Insights and updates
from MinuteBox

You’re in bed in a cold sweat. You’ve been tossing and turning for hours. It’s 4:15am and you reason that if you fall asleep right now, at least you’ll get a few hours of quality shut-eye. But you know it’s in vain. It hasn’t happened for months; why is tonight any different?

It’s not.

You’ve slogged for years with your team, navigating the waters of incorporation, team building, engineering and business development. You’re trying to build a company based-off an idea in the legal space.

You’ve spent years studying in law school and several more learning the profession as a lawyer. You had money in your account and a steady paycheck. You had respect from your peers, your family and other professionals. You had a beautiful office in a gorgeous tower overlooking the city. You had certainty and predictability. You had access to the good life.

You had what so many have sought after and you said “No thank you.”

And now here you are, looking up at the ceiling, questioning your choices, wondering if your decisions were ill-fated because they were based on hubris. Your bank account is near empty, you live on a shoestring budget. You’ve cashed out your savings and every day is one step closer to admitting defeat.

And every now and again you get a friendly “don’t worry” from your colleagues, reminding you that “you can always go back to being a lawyer.”

You are genuinely afraid of failure.

I am often asked what it’s like being an entrepreneur in the legal space. What is it like building a technology service company that offers services to law firms all over the world?

My response is the same. It’s lonely. Or at least it was, for a long time.

A few years ago, I was asked to speak at a panel at the Law Faculty of Queens University, presenting to the students of the Venture Capital and Private Equity law club. Seated next to me were two lawyers both practising in the startup and emerging company departments of their large (and very successful) national firms.

The lawyers eloquently described their roles in the legal side of fundraising, how they were instrumental in providing advice in helping secure VC investment for their startup clients, thereby helping those companies grow.

The role of my lawyer colleagues was instrumental in helping their clients succeed.

I wanted to impart a somewhat different perspective on the students. I wanted them to understand what investment money means to a startup, especially in the legal space. Investment means my team gets to eat, pay their mortgage and pay for their childrens’ dentist appointments. It means Christmas gifts under the tree and a few restaurant dinners a month. It doesn’t just mean business survival, but actual human survival.

Most of the legal tech startup life is unglamorous. You are in a sector that has resisted change for generations. Everything is working against you, from the billable hour model to the partnership structure of law firms to the lack of funding opportunities available to those in your industry.

You are trying to find your professional place in the world and you don’t always know where you fit. It’s daunting. It’s draining. Reaching the legal technology apex often seems insurmountable. The sides of the mountain are just too slippery.

Years later, you’re still in bed, still sweating and wide awake when you should have been long asleep. The sheets, half on, half off provide no comfort, as the birds chirp outside your window welcoming the coming dawn. You start counting on your fingers and toes and quickly realize you’ve spent more time building legal technology than actually practicing law. Even if you wanted to return as a lawyer, would you remember how to practice? Would anybody even want you?

And then, out of nowhere, you crack a wry smile. You look back on everything you have done up to this point. You’ve built amazing technology. You have clients who pay for your service. You have gained experience in tech, business and life. And you even begrudgingly admit to yourself that if someone would have told you that after several years you’d be in such a position, you would have gladly accepted the opportunity with open arms.

Fully awake, looking up at the beige plastered ceiling, you accept that you’re exactly where you belong.

You then get up and start your work day.

What are the key attributes of an innovative law firm and how much do they really matter?

Managing a law firm in this era of rapid change is a massive challenge. It’s hard to know the right thing to do. It feels like the ground is constantly shifting. Your firm’s lawyers are giving conflicting reports on the state of business while your clients keep demanding “more for less.” Many legal tech companies are stepping up to help with these challenges. Yet these companies often meet resistance from the very firms they are trying to help.

I’d like to introduce Sean Bernstein. Sean is a co-founder of MinuteBox, a next generation cloud-based minute book and corporate records solution for law firms, accounting firms and internal legal departments. As an entrepreneur in the legal space, he’s spoken with dozens of law firms, ranging from single lawyer offices to global behemoths. As a result, he has some thoughts on what distinguishes innovative law firms from more traditional firms.

This article presents both the “outside looking in” and “inside looking out” perspectives when it comes to what makes a law firm “innovative”. Following Sean’s remarks, I offer some thoughts on how things look from within a law firm. Overall, we conclude that although certain firm attributes are prevalent in innovative law firms, such attributes are quite limited in predicting a firm’s “innovativeness”. Instead, the proper circumstances appear to be a more reliable indicator of a modern innovative law firm.

Sean’s Observations

From my experiences as a legal entrepreneur I’ve come across commonalities inherent in more innovative firms. In my ideal world, these attributes would permeate across every law firm globally. These attributes include: being proactive about risk, streamlined processes for implementing new technology, dedicated resources for innovation, and strong senior leadership support for innovation.

Being Proactive About Risk

Trying something new requires taking on some risk. But risk is inherently unavoidable. Ironically, given today’s changing legal landscape, not doing anything can be just as risky as trying something new. In some cases, I believe maintaining the status quo can be problematic. Understanding that indecision is still a decision, innovative law firms put themselves in the driver’s seat by proactively choosing which risks to take and which to dismiss.

Closely tied to understanding risk is understanding your firm’s internal pain points. Firms that have identified their pain points and strategic direction in advance (usually through in-depth process mapping) have an easier time deciding what to buy and what solutions fit within their risk tolerance profile. They also avoid being surprised by a problem and making reactionary decisions.

In the context of MinuteBox, our team has mapped out a spectrum of firms ranging from those merely curious about our solution to those who have clearly identified and prioritized improving minute book management. Law firms that have already performed internal strategic analysis will have a simpler (and less costly) buying process; they are empowered to find the products with the best overall fit and more readily adapt it to their workflows.

Streamlined Processes for Implementing New Technology

While each new technology can bring new challenges to an IT team, what’s not new is the fact that such technology is a part of the strategy of law firms. We believe that the firms that can quickly test new technology and make it available to users will have a competitive advantage. The ability to do so lies in having streamlined processes.

Implementing a new tool requires cooperation from the firm’s IT personnel, its Innovation team, and the end users at the firm. The most effective firms have alignment across these different stakeholders. Clear and consistent communication enables each person to handle their part of the job independently. In an ideal world, the appropriate individuals in both the law firm and the vendor would be in constant communication and feedback on everything from a solution’s efficacy, ease-of-use and overall value-add. Conversely, traditional firms may have a less formal technology implementation process, which can lead to bottlenecks or implementation purgatory as other more pressing matters take precedence.

At MinuteBox, our seamless implementation process is as important as our solution and we will do whatever it takes to determine if our solution is the right fit for your firm. But at the end of the day, this process is made infinitely easier if a firm has outlined a process where the steps, roles and duties of all those involved are clearly outlined.

Dedicated Innovation Resources

It’s not uncommon to hear some variant of “this solution looks great, but we just don’t have the budget right now.” NOs are fine. They are part of an entrepreneur’s life. More interesting is the varying definition of “budget”: it can mean everything from an ambiguous term with no set amount, to a defined sum of money set aside specifically to implement new solutions and innovations.

Having a dedicated budget for innovation can send powerful messages. First, when partners see that a portion of the firm’s profits are going toward “innovation,” it signifies that senior leadership believes change can have positive benefits for the firm. Second, setting aside a budget generally correlates to hiring staff dedicated to working on these projects. Smaller firms that do not have the size to hire dedicated people usually designate someone internally to future-proof the firm. Either way, designated roles further signal that a firm not only values innovation in concept, but is actively pushing forward an innovation agenda.

Change (and by extension innovation) is hard. It requires research, internal analysis and the right team to actually implement a solution once decided. But having dedicated and motivated staff, supported with some internal financial backing, is a great indication that a firm is serious about change.

Strong leadership support

Arguably the most important factor is strong leadership. It is difficult for lawyers and staff to feel comfortable about trying something new without senior leadership recognizing the value of their efforts. Effective leaders create a sense of urgency and communicate a clear vision of what change will look like across the entire firm – legal and “non-legal” alike.

Although I rarely have a complete picture of the internal workings of the different law firms I encounter, it is obvious when senior leadership prioritizes innovation. It can be as simple as allowing junior lawyers to sit on innovation committees. Proactively developing leadership skills can improve every aspect of a firm. As Blane Prescott notes, “the single most common success factor for law firms today is great leadership.” Senior leaders that embrace innovation will help foster change throughout the firm.

At the end of the day, I want to work with law firms that want to work with me. I don’t want to be a burden or an imposition within a law firm. Big or small, I want to dig deep into a firm’s problems and try and tackle whatever issues they face together. I want the incorporation of MinuteBox within a law firm’s workflow to be a mutually beneficial experience that creates a strong relationship of trust and understanding.

James’ Observations

Thanks for those great insights, Sean. I think it’s valuable to see what attributes generally correlate with innovative law firms. Still, sometimes firms with the attributes you covered still remain ineffective when it comes to preparing for the future. Why? I think that beyond these attributes one must consider the circumstances within a firm. The proper circumstances allow these attributes to have the desired effect, or not.

For example, consider David Maister’s observation that expertise-based work is on the opposite end of the spectrum from efficiency-based work – and that “every aspect of a practice group’s affairs, from practice development to hiring, from economic structure to governance, will be affected by its relative positioning on this spectrum.” There is unavoidable tension between innovation efforts, which generally aim at efficiency, and law firms taking pride in their specialized expertise. Even if you have the right attributes in place, so many lawyers and others will be operating strictly to optimize expertise.

One type of positioning is not inherently better than the other. But if a firm cannot adapt its business model to help users justify using efficiency-based innovations then it will be nearly impossible for them to do so. While it might appear from your end that certain law firms are effective or ineffective based on certain attributes, my experience working within these firms tells me something deeper is going on within firms, whether they realize it or not. As change management expert John Kotter points out: “we underestimate the subtle and systematic forces that exist in virtually all organizations”.

Being proactive about risk

To your point, risk is always present. But I’m not sure if a firm’s risk tolerance is a reliable indicator for finding correct solutions. As Clayton Christensen points out: “many of the executives who have been unable to create sustained corporate growth have evidenced a strong stomach for risk”. If there’s not much correlation between risk tolerance and sustained growth in business generally, it’s safe to assume the same goes for law firms.

Consider a firm that has decided to proactively manage risk: how does it accurately assess those risks? The problem with large firms seeking growth is that the exciting growth markets of tomorrow are small today. Even if a firm wants to pursue a certain opportunity, its size and business model can still make it impossible to justify doing so.

Even though firms are indeed aware of industry trends and have smart people working on preparing for the future, an organization’s size and business model can skew its perception of risk. So no matter how much a firm might understand it needs to change, it cannot justify doing so given the constraints it has built for itself. As Christensen puts it: “[Disruption] is not a story of incompetence. It is a story of perfectly rational, profit-maximizing decisions.”

Streamlined Processes for Implementing New Technology

As someone who works in innovation, I know that at times it can indeed feel like there aren’t any processes. Some firms are better at this than others, but every law firm already has processes for implementing and managing new technology. Given the amount of technology involved in every law firm (e-billing, document management system, accounting software, laptops and mobile devices, etc.), processes are a must. I’ve come to understand that delays arise not from any attributes of an IT team, but the circumstances under which they’re operating.

The best processes in the world will barely matter if the work you want done is deemed “extra” compared to everything else handled by the IT department. There are a long list of responsibilities for these teams that are more important than implementing new innovation software. Implementation procedures are important, but the resource allocation priorities of IT provide ample justification for postponing innovation efforts.

Further, if an IT team seems genuinely resistant it might be because, though they don’t get any reward for implementing new software, they certainly take on all the risk. It doesn’t matter if something was or wasn’t IT’s idea, any cybersecurity issue is always seen as IT’s fault. As Gary Moore explains, in any industry, “technical function is often last to get on board”. And the way past this is not in processes but in changing incentives. As Moore explains: “IT only get on board after the executive function makes it a priority, which they will only do after a department makes it clear they have a problem.”

Dedicated Innovation Resources

Resources are indeed a crucial piece to any endeavor. But they are quite malleable to their circumstances. Having an innovation fund doesn’t guarantee a firm will invest in the right technology. Similarly, just because a firm has dedicated staff working on innovation doesn’t mean the rest of the firm is receptive to their efforts. Getting a firm to buy new software is one thing, getting a firm to actually use it is often quite another. So just like processes, resources are crucial and yet limited in their effectiveness.

While resources and processes are often enablers of what a firm can do, a firm’s values can represent constraints by outlining what a firm cannot do. A firm with one set of values would be incapable of succeeding in anything other than the work that aligns with those values. The “subtle and systematic forces” of the organization won’t allow it – even with dedicated staff and budget. Christensen’s observation that “organizations cannot disrupt themselves” implies how deeply an organization must change in order to shift its values and corresponding business model in order to adapt. The magnitude of this change is why he suggests an organization build an off-shoot organization with values that lead to better outcomes, or undertake a herculean managerial effort in order to redesign itself.

Strong leadership support

I’ve spoken before about the massive shift in required skills involved in going from lawyer to managing a law firm. And while I still think that argument has some merit, even those who have spent entire careers managing companies struggle with sustaining growth. As Christensen observes:

“about 90% of all publicly traded companies have proved themselves unable to sustain for more than a few years a growth trajectory that creates above-average shareholder returns. Unless we believe that the pool of management talent in established firms is like some perverse Lake Wobegon, where 90% of managers are below average, there has to be a more fundamental explanation for why the vast majority of good managers has not been able to crack the problem of sustaining growth.”

Though all companies struggle with navigating a changing marketplace, one particular obstacle for law firms is embedded in the leadership style that typically works for expertise-based companies. Maister explains that in expertise-based companies (like most big law firms), “the autonomy of the individual partner would be among the most supreme virtues in the firm, with little use made of formal internal structuring.” This setup has had much historical success. But as the legal industry undergoes structural shifts, this hands off approach is now a liability. Christensen explains that: “disruptive innovation is the category of circumstance in which powerful senior managers must personally be involved… A senior-most executive is the only one who can endorse the use of corporate processes when they are appropriate, and break the grip of those processes and decision rules when they are not.” No amount of business acumen will be sufficient in creating change unless senior leadership is willing to be hands-on throughout.

Conclusion

A proactive approach to risk, streamlined processes, designated resources, and management skills are all necessary for a firm to be able to adapt for the future, but they alone are not sufficient. As much as certain people are pushing for change, employees at every level make prioritization decisions. And those decisions are derived from how the firm sets up its values. One set of values is not inherently better than another, and it is possible to navigate the tension between expertise vs efficiency; but the conflict between them will always be present.

Selling products that make an organization more efficient is one thing. Organizations trying to transition from expertise-based values to efficiency-based values will, as Maister puts it, “be transforming the fundamental nature of their firm.” And those asking their lawyers and staff to become more efficient while focusing their incentives and growth strategy on expertise-based work will have a hard time navigating that tension. So legal technology companies must be conscious of the changes their solutions ask of a firm. Similarly, the more conscious law firm leaders are of how much they are asking their lawyers and staff to change, the less frustrated these might be when things don’t go according to plan.

This piece is a list of suggestions and helpful solutions in order to help us, as a legal community, get through the tumultuous times, and ensure we are in the best possible position when this is all over (it will happen… I swear!).

Here we are. The vast majority of lawyers are working from home, trying to find a sense of normalcy in a world that changes by the hour (sometimes less). I always knew the legal industry would undergo a cataclysmic change, but never in my wildest thoughts did I envision a global pandemic would be the catalyst.

Let’s get one thing clear. There is no single-source rule book for how we, as a profession, undertake our role in the current circumstances. These are uncharted waters and we are all navigating them for the first time. Good luck!

But I firmly believe lawyers are smart and resourceful. They will find ways to provide services to clients and ensure the job gets done.

Even at times when we feel helpless as professionals, there are steps lawyers and law firms can take to ensure our industry makes it through this crisis:

Communicate with your clients: Ensure they are well accommodated. A simple phone call goes a long way to build goodwill. In times of uncertainty, “Hi, how are you?” shows concern and empathy. Find out what kind of support they need and offer your services, if you can.

Communicate with other lawyers: One big (normal) fear we may have is that other lawyers are farther along in their management of this crisis than we are. This can lead to uncertainty, anxiety, paranoia and doubt. Rest assured, every lawyer is feeling the stress and everyone is, to at least some degree, underprepared for a situation like this. Speaking with colleagues will not only help settle your thoughts, but may also introduce you to some novel solutions they have uncovered which can help your practice as well.

Explore what doesn’t work: What PAIN POINTS are you specifically feeling now when it comes to your ability to practice? What is not working and what needs fixing. What really grinds your gears when it comes to your practice? These might not be identified immediately, but over the coming weeks, begin to explore which processes are important and which are dead weight.

Take stock of your processes: Do a little process mapping. How were things done before the current health crisis? How are they done now? What can be improved and what was waste? Process mapping for different parts of your practice can help zero-in on areas that can be improved.

Take advantage of government resources: The federal and provincial governments have been providing capital for businesses and individuals. It is important to inform your clients about what’s available, but also determine if you or your firm is eligible. Find out if you are eligible for the Temporary Wage Subsidy (TWS), the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program (CERB).

Don’t be afraid to push the envelope when it comes to novel ways to practice: Remember, above all else your duty is to provide service to your clients (in a safe, ethical and secure manner). Think outside the box and be a trailblazer!

Embrace the quiet: Lawyers are notoriously busy, always working on client deadlines (whether actual or self-imposed). Without a doubt, those times will return, guaranteed! But in the meantime, enjoy working fewer hours. Embrace a 9-5 work routine. Take an extended lunch at the kitchen table. Watch an episode of the Price is Right (it’s good for the soul!).

Take the time to be honest with yourself: Anxiety, nervousness and fear are human emotions. And although we sometimes work superhuman hours, we must find time to cope and express our emotions to ourselves and to others.

As lawyers, we are made to feel we have all the answers all the time. It’s alright to take a little bit of time to find the best approach to provide optimal service to your clients and yourself.

If you remember nothing else, remember Rule # 1: Stay healthy. The rest we can figure out together!

Sometimes it feels that certain sectors of legal innovation grab all of the attention, especially regarding new solutions in corporate law, litigation, tax, and intellectual property. But aside from the big 4 accounting firms incorporating immigration law departments into their service offerings, few solutions move the needle when it comes to innovating immigration.

Located in a beautifully repurposed house on Bloor Street West in Toronto Ontario, the team at Sobirovs Law Firm (https://www.sobirovs.com/) offers an entrepreneurial approach when helping clients abroad bring their businesses to Canada.

The Sobirovs team hails from the four corners of the world, bringing with them a multilingual and multi-jurisdictional experience to the practice of immigration.

The success of the firm is due in large part to the managing partner, Rakhmad Sobirov, who has law degrees from Uzbekistan, Hungary and Canada. Working with a number of leading law firms throughout the world during his career, he has managed to successfully merge his experiences in corporate, international aviation and intellectual property law into a unique offering for immigrants into Canada.

What intrigued me, perhaps more than anything else, was the firm’s personal investment in helping their clients help themselves. Recently, Sobirovs launched ImmigrationShop.ca (https://www.immigrationshop.ca/), a teaching tool designed to help new immigrants manage much of the immigration process themselves. As Sobirov himself explains, “ImmigrationShop is unique in the sense that it allows us, the lawyers, to share our legal knowledge with the general public. Rather than saying “pay me and I will do it for you”, we are saying “come and learn AND do it with us!””

Using videos, consultations and lawyer application reviews, the ImmigrationShop workshops offer a “hand-holding” approach for potential immigrants. While there is a cost associated with watching the videos and taking the online workshops, immigrants undertaking the process themselves can save thousands in potential legal fees.

I had the chance to sit down with Rakhmad Sobirov and probe the ImmigrationShop a little bit deeper. I think his responses reflect a positive trend in lawyers taking initiative to create unique business models and revenue sources, all while increasing client value and satisfaction.

How long have you been practicing law?

I have been a lawyer in Uzbekistan since 2003, but have been practicing law as an Ontario lawyer since 2012. When I immigrated to Canada in 2006, I decided to go back to law school from the beginning and study the common law system in order to become a full-fledged Canadian lawyer.

Given your broad legal experience, when did you realize you wanted to focus exclusively on immigration?

Immigration law is constantly changing, and businesses, domestic and international clients rely on experienced lawyers to help navigate the complex immigration laws and regulations. We effectively facilitate the international relocation of executives, investors, high-skilled workers and their accompanying family members, starting from temporary visas for business visits to Canada to eventually obtain Canadian permanent residency or citizenship.

We realized there is a large market for unique, tailor-made and creative legal solutions for foreign business owners, investors and high-net-worth individuals interested in bringing their businesses and families to Canada.

It’s a win-win strategy for us as Canadian lawyers who ourselves immigrated to Canada. We have a deep understanding of the challenges that are often faced by immigrants or foreign businesses entering new markets. On one hand, we are contributing to the Canadian economy by bringing in capital and expertise from outside of Canada. On the other hand, we are helping established families from outside Canada make a new home and build a better future for themselves and their children.

We understand our clients very well. Our practice is best described as an “immigrant to immigrant approach.”

Have there been any recent innovations, technologies or opportunities in the area of immigration in the last 5-10 years? Any technologies devoted exclusively to this area of legal practice?

Overall the field of immigration law remains pretty conservative with few novel solutions available for law firms or their clients. It is dominated by the “do-it-for-you” model. That is, you hire a lawyer/immigration consultant/Quebec notary and pay him/her, and the service provider does all immigration applications for you.

What we see in immigration law more often is the danger of the unauthorized and unlicensed practice of immigration law by “ghost consultants,” “travel/visa agents” and so-called “helpers.” They would complete all applications as if the applicant were doing it himself/herself. There are plenty of horror stories of such shady practices and we want our clients to trust us and not worry about being swindled. With the launch of ImmigrationShop, we hope to tackle this problem by educating potential visa and immigration applicants.

What inspired the creation of ImmigrationShop? How long has it been in development? What do you hope your clients (and future clients) will get out of it?

First, we have deep knowledge of the common repetitive inquiries that people ask us about immigrating to Canada. We constantly receive queries asking “How to come to Canada as a student/worker/tourist/businessman?” or “How to claim refugee status in Canada?” We identified a certain level of repetitiveness in our practice.

Second, based on these findings, we wanted to consolidate our expertise into useful material in order to reference and share multiple/unlimited times. We realized that our knowledge had scalability and can serve for the benefit of future visa applicants.

Third, we realized that interested potential immigrants living outside of Canada could not always afford the legal fees of Canadian immigration lawyers. That could be one of the reasons why these people go to unlicensed service providers or complete the immigration applications themselves using the information they find online. Obviously, in so doing there is a level of risk involved.

Analyzing all these circumstances, we thought “why don’t we, the licensed and experienced Canadian lawyers, empower the applicants by transferring our knowledge directly to them? We could do it by transferring our expertise, tools and tips, and train those applicants on how to prepare strong visa and immigration applications. In a way, we would share our expertise with them at a fraction of our standard legal fees.”

While many visa applications can be done by the applicant personally without involving any intermediary, the challenge is to have the right information, experience and tools (which most visa applicants lack). We help applicants become better educated, more powerful, and well-equipped to prepare their own applications, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of ghost consultants and scammers.

We then developed detailed training workshops in which we give the candidates the necessary tools to increase their chances of success in their visa or immigration applications. It took us almost 2 years to develop the concept and it takes us 3-4 months to prepare one detailed visa workshop. We are constantly working on creating new workshops.

You are encouraging clients to undertake much of the immigration process themselves, as opposed to seeking out a lawyer at the outset. Why? What effect do you think this will have on your practice?

We are not removing the traditional legal services from the spectrum. For complicated immigration matters, clients are encouraged to hire an immigration lawyer in a traditional way. But for clients with limited means or preferring to complete applications by themselves, we offer workshops which save them money.

After completing the relevant workshop, candidates can complete their immigration applications based on our knowledge and guidelines. Taking the study permit workshop as an example, we offer legal consultation at a discounted rate and can review completed application packages of our students on a limited scope retainer before anything is submitted to the Canadian immigration authorities.

In a traditional “do-it-for-you” model, a client would pay around $2000 for a visitor visa/student visa application done by a Canadian immigration lawyer. This price covers the lawyer’s overhead costs which are built in the lawyer’s legal fees.

We removed the administrative costs and transferred all the savings to the client. We call this the “do-it-with-you” model. It saves candidates money without compromising the application’s quality, thereby maximizing client value at a very affordable rate.

For study permit, our workshop only charges $99. The clients/students can get all the necessary information, step-by-step video instructions, template documents and sample application packages, which enables them to complete everything themselves. If the student has any questions, he/she can get a consultation for just $149, and a professional review of the completed application package for just $249. The total cost of one visa application would be less than $500.

The creation of ImmigrationShop has an implied mission of addressing the access to justice issue within the Canadian immigration system. Indeed, for people with limited financial means, many of them could not afford traditional legal services and may be left without any access to legal help. When it comes to navigating the Canadian immigration process, it is better to have the right knowledge and tools offered by licensed Canadian lawyers than to rely on your own Internet research, friends’ stories or ghost agents’ services.

Are you the first immigration law firm to offer a solution like ImmigrationShop?

To our knowledge YES! What we are trying to do has never been done by any other traditional law firm. We are turning our immigrant candidates into immigration professionals for a very specific period of time and with a very specific purpose.

What other new/unique technologies and solutions are you using at Sobirovs Law? Are there new solutions on the horizon?

While new specific projects remain our secret, I can tell that we are maximizing the utilization of technologies in our daily practice. For example, starting from basic paperless environment in our office and continuing with using automation in client intake and document drafting, we can pass more value to our customers. Tools like Calendly, amoCRM and CosmoLex (to name a few) have certainly helped streamline a lot of the administrative components of running our firm.

We constantly search for new solutions that would allow us to achieve the goals above. That’s why we got interested in MinuteBox, which allows us to maintain client’s minute books electronically. Because we deal with business owners and investors, we also provide basic incorporation and company organization services. We can use MinuteBox to maintain corporate documents easily and that saves us time and client’s money.

Every now and again I come across something novel in the legal services industry; something that makes me do a double-take and probe just a little deeper. It happened not too long ago, as I sat at a small table across from a young lawyer at Montreal’s StartupFest in Parc Jean Drapeau in mid July.

Anthony Quevillon is sharp, witty, fluently bilingual and years ahead of his time. He believes that being both a young lawyer and entrepreneur are not mutually exclusive, and has taken it upon himself to provide a completely immersive experience for his clients at his firm Hub6 (www.hub6.com).

Hub6 is a multidisciplinary professional services firm, offering legal, accounting, consulting,HR, and tax solutions, all under one roof. The firm focuses predominantly on Montreal-based young businesses that have a strong proven business model and are ready to scale. The Hub6 team offers a fixed-fee pricing solution and digs deep into the nuances of a company, offering custom tailored solutions by incorporating a multitude of professional services.

Multidisciplinary service firms are characterized as one-stop-shops for client needs. More commonly, accounting and consulting services have joined forces (think any of the big 4 accounting firms). But only recently have legal services been included. While the long-term success of a legal-focused multidisciplinary practice remains to be seen, it is refreshing knowing there are lawyers willing to push the boundaries, all in the name of increasing client value.

Below is a recent interview I had with Anthony:

How long has the firm been around?

Since 2017.

As a legal entrepreneur in Quebec, has the market been receptive or skeptical towards forward thinking law firms and legal services in general?*

We mainly market to the 20 – 40-year-old entrepreneurs, and I feel they are hungry for an innovative model.

What has been the feedback from clients? How many of them use more than one service?

Most of our clients start with legal and accounting services. Even the smallest companies need these services. The entrepreneurs especially appreciate the simplicity of a one stop shop. Once companies scale, most of our mid-sized clients start using our human resources and tax services.

I think one of our strengths is that our services scale with the business. When the entrepreneur begins, he or she can be assisted and guided, helping to minimize service fees at the outset. As the client grows, we can offer more solutions as part of their subscription package. No client should wait until they have 35 employees and a mountain of headaches to begin working on their HR structure.

What led you to develop Hub6? Were there specific moments in your journey where you knew that you had to develop a multidisciplinary service firm?

I used to work at a traditional law firm and had a few “ah ah” moments while experiencing the strengths and drawbacks of the current model. I felt that law firms reacted to the financial and technological changes of the last two decades and ended up in a weird situation that dissatisfies both clients and lawyers alike.

Clients have difficulty assigning value of legal work, in large part because they do not understand what we do as lawyers. Furthermore, most lawyers still follow the billable hour model. Not committing to fees brings uncertainty to clients and adds to the general stress anytime they contact their lawyer. I find that incredibly unfortunate because proactive lawyers can protect their clients from avoidable mishaps, saving their clients time, money and anxiety.

Lawyers aren’t getting a good deal either. The billable hour creates pressure on lawyers to continuously bill. Add to the fact that lawyers are incentivized to work slower and you have the perfect recipe for a lose-lose lawyer-client relationship.

Always being in a reactive state creates a situation where most lawyers service too many clients simultaneously, never having the time to meet with their clients and help them strategize. We end up having a virtual relationship with our clients, which in my mind makes the appeal of legal tech more apt.

As for my place in this mess, I always wanted to do things differently. I used to be a little troublesome in my career, rocking the boat of my employer, trying to create and induce major changes in an existing company. Change is hard, and it’s much harder on bigger structures than smaller ones. I concluded that what we needed to do is start from the ground up. And if we want to build the law firm of the future, then we need to incorporate the relevant service professionals right away so that the synergy within our team is integrated at the outset.

What attracts clients to Hub6? Does one specific service appeal more than others to early stage clients?

While all our services are crucial to a business, accounting and tax services have always had greater appeal to companies than legal or human resources services.

Hub6 is not a service “per say”, but an amalgamation of our unique features. For example, a fixed monthly subscription-based model for accounting and legal services is, to my knowledge, a rare offering. We also have a talented and experienced set of professionals who specialize in different service areas.

We put a lot of emphasis on proximity and taking the time to know our clients. It is not uncommon for us to refer clients between one another or to be called for a referral about anything a business may need. While clients come for the simplicity and innovation of our firm, they stay because they find a team on which they can count.

How did you develop your team of service providers and professionals?

We began as a two-man team, myself and my partner: one accountant and one lawyer. In our first year of operation, we had several freelancers and partnerships to cover the other services, one of which was with a bigger multidisciplinary firm that supported us with a great variety of staff. Once we developed a strong core of clients, we hired our own team.

Growth is happening fast, and we are always looking for top talent. Believe it or not, talented and innovative employees that seek to work differently are hard to find, especially in a traditional profession like ours.

How does technology factor into your service? Are there technologies you are looking to adopt but haven’t yet? Are you satisfied with the current technologies on the market?

Legal technologies are generally underwhelming. I mentioned before that the general public neither understands nor values legal work, and I think that shows in the legal tech sector. There are so many templates and contract generators out there, yet none of them make sense. A novice without legal experience or knowledge should not write their own contracts. Even lawyers can make crucial mistakes in contract drafting. Imagine what a random entrepreneur can do without understanding the risks and consequences of the language they use! The truth is, most people, including legal tech companies, sometimes seem to think that drafting a contract is about putting a name and address in a blank template.

Technology wise, we use a bunch of tools, including in the management of our firm. For our accounting services, we specialize in cloud accounting, which is a much more mature market than legal technology. We also have a web-based client portal that connects our clients to a live detail of our work and their subscription. This portal is in continuous development and we hope to make it a core feature of our business and services.

In the legal world, we have begun using MinuteBox for the storage and management of our corporate minute books. We’re also working on a contract drafting software since I do believe there is a way to have a powerful software for both lawyers and the general entrepreneur that automates the redundant work of contract drafting. However, it demands more than a few integrations, so there is still a long road ahead.

You can expect something solid coming out in early to mid 2020.

On December 13, 2018, Bill C-86 received Royal Assent and introduced a new obligation for federally incorporated Canadian corporations. Private CBCA corporations would soon have to maintain a register of the individuals who really owned or controlled them. That obligation came into force on June 13, 2019.

Five years later, in January 2024, Bill C-42 took the same register and made much of its content public.

The two bills together are the reason CBCA corporate record-keeping looks dramatically different in 2026 than it did in early 2019. What started as an internal compliance exercise has become a mandatory filing program with a searchable public registry, significantly higher penalties, and coordinated information sharing across federal agencies.

This article walks through how Bill C-86 introduced the ISC Register and what Bill C-42 changed about it. It also explains what applies to CBCA corporations today, how the federal regime differs from provincial rules and what the current penalties look like under the post-2024 enforcement framework.

Act One: Bill C-86 introduced the ISC Register (2019)

Bill C-86, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018 No. 2, amended the Canada Business Corporations Act to require private federal corporations to create and maintain a register of individuals with significant control, commonly shortened to ISC Register. The amendments came into force on June 13, 2019.

In its 2019 form, the register was an internal document. Corporations had to prepare it, keep it current and review it at least once per financial year, but the information stayed inside the corporation. It was disclosed only to specific investigative, regulatory or law enforcement bodies on request. Updates had to be entered within 15 days of the corporation becoming aware of new information.

The 2019 penalty structure was relatively modest:

• Corporations that failed to maintain the register faced fines of up to $5,000
• Directors or officers who knowingly authorized false information faced fines of up to $200,000 and imprisonment of up to six months
• Shareholders who knowingly provided false information to the corporation faced the same penalties

Bill C-97 in 2019 extended the investigative-body access rules to reflect the same framework. The 2019-2023 period was the “quiet introduction” phase: corporations learned the new compliance workflow, but the register was not publicly available.

What the CBCA defines as “significant control”

The core definition has not changed since Bill C-86 introduced it. Under CBCA section 2.1(1), an individual with significant control is:

• An individual who is the registered holder of, is the beneficial owner of or has direct or indirect control or direction over a significant number of shares of the corporation
• An individual who has any direct or indirect influence that, if exercised, would result in control in fact of the corporation
• An individual to whom prescribed circumstances apply

Under section 2.1(3), a significant number of shares means any number of shares that carry 25 percent or more of the voting rights attached to the corporation’s outstanding voting shares, or any number of shares equal to 25 percent or more of all outstanding shares measured by fair market value.

The 25 percent threshold is now the benchmark across most Canadian ISC and transparency regimes, federal and provincial. The federal definition is the one that set the template.

Act Two: Bill C-42 took the register public (2024)

The federal government introduced Bill C-42 in March 2023, proposing to amend the CBCA to make much of the ISC Register publicly accessible. Bill C-42 received Royal Assent on November 2, 2023 and came into force on January 22, 2024.

Bill C-42 changed the register in four fundamental ways:

• Public registry. Corporations Canada now operates a searchable public registry containing the ISC’s name, address for service, the date the individual became an ISC and a description of how they hold significant control
• Mandatory filing. CBCA corporations must now file ISC Register information with Corporations Canada at incorporation, within 30 days of amalgamation or continuance, annually with the corporate annual return and within 15 days of any required update to the ISC Register
• New required data fields. The register must now capture address for service (if one exists separate from residential address) and citizenship of each ISC, in addition to the Bill C-86 fields
• Stronger penalties. Corporate penalties rose from $5,000 to up to $100,000 for contraventions of section 21.21. Directors and officers who knowingly authorize, permit or acquiesce in a contravention face fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to five years

Bill C-42 also amended the Income Tax Act by adding section 241(4)(u), which authorizes the CRA to communicate certain taxpayer information to Corporations Canada solely for the purpose of verifying and validating ISC Register submissions. Separately, and under CBCA authority rather than the ITA, Corporations Canada may make ISC Register information available to investigative bodies including the CRA and FINTRAC for enforcement purposes.

Current 2026 obligations for CBCA corporations

In 2026, a CBCA corporation has four parallel obligations that all trace back to the Bill C-86 and Bill C-42 reforms. It must:

• Maintain the ISC Register inside its corporate minute book, updated within 15 days of any change the corporation becomes aware of
• Review the register at least once per financial year and confirm accuracy
• File ISC Register information with Corporations Canada on the schedule above
• Respond to takedown or omission requests from ISCs who qualify for exceptions (for example, on safety grounds or for minors)

The compliance cadence is notably busier than the 2019 baseline. Under Bill C-86, once the register was created and reviewed annually, a well-run corporation could go quarters between required changes. Under Bill C-42, every update is both an internal minute book entry and a filing event with Corporations Canada, with a 15-day clock.

Federal vs provincial divergence

The federal CBCA is now the strictest of the Canadian ISC regimes. Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces have introduced their own versions, but each has different data fields, filing rules and access treatment.

• CBCA (federal): Public registry. Mandatory filing to Corporations Canada. Citizenship required.
• OBCA (Ontario): Register kept inside the minute book since January 1, 2023. Required fields include name, date of birth, latest known address and jurisdiction of tax residence. Not publicly filed. Produced on request to law enforcement, tax authorities and certain regulators. Citizenship is NOT a required field.
• BC Business Corporations Act: Transparency register in force since October 1, 2020. Provincial model.
• Quebec: Ultimate beneficiary disclosure to the Registraire des entreprises in force since March 31, 2023.
• Alberta: A beneficial ownership stakeholder consultation was held August 12 to September 11, 2025. As of 2026 there is no in-force ABCA ISC register requirement.

A CBCA corporation with provincial subsidiaries or subsidiaries in multiple provinces must track which ISC rules apply to which entity. The same shareholder may satisfy one regime’s definition but not another.

Penalties and enforcement under the post-C-42 regime

The penalty structure now deserves its own section, because Bill C-42 raised the stakes significantly.

• Corporation that contravenes section 21.21 (the CBCA ISC Register obligation) without reasonable cause: liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. The corporate maximum was $5,000 under Bill C-86.
• Directors and officers who knowingly authorize, permit or acquiesce in the contravention: fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. The director maximum was $200,000 and six months under Bill C-86.
• Shareholders who knowingly provide false or misleading information: subject to equivalent offence provisions.
• Information sharing: Corporations Canada can share ISC data with the CRA, FINTRAC and law enforcement, which means non-compliance can surface through tax audits or AML investigations rather than a standalone CBCA enforcement action.

The practical impact is that ISC Register maintenance has moved from a paperwork exercise to a live compliance risk that directly maps to director liability.

Digital minute books and the filing cadence problem

Under Bill C-86, a corporation could maintain a paper binder, record ISC data manually and perform the required annual review through the same process. Bill C-42’s 15-day filing cadence with Corporations Canada changes the operational demands, because each update must also be filed with Corporations Canada within the same 15-day window.

Each change requires both an internal minute book update AND a filing with Corporations Canada within the 15-day window. For corporations with frequent share transactions, trust reorganizations or control changes, that can mean many filings per year depending on the frequency of qualifying changes. A paper workflow that relies on annual updates from a law firm binder is unlikely to meet the filing cadence consistently.

Digital minute books maintained on a cloud-based platform solve three specific problems:

• The 15-day clock becomes trackable through automated reminders and filing queues
• Updates can be made by the corporation and reviewed by counsel in parallel without physical handoffs
• Filings to Corporations Canada can be produced directly from the register data, avoiding re-entry errors

Modern platforms with SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications, encryption at rest and in transit and immutable event logs address the security concerns that historically kept minute books on paper.

How MinuteBox Approaches CBCA Record-Keeping

MinuteBox is a modern entity management platform used by CBCA corporations and the firms that advise them to maintain the ISC Register, track the 15-day update clock and prepare filings to Corporations Canada alongside the annual review requirement. The platform keeps the ISC Register inside a broader minute book system, which means shareholders, directors, resolutions and the ISC Register all live in one place.

MinuteBox serves law firms and their corporate clients on the same platform, which means shared access to the ISC Register data while preserving role-based permissions. For corporations that operate under CBCA plus one or more provincial regimes, MinuteBox handles the parallel obligations without duplicating data entry, and registry services cover annual filings across federal and provincial jurisdictions.

For corporations migrating from paper binders or legacy systems, MinuteBox offers concierge migration supported by the MinuteBox team. Security is backed by SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 27017 and ISO 27018 certifications. For a broader view of minute book obligations, see does my company need a corporate minute book and corporate minute book requirements for the CRA. For the annual filing cadence that ties it all together, see corporate filings, annual resolutions and minute books.

Book a demo to see how MinuteBox helps CBCA corporations keep the ISC Register current and compliant under the Bill C-42 regime.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified legal counsel for guidance specific to your corporation and jurisdiction.

FAQ – CBCA Record-Keeping Requirements

The outcomes described below are illustrative and depend on specific facts. Consult qualified tax and legal counsel for advice on your situation.

Does my CBCA corporation still need to maintain an ISC Register internally?

Yes. Bill C-42 did not replace the internal register requirement introduced by Bill C-86. CBCA corporations must still maintain the ISC Register inside the corporate minute book and review it at least once per financial year. The change is that the register information must now also be filed with Corporations Canada under the amended CBCA schedule, so corporations have both the internal register obligation and a filing obligation running in parallel.

What did Bill C-42 change compared to Bill C-86?

Bill C-42 kept the Bill C-86 framework and added four things. A public searchable registry operated by Corporations Canada, mandatory filings of ISC data on a defined schedule, two new required data fields (citizenship and address for service) and significantly higher penalties. Corporate penalties rose from $5,000 to $100,000. Director and officer penalties rose from $200,000 and six months to $1,000,000 and five years.

How often must the ISC Register be filed with Corporations Canada?

CBCA corporations must file ISC Register information at incorporation, within 30 days of amalgamation or continuance, annually with the corporate annual return and within 15 days of any change that is required to be made to the ISC Register. The 15-day window starts from the date the corporation becomes aware of the change. This cadence is new with Bill C-42. Under Bill C-86 the register was internal and was not filed.

What are the current penalties for failing to maintain the ISC Register?

A CBCA corporation that, without reasonable cause, contravenes section 21.21 is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. Directors and officers who knowingly authorize, permit or acquiesce in the contravention face fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. These enhanced penalties took effect January 22, 2024 under Bill C-42 and replaced the lower $5,000 and $200,000 figures from Bill C-86.

Is the ISC Register publicly searchable?

Portions of it are. Under Bill C-42, Corporations Canada operates a searchable public registry containing the ISC’s name, address for service, the day the individual became an ISC and a description of how they hold significant control. Other fields including residential address, date of birth and citizenship are not published. ISCs who qualify for exceptions on safety grounds or who are minors may apply to have their information omitted or kept private.