Emphasizes regulation grounded in public protection and the realities of running a practice. Its relevance to regulatory burden in independent and smaller firms is inferred.
Topic 3 of 5
Regulatory Burden
Regulatory Burden on Solo and Small Firm
Perspectives 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
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 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
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.
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.
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.
-
Kate Andrews
Emphasizes practical regulation informed by different practice settings, including the pressures on smaller firms. The relevance to regulatory burden is inferred.
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
Speaks to fair, effective, proportionate and transparent regulation informed by practical understanding of the profession. Relevance to solo and small-firm burden is inferred.
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
Speaks to 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.
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
Speaks to practical, fair and proportionate regulation that evolves with the profession. Application to solo and small-firm burden is inferred.
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 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
- 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
- Candidate
- P. L. Moreau, KC
- C. J. Skrobot
- Jim Lutz, KC
