Reports integrating AI and technology throughout her firm’s work to improve client service without increasing costs, and presents technology efficiencies as relevant experience.
Topic 1 of 5
AI
AI and the Practice of Law
Perspectives from 9 of 38 candidates
What this topic covers: AI and substantive legal technology: their use, benefits, risks, competence requirements and regulation. Broader technology perspectives are identified separately from AI-specific perspectives. More on this topic
Summaries interpret each candidate's statements. They aren't the candidates' own words and haven't been endorsed by them. How perspectives are summarized
Candidate perspectives on AI and the Practice of Law
-
Yameena Ansari
Full profile for Yameena AnsariEvidence and limits
Addressed · Reported practice. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
We have integrated artificial intelligence and technology throughout our work to improve client service, without increasing costs. Building and running AIL has given me firsthand experience with building tech efficiencies, team leadership and the practical realities of being regulated by the Law Society.
The candidate expressly describes AI adoption and its intended service and cost benefits.
What this doesn't show
- This is the candidate’s reported practice and outcome, not independently verified performance or a commitment to a particular Law Society policy.
-
Rabie Ahmed
Identifies the effects of technology and changing practice models on competence, access to justice and regulation as an area of particular interest, alongside a pragmatic and fair regulatory approach. No AI-specific perspective is stated.
Full profile for Rabie AhmedEvidence and limits
Addressed · Stated priority. A relevant principle, priority, issue recognition or reported practice is directly expressed. This does not necessarily mean a specific policy change is proposed.
I am particularly interested in the future of the profession: strong professional development, meaningful opportunities for new and junior lawyers to develop, a profession that draws on a broad range of backgrounds and experiences, and the effects of technology and changing practice models on competence, access to justice and regulation. I would bring to the Bencher table the perspective of a practising lawyer, firm owner, adjudicator, mentor and active member of the bar, together with a willingness to listen, ask difficult questions, work collaboratively and approach regulatory issues pragmatically and fairly.
Technology is connected to specific professional and public-interest concerns, rather than mentioned only as generic change.
What this doesn't show
- The statement does not prescribe a technology policy or expressly discuss AI.
-
Kyle Kawanami, KC
Recognizes that emerging technologies may be very useful but says they must be carefully monitored. AI is not explicitly named.
Full profile for Kyle Kawanami, KCEvidence 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.
The legal profession faces constant challenges, both from societal factors as well as from new emerging technologies. While these technologies may be incredibly useful, they must be carefully monitored.
The candidate expresses a benefit-and-oversight principle for emerging technology.
What this doesn't show
- The statement does not identify a monitoring mechanism or an AI-specific rule.
-
Shannon G. Emery
Identifies the advancement of AI as a leading challenge for the Law Society.
Full profile for Shannon G. EmeryEvidence and limits
Addressed · Stated priority, 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 am running for Bencher because I see a lot of challenges ahead for the Law Society of Alberta. At the top of the list are the advancement of AI; regulatory independence; and ensuring the protection of the public by maintaining high standards for all practicing lawyers and students.
AI is expressly named among the reasons for seeking office and the leading regulatory challenges.
What this doesn't show
- Naming AI as a challenge does not establish support for adoption, restrictions or any particular reform.
-
Saqib Javaid
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.
Full profile for Saqib JavaidEvidence 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.
-
Jonathan Selnes
Anticipates new regulatory challenges from increasing AI adoption and speaks to sound judgment and governance aligned with public protection.
Full profile for Jonathan SelnesEvidence 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.
As the practice of law evolves in this era of technological disruption, the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence will present new regulatory challenges for the profession. Tackling these issues in a manner that aligns with the Law Society’s mandate to protect the public interest will require sound judgment and governance.
AI adoption, regulatory challenges and the public-protection approach are directly connected in the statement.
What this doesn't show
- No specific AI permissions, restrictions or implementation measures are stated.
-
Ryan P. Krushelnitzky
Identifies disruption from AI as a systemic issue confronting the profession.
Full profile for Ryan P. KrushelnitzkyEvidence and limits
Addressed · 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.
My experience provides me insight into the systemic issues that confront the bar: in terms of access to justice, the disruption of AI, and other challenges faced by the bar.
AI is expressly identified as a systemic issue, but the statement does not develop a substantive policy response.
What this doesn't show
- Recognition of disruption does not establish support for or opposition to AI adoption.
-
Stephanie L. Dobson, KC
Speaks to thoughtful regulation that enables the benefits of legal technology while ensuring responsible adoption, public protection and professional and ethical standards. This is a broader technology perspective; AI is not named.
Full profile for Stephanie L. Dobson, KCEvidence 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.
Technology is reshaping the delivery of legal services and changing public expectations, and the regulator plays an important role to ensure it is adopted responsibly in a manner that protects the public and upholds professional and ethical standards. Thoughtful regulation can help harness the benefits of innovation while preserving the confidence and trust that are fundamental to an effective legal system.
The statement directly describes both the benefits of innovation and the regulator’s responsibility for responsible adoption.
What this doesn't show
- No AI-specific tool, rule, restriction or implementation plan is stated.
-
John Lemieux
Offers personal and professional experience to help the Law Society proactively address rapid technological advancement and risks while supporting competence, ethics and professional independence. AI is not named.
Full profile for John LemieuxEvidence 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.
As our profession navigates rapid technological advancement, risks, and heightened public scrutiny, I offer my personal and professional experience as a responsible steward to help the Law Society proactively address these challenges while supporting high standards of legal competence, ethics, and professional independence.
Technological change is linked to a stated proactive regulatory approach and professional standards.
What this doesn't show
- No particular technology measure or AI-specific view is stated.
No candidates match.
Not addressed in their statements
Candidates wrote their statements for the Law Society's election site, not in answer to these topics. A statement that doesn't address a topic says nothing about the candidate's views or experience on it.
- Amina Younas
- JC Rees
- Yue (Roger) Song
- Sandra Petersson, KC
- David Girard
- Damian J. Rogers
- Kate Andrews
- Koren Lightning, KC
- Michelle Kai
- Erin Runnalls, KC
- Adam Drew, KC
- Fatima Shariff
- Elaine Ahn
- Allison Sears
- Bianca Kratt, KC
- 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
- Candidate
- P. L. Moreau, KC
- C. J. Skrobot
- Jim Lutz, KC
