Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio Evaluation

1. Is there a continued need for BRLP legal services?

TB core issue 1

• Trends in demand for BRLP services
  • Number of active files by fiscal year and type of service (litigation, advisory, other)
  • Total hours of legal services by fiscal year and type of service (litigation, advisory, other)
• Legal practice trends (type of legal issues by fiscal year)
• Trends in file complexity and risk level by fiscal year and type of service (litigation, advisory, other)

• Legislative and policy requirements
• Evolving legal needs in the area of commercial and regulatory law

• Assessment of continued need for BRLP services in all current areas of practice

2. Does the delivery of legal services by the BRLP continue to respond to federal government priorities?

TB core issue 2

• Alignment of the BRLP mandate and activities with federal priorities/policy commitments
• Assessment of how the BRLP contributes to the priorities and objectives of the federal government

• Document review (documentation describing the BRLP mandate/ activities at the Portfolio, DLSU and regional office level, and federal priorities in the area of commercial and regulatory law)
• Key informant interviews

3. Is the provision of legal services by the Portfolio consistent with the Department of Justice Act and the departmental mandate?

TB core issues 2 and 3

• Assessment of extent to which BRLP legal services are consistent with the Department of Justice Act and the departmental mandate

• Compliance with service standards
• Assessments by the BRLP and client departments and agencies of litigation and advisory services in terms of:
• clarity
• timeliness
• meeting deadlines
• understanding nature of problem
• providing updates/progress reports
• involving the client in development of legal strategies and positions
• developing legal strategies appropriate to client policy and/or program objectives
• overall quality

• Key informant interviews (including clients)
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Use of processes, tools and standards for assessing legal risk, including protocols for reviewing legal risk assessments
• Assessment by the BRLP and client departments and agencies of litigation and advisory services in terms of:
• effectively working with the client to identify and manage legal risks

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies

• Number and percentage of files “unable to assess” and length of time before assessment entered
• Average number of risk assessments/reassessments per file

• Document review (iCase reports)
• File review
• Case studies (through file review)

• Consistency of language used in assessing and communicating legal risk
• Consistency of risk ratings
• Timeliness of assessments/reviews/reassessments of legal risk
• Use of consultations to discuss and assess legal risks

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Level of BRLP involvement in training of appropriate client officials on legal issues and risks
• MOUs outline roles and responsibilities related to legal risk
• Communication of legal risk management strategies and mitigation measures to client departments and agencies
• Nature and extent of BRLP involvement on client risk committees
• Assessment of the BRLP contribution to improved understanding of legal issues and legal risks by client departments and agencies

• Document review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Nature and frequency of training for counsel
• Number of counsel and support staff trained
• Nature and frequency of training for client departments and agencies
• Number of client staff trained
• Satisfaction with training (feedback forms on training sessions offered by BRLP)

• Satisfaction with training

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Focus groups

• Nature and type of tools and structures
• Best practices
• Practice directives
• Practice groups/working groups
• Commercial law directives
• Teams
• Mentoring
• File assignment processes
• Orientation binders
• Quality control frameworks
• Committees (including the Commercial Law Coordinating Committee, as well as committees at DLSUs, regional offices)
• Secretariat assistance (Real Property Law Secretariat and IP/IT Law Secretariat)
• Inventory of legal counsel
• Justipedia
• Use of tools and structures
• Satisfaction with tools, structures and resources

• Document review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies

• Level and sufficiency of resources (human, financial, information, technological) to support BRLP work

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey

• Analysis of trends (legal issues, legal risks)
• Level and effectiveness of intra-Portfolio coordination
• Structures at DLSUs and regional offices to coordinate and manage significant legal issues
• Assessment of the Portfolio’s ability to make strategic decisions regarding legal issues and strategies

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Existence of structures to ensure consistency (e.g., litigation committees, meetings with senior managers, practice groups, knowledge management system, templates, protocols)
• Counsel consultation with specialized sections within Justice, where appropriate
• Level and effectiveness of inter-portfolio coordination
• Privy Council Office involvement in files, when appropriate
• Assessment that an integrated, whole-of-government approach is used in the provision of legal services

• Document review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Active participation of the Portfolio in client committees and management structures
• Consideration of BRLP legal advice by decision makers in program and policy development (e.g., Department’s perspective in Memorandum to Cabinet development)
• BRLP and client assessment of legal advice in terms of
• involving the client in development of legal strategy and positions

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• BRLP role in developing legal strategies appropriate to implementing client policy and/or program objectives
• Assessment of the effectiveness of advisory services in supporting the implementation of government decisions

• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Consideration of legal risks in the development and implementation of client policies, programs and litigation strategies
• High risk files are resourced and communicated appropriately (e.g., early warning reports, level of senior involvement)
• Assessment of the effectiveness of management and mitigation strategies

• Document review (Client Feedback Survey, iCase)
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Successful outcome of files

• Assessment of the effectiveness in advocating the government’s position (settling when appropriate, taking cases to court to advance the state of the law)

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Contribution of the BRLP to provision of effective, responsive legal services

Not through direct questions but by answers to all above questions.

• Document review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• File review
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Forecasted resource needs compared to available resources
• Identified resource challenges
• Assessment of the effectiveness of the BRLP organizational structure

• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Resources allocated in line with Portfolio Business Plan and Service Agreement with the client departments and agencies
• Measures in place to manage efficiency and cost of legal services and their effectiveness (e.g., Law Practice Model; practice groups; use of standardized processes, practices, and templates; approach to assigning work and determining when to outsource; information management tools such as iCase, Justipedia)
• Assessment of the Portfolio’s ability to meet demand for legal services in terms of:
• Human resources
• Financial resources

Advisory and litigation:

• Assignment of counsel to files based on complexity and level of risk
• Use of paralegals
• Use of agents
• Assessment of whether BRLP legal services are conducted in a cost-effective manner
• Suggestions for improvements in efficiency, including alternative delivery approaches

Litigation:

• Number and percentage of files settled/closed without going to court
• Use and effectiveness of strategies to promote timely, cost-effective resolution
• Early resolution strategies
• Alternative dispute resolution practices, where appropriate

• Document review (including iCase)
• Literature review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Case studies
• Focus groups

• Role and responsibility of the client departments and agencies in managing demand for legal services
• Involvement of representatives of the client departments and agencies in BRLP practice groups and committees
• Assessment of the clients’ effectiveness in managing their demand for legal services
• Timely involvement of the BRLP by the client departments and agencies
• Clarity of the legal requests made by client departments and agencies

• Document review
• Key informant interviews
• Legal Counsel Survey
• Case studies
• Focus groups