I feel almost fatherly watching the Canadian legal profession go through its 'shall we, shan't we?' ABS debate, but unlike when we did it, they have what's happened here to inform them. The post linked to below is an example of that.
The debate is happening at both a federal level, with the Canadian Bar Association's Legal Futures project (sounds like a good name for a website, actually), and also in some provinces.
In fact, I recently gave evidence to the ABS working group of Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario, to you and me) and what struck me was the tenor of the questions, which were more along the lines of 'Why should we do this?', rather than 'Why shouldn't we do this?'.
More concerning though was that they felt they could take my evidence by telephone conference, rather than flying me over there.
To get a sense of the passion and rhetoric accompanying the debate, you may want to read the 59 (and counting!) comment thread to a late December Slaw.ca blog post on the subject. Notable by its absence in these pieces is any comment on what arrangements like BPIF Legal or Kent Legal Services might mean in a Canadian context. The ABS debates are only just beginning and I’d like to see the conversation broaden before participant positions narrow and harden.