a list of commitments, because a Bencher decides with an open mind, on the evidence, in the public interest.
Artificial intelligence is already changing how lawyers work, and how the public looks for legal help. For lawyers, it can save time and cost, but it can also produce wrong answers and put client information at risk. Confidentiality, competence and supervision don't go away because a tool is new. For the public, more people are using AI to produce contracts, wills and separation agreements, and some turn to unregulated providers for the same documents. A document can look complete and still fail to do what the person intended, because they may not understand its legal effect until a problem arises, sometimes years later and at great cost to a family or a business. The Society's purpose under section 2.1 is to protect the public interest in the administration of justice, and regulating the practice of law is part of that. The questions a Bencher faces include how the public learns the limits of AI-generated documents and unauthorized legal services, what a lawyer's advice provides that a template does not, and how people find help they can rely on. The answers depend on the evidence, on what members and the public say, and on fairness to the many honest providers who help people with everyday needs.
Lawyers and clients outside the big cities are not in the same position as those in Edmonton or Calgary. Distance, fewer colleagues nearby and the difficulty of finding someone to take over a practice all affect how legal services reach rural and remote communities. Regulation works best when it takes those realities into account, and a Bencher can learn about them by listening to members and clients in every part of the province.
Regulation reaches every office, large or small. In a solo or small practice there is no compliance department, so trust accounting, audits, insurance and reporting are done by the lawyer personally, alongside client work. I understand the reasons for each requirement, which are to protect client funds and public confidence. The questions a Bencher can ask of any requirement are whether it protects the public, whether it is clear, and whether it can be met in offices of different sizes. The evidence should answer them.
How people enter the profession also affects the public. Articling, admission and the assessment of lawyers trained elsewhere each bear on competence and ethical conduct, and each works best when it is fair, clear and well explained. Good mentorship helps new lawyers and, through them, the public.
Many people look for legal help outside a lawyer's office. The Society has to ask how the public can get safe and affordable help, and what role paralegals and other allied professionals might play. The test is whether an approach serves the public interest in the administration of justice. Answering that takes a look at the evidence and at other jurisdictions, with attention to training, accountability and consumer protection.
The Society makes better decisions when it understands the settings in which lawyers actually practise. A Bencher can bring only one set of experiences to the table, which is why listening to members in different places, practice areas and firm sizes matters. That is a point about the quality of information behind decisions, not about any group's interests.
The law the Society works within also changes, and so does the law that affects how people resolve their own legal problems, including injury claims. When rules change, people need to be able to find a competent lawyer who understands the new process, and the Society supports the competence of the lawyers who help them. A Bencher looks at how changes work in practice and at what the evidence shows.
Finally, any regulator has to ask where its resources do the most good. In my experience, helping people meet a standard before something goes wrong often protects the public better than correcting it afterwards. Education, practice guidance and mentorship matter. Discipline is essential when the public has been harmed, and complaints are handled best when they are handled fairly, promptly and with reasons given. A Bencher looks at the evidence on how the two fit together.
In public service and in practice I learned that trust in a regulator is earned through openness, timeliness and reasoned decisions. I would approach the role of Bencher with independence, diligence and an open mind, listening carefully, considering differing perspectives and deciding on the evidence and in the public interest. I would be honoured to contribute my experience to the Society's work.
