TLOMAToday - NOVEMber 2026

Welcome back Team TLOMA!

While Halloween may be over – we do have a few treats and maybe a trick or two for you!

Sweet Treats: October Event Debrief

• On October 13 the IT Solutions team of Rich Miller, Amelia Smith & Michael Sugrue hosted a Technology SIG on From Policy to Practice | Putting AI to Work in Your Firm which had lots of new and important tips and skills to keep your firm up to date and ahead of the curve.
• On October 21 Shannon Talbot led a powerful HR SIG - Thriving Through Change: Why some teams grow stronger through change, while others fall behind.
• Finally, on October 28 Melissa Marshall, Devin McMillan, Leticia Widajat, our trusted team at BDO led a Finance SIG on Navigating T3 Trust Updates, 2026 Year-End Reporting and Key Tax Developments: Practical Insights for Law Firm Finance Teams.

We hope you found these SIGs useful and encourage Members to watch the recordings if you missed any of them.

Reserved Treats: Upcoming Events

• November 4 – Operations SIG: Matter Mobility: Where Records Management Meets Facilities, Cost, and Client Service
• November 17 – HR SIG: From Benefits to Better Outcomes: Practical Actions for Plan Design, Communication & Employee Well-Being
• December 2 - Technology SIG: TBA

Festive Treats: TLOMA Holiday Event

On November 25 Convivium is hosting TLOMA’s can’t miss Holiday Event! Seats are limited so if you have not yet purchased your tickets – don’t wait!!

Treat with a Trick or Two! - The Launch of TLOMA’s New Website!

It has been a long time coming, and we are so excited to unveil TLOMA’s new website as of November 1! We ask that you please be patient in the coming weeks as there may be some technical glitches here and there until we are fully set in the new system but we are sure you will all love it!

Team TLOMA, looking forward to sharing a celebratory glass of bubbly with you all on the 25^th as we toast another successful year at Convivium!

Ava Isaacson is the Director of Team Development at Sherrard Kuzz LLP, one of Canada’s leading employment and labour law firms, representing employers. Her responsibilities include recruiting, training, managing, supervising, coaching and motivating the support team firm wide.  Ava has been in the legal industry for more than 10 years, in both the public and private sectors, with a focus on employment and labour relations.

Ava has a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications with a specialization in creative writing and journalism from University of Windsor, and an Ontario College Graduate Certificate in human resources management from Seneca College. She is a licensed paralegal and has obtained her CHRP certification. 

Ava is honoured to be selected as a member of the Board of Directors and is looking forward to tackling the exciting new challenges ahead.

You’ve vetted your firm’s cyber security. Your staff use multi-factor authentication, your computers are patched, your data is backed up, and your IT provider keeps an eye out for suspicious activity.

Then one of your technology vendors has a cyber security incident. Suddenly, your firm’s risk depends on systems you don’t own and security decisions you didn’t make.

That’s the scenario Ontario’s justice system faced this summer. On June 30, 2026, Thomson Reuters Canada detected unauthorized activity within one of its cloud environments. The affected environment supported C-Track, the case-management platform used by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Superior Court of Justice, and Ontario Court of Justice to store and manage some court documents and records.

Thomson Reuters later determined that the accessed data included some information from Ontario courts and notified the Ministry of the Attorney General on July 23. When Ontario’s three Chief Justices publicly disclosed the incident on September 2, the investigation was still determining exactly what information had been accessed and how many people could have been affected.

For law firm managers, there’s an important lesson here. Your cyber security doesn’t end at the edge of your own network: outside providers may store or access some of your firm’s most sensitive information.

Your Vendors Are Part of Your Security Environment

Think about how many outside platforms your firm uses during a normal workday. Your document management system may be hosted in the cloud, while your staff may use an online accounting platform, payroll provider, practice management system, or remote-access tool.

Each supplier that stores or accesses firm information becomes part of your cyber security risk profile. If one of those providers experiences unauthorized access, your information may be involved even though your own network was never compromised.

That doesn’t mean cloud services are inherently unsafe. In many cases, reputable cloud providers have far greater cyber security resources than an individual firm could maintain internally, but the C-Track incident shows that even a large, established technology company can experience unauthorized activity.

When you choose a vendor, you’re also making decisions about where your firm’s information goes, who may have access to it, and how the provider will respond if something happens. Those questions deserve the same attention as price, features, and ease of use.

Vendor Due Diligence Needs to Go Beyond the Sales Demo

Most software selection starts with features, price, compatibility, and usability. Cyber security needs to be part of that conversation before the contract is signed.

Before approving a provider that will handle sensitive firm or client information, find out how it protects that data. Ask where information will be stored, how access is controlled, what encryption is used, how backups are handled, and what security standards or independent audits the provider follows.

You should also ask what happens if the provider has a breach. Find out how quickly it will notify your firm, what information it will give you, who will investigate, and what assistance will be available during your response.

A vendor may have strong security controls and still experience an incident. How quickly and openly it responds can affect your firm’s ability to protect clients, employees, and business information.

Know What Information Your Vendors Have

If one of your providers called this afternoon and said its environment had been compromised, could you immediately identify what firm information might be there? For many firms, the answer isn’t obvious because data can spread across multiple platforms over time.

A new application may be adopted for one department, then connected to another platform later. Files get uploaded for individual projects, old accounts remain active after employees leave, and years can pass without anyone documenting exactly what information is being stored in each service.

A simple vendor and data inventory can make incident response much easier. Record which external providers your firm uses, what information each one receives or stores, which employees have access, and who internally owns the relationship. Include the renewal date and the person responsible for reviewing the vendor’s security. That way, if an incident occurs, you won’t have to reconstruct your technology environment while everyone is already under pressure.

Review the Contract Before Something Goes Wrong

Cyber security language can get little attention when a technology contract is being negotiated. But after an incident, those same provisions can become some of the most important terms in the agreement.

Your contracts with technology providers should address security responsibilities and breach notification. Depending on the service, you may also want provisions dealing with data location, subcontractors, access controls, encryption, retention and deletion, audit rights, insurance, and what happens to your information when the relationship ends.

Pay particular attention to notification requirements because your firm’s response may depend on receiving timely information. In the C-Track incident, Thomson Reuters detected unauthorized activity on June 30 and later advised the Ministry on July 23 that accessed data included Ontario court information, while the public announcement followed on September 2.

Your Incident Response Plan Should Include Vendor Breaches

Most firms picture a cyber incident as something happening directly to their own network. Ransomware, a compromised email account, a stolen laptop, or an employee clicking a malicious link may be the examples that first come to mind.

Your incident-response plan should also cover a call from a supplier saying its systems have been breached. That scenario can require your firm to make decisions even though you don’t control the investigation or the affected infrastructure.

The Law Society of Ontario recommends that firms prepare an incident-response plan addressing events such as unauthorized access and data breaches. It also recommends safeguards for electronic information, including protections for information stored using cloud services.

Your plan should identify who needs to be contacted, who has authority to make decisions, how affected systems or accounts will be reviewed, and how you’ll determine what information the vendor held. It should also explain who contacts your IT provider, insurer, privacy counsel, senior management, and affected clients when those communications are required.

What Law Firm Managers Can Do Now

You don’t need to replace every cloud platform your firm uses. You do need to know what your suppliers are doing with your information and have a plan for responding if one of them experiences a security incident.

●      Create a vendor inventory. List every outside provider that stores, processes, transmits, or can access firm information. Include smaller services purchased directly by individual departments because they can be easy to overlook.

●      Map your data. Identify what each vendor holds, including client files, employee information, billing records, email, identification documents, and financial information. Knowing the type of information involved can help you assess the impact of an incident much faster.

●      Review access. Remove accounts belonging to former employees and check that current users only have the permissions they need. Excess access can create unnecessary exposure if a vendor account or system is compromised.

●      Check your contracts. Review breach notification, security responsibilities, data retention, subcontractors, and termination provisions before renewal dates arrive. If the wording is vague, raise the issue while you still have room to negotiate.

●      Ask vendors about cyber security. Security reviews shouldn’t happen once during procurement and then disappear. Revisit them periodically as the service, your data use, and the provider’s technology change.

●      Practice your response. Run a tabletop exercise in which a major technology provider tells you that firm data may have been accessed. See how quickly your team can identify the affected information, responsible decision-makers, and next steps.

The Bigger Lesson

According to the September 2 statement, there was no evidence at that point that the C-Track incident had resulted in identity theft, and no indication that systems processing financial transactions for court proceedings had been affected. Thomson Reuters had also implemented further safeguards, and the courts said C-Track remained operational and safe to use. That doesn’t make the incident irrelevant to firms: rather, it makes it a useful example of how cyber risk can reach an organization through a trusted supplier rather than through its own systems.

Law offices rely on outside technology because modern legal work depends on interconnected services. Outsourcing a service, however, doesn’t remove the need to know what information the provider holds, what protections are in place, and what your firm will do if those protections fail.

Your own cyber security plan may be strong, but that’s only part of the picture. You also need to know how prepared the organizations connected to your firm are, and how quickly you can respond when a problem begins somewhere else.

Nolan is an expert in IT for law firms. In 2024 he became CEO of IT support company Inderly, local to Hamilton, Toronto and Stratford, and serving law firms across Ontario.  

When not leading the Inderly team, Nolan can usually be found writing and shooting independent films, playing D&D, or enjoying Toronto’s best theatre productions and concerts. 

Why Acoustics Need a New Strategy for AI, Hybrid Work and Modern Legal Practice

The modern law office may be about to get a lot louder.

Artificial intelligence is already becoming part of everyday legal work. Clio's 2026 Canadian legal trends research reports that 95% of Canadian law firms are using AI in some capacity. Lawyers are using it for research, document drafting, summarization, administrative work and other tasks that once happened almost entirely through a keyboard.

Now another shift is beginning.

We are starting to talk to our technology.

Legal AI platforms are already introducing voice interaction. Vincent by Clio, for example, added desktop voice dictation in 2026, allowing lawyers to speak a prompt rather than type it. For a profession built around lengthy questions, detailed instructions, analysis and context, it is not difficult to see the appeal.

But there is a workplace implication that deserves attention.

What happens when an office already filled with Teams calls, client conversations, hybrid meetings and collaboration adds lawyers regularly talking to AI?

The future law office may contain significantly more speech than the office many firms originally designed.

And that changes the acoustic conversation.

For years, acoustics in legal workplaces have understandably centered on confidentiality and privacy. Those requirements are not going away. But the next generation of acoustic planning needs to address something broader: how do we create environments that support increasingly verbal ways of working without sacrificing concentration, comfort or privacy?

The answer is not simply to make everything quieter.

In fact, sometimes that creates an entirely different problem.

When Quiet Becomes the Problem

I recently spoke with someone responsible for the working environment of a major Canadian law firm. The firm had designed an important work area where sound containment was critical.

The acoustic strategy worked. In fact, it worked too well.

The space became so quiet that people were uncomfortable using it. Rather than experiencing the environment as peaceful and private, employees found the silence unnatural. The firm ultimately had to make adjustments to reduce the degree of sound control and create a more comfortable acoustic experience.

That experience illustrates one of the most important principles of workplace acoustics:

Good acoustics are not about eliminating sound. They are about managing it.

A successful acoustic environment protects conversations that need to remain private, reduces distractions where people need to concentrate and maintains enough ambient sound for the workplace to feel comfortable, active and human.

That balance is particularly important in a law office.

Legal work requires intense concentration, but it also requires conversation. Lawyers confer with colleagues, meet with clients, negotiate, collaborate, participate in virtual meetings and increasingly interact with technology.

The objective should not be to make the workplace silent. The objective should be to make sure the right sounds are happening in the right places.

Sound Is Invisible, but Its Impact Is Not

When planning a law office, the visible elements naturally receive considerable attention. Furniture, lighting, technology, finishes, meeting rooms and workstations can all be evaluated on drawings, renderings and material boards.

Sound is different.

You cannot see a room's acoustics.

Yet you experience them almost immediately.

A beautifully designed glass meeting room may provide visual separation, but if the conversation inside can be understood from the corridor, it is not truly private. A lawyer may have an enclosed office, yet speech may still travel through the ceiling, around the door, through mechanical systems or through gaps within the construction.

In an open or shared area, the challenge may be the opposite. Employees hear too much.

For law firms, acoustics therefore influence far more than comfort. They affect confidentiality, concentration, collaboration, employee experience, client confidence and workplace performance.

As legal workplaces continue to evolve, those factors need to be considered together.

The Problem Isn't Always Volume

When people think about workplace acoustics, they often think about noise.

But good acoustics are not simply about making a space quieter. They are about controlling how sound behaves.

Consider an empty room with hard floors, exposed ceilings and glass walls. Clap your hands and you may hear the sound linger.

That lingering sound is reverberation. Reverberation time is essentially a measure of how long it takes sound to decay within a space after the original sound has stopped.

The longer sound remains in the room, the more conversations, ringing phones, footsteps and everyday workplace sounds begin to overlap. A room with excessive reverberation can therefore feel busy and noisy even when relatively few people are using it.

This is especially relevant in legal environments because so much of the work depends on concentration and clear communication.

Drafting a complex agreement while hearing several understandable conversations nearby is difficult. Conducting a sensitive client discussion in a room where speech carries into adjacent areas presents a different, and potentially more serious, challenge.

At the other end of the spectrum, removing too much ambient sound can create an environment that feels unnaturally quiet.

In a space with almost no background sound, very small noises become prominent. A keyboard. A chair moving. Footsteps. A cough. A single conversation.

People may also become more conscious of their own voices. Instead of feeling private, they may speak more quietly because the silence makes it seem as though everyone around them can hear every word.

The best acoustic environment, therefore, is not necessarily the quietest one. It is the one that feels appropriate for the work happening within it. A private client meeting room, an open work area, a library-style focus zone and an active collaboration area should not all sound the same.

Noise Has a Workplace Cost

The effect of sound on concentration should not be underestimated.

BuzziSpace, a manufacturer specializing in workplace acoustic solutions, cites workplace research indicating that 50% of workers report being more productive in a less noisy environment, more than 70% frequently lose concentration, and 44% say their company does nothing to address noise.

Those numbers take on particular significance in a legal environment.

Legal work often requires extended periods of focused reading, research, writing, analysis and strategic thinking. Unlike a brief interruption, an understandable conversation nearby can continually compete for attention.

Our brains naturally process speech, which makes a colleague's conversation considerably harder to ignore than indistinct background sound.

This is why a workplace can look beautiful, function efficiently on a floor plan and still frustrate the people working within it every day.

Acoustic performance is part of workplace performance.

A Simple Framework: Absorb, Block and Contain

Workplace acoustics can quickly become technical, but law firm leaders and administrators do not need to become acoustic engineers to ask better questions.

A useful place to begin is with three concepts: absorb, block and contain.

1. Absorb

Absorption helps reduce the amount of sound reflecting around a space.

Hard materials such as glass, concrete and other highly reflective surfaces allow sound energy to bounce around a room. Softer, absorptive materials help capture some of that energy instead.

Acoustic ceiling products, wall panels, upholstered furniture, carpet and other sound-absorbing materials can all contribute. This can be particularly important in larger collaborative rooms, cafés, reception areas and meeting spaces where multiple hard surfaces may otherwise cause sound to linger.

There is, however, an important distinction.

Absorbing sound within a room is not the same as preventing sound from leaving the room.

Adding acoustic panels may make a meeting room sound considerably better inside without necessarily making the conversation taking place within it private.

Understanding that difference is one reason identifying the actual acoustic problem should always come before choosing the solution.

2. Block

Blocking is about interrupting the path sound takes between people or spaces.

In open environments, partitions, screens, furniture, architectural elements and thoughtful space planning can help reduce the direct transmission of sound.

This is one reason workstation orientation and adjacency matter.

If employees who spend much of their day on video calls, or eventually voice interactions with AI, are positioned directly beside people performing concentration-heavy legal work, the problem may not be solved by adding more absorptive material.

Sometimes the better solution is to reconsider the relationship between those activities.

Vertical acoustic elements, suspended panels, room dividers and desk screens can also help interrupt sound paths and reduce how far speech travels through an open area.

3. Contain

Containment becomes particularly important when privacy matters.

Private offices, meeting rooms, interview rooms and other spaces used for sensitive discussions need to do more than absorb sound. They need to help keep speech within the room.

That means considering the complete enclosure, including:

• Walls
• Doors
• Glass
• Ceilings
• Seals
• Mechanical systems
• Electrical and other penetrations

A high-performing wall can still be compromised by a poorly sealed door. Sound may travel above a suspended ceiling or through openings created for mechanical, electrical or technology systems.

Acoustic privacy is therefore rarely determined by one product. The room needs to perform as a system.

4. Diffusion: Managing Reflected Sound

Another principle used in acoustic design is diffusion.

Rather than absorbing sound, diffusion helps distribute sound energy more evenly throughout a space. Irregular surfaces, varying depths and three-dimensional forms can help break up strong sound reflections instead of allowing those reflections to travel directly back into the room.

This can help create a more balanced acoustic environment without making a space feel acoustically "dead."

For most law firm administrators, however, the most important point is not the terminology. It is understanding that different acoustic problems require different acoustic solutions.

A room with excessive reverberation does not necessarily have the same problem as a room with poor speech privacy. An open work area with distracting conversations does not require the same solution as a confidential client meeting room. A space that feels uncomfortably silent requires a different response again.

Understanding the problem first is essential.

Start With the Work, Not the Product

Before deciding what acoustic treatment a workplace needs, consider what will actually happen in each area.

A law office contains very different kinds of work. A litigation team collaborating on a matter has different requirements from someone reviewing a complex agreement. A café intended to encourage conversation should not perform acoustically like a private office. A client meeting room requires a different degree of speech privacy from an informal touchdown space.

Now add another question: Where will people talk to their technology?

If voice interaction with AI becomes an ordinary part of legal work, it will add another layer to workplace planning. A five-minute spoken prompt may not seem significant. Multiply it across dozens or hundreds of people, alongside video meetings and phone calls, and the acoustic profile of the office begins to change.

Think about the workplace in terms of acoustic zones.

Where will people need:

• Deep concentration?
• Confidential conversations?
• Telephone and video calls?
• Voice interaction with technology?
• Team collaboration?
• Informal conversations?
• Client meetings?
• Quiet individual work?

Then consider what is located beside those areas.

Many workplace acoustic problems are actually adjacency problems.

A high-energy collaboration area immediately outside private offices will naturally create challenges. So will a busy café beside rooms intended for sensitive client conversations. Employees spending much of the day on calls beside a quiet focus area create another predictable conflict.

Good acoustic design therefore begins before an acoustic product is ever selected.

It begins with the floor plan and an understanding of how people actually work.

Part 2 to follow

With three decades of experience in the industry, Dave Turner's successful track record as a corporate leader demonstrates the ability to maintain long term, mutually beneficial relationships with CTI's clients. Dave has a broad background as a consulting professional and senior-level executive on personal and organizational development, strategic planning, and change implementation at CTI.

Dave is happy to answer any questions you may have about the services or products offered by CTI Working Environments.

Do Law Offices Need More Places to Talk?

The growth of voice-based work also raises an interesting question for the legal workplace.

Do firms have enough places for people to talk without disrupting everyone around them?

Historically, many law offices have relied heavily on enclosed private offices, which can naturally provide places for calls and conversations. But legal workplaces are changing. Some firms are reducing individual office sizes, introducing shared or unassigned spaces, creating more collaborative environments and using real estate differently.

At the same time, the number of reasons an individual might need to speak during the workday is increasing.

That may create a new role for small enclosed focus rooms, phone rooms and acoustic booths.

These spaces should not be seen as the automatic answer for every law office, nor should the workplace simply be filled with booths because a new technology has arrived.

The more useful question is whether the workplace provides enough choice.

A lawyer with an appropriately enclosed private office may need nothing additional. Someone working in a shared environment may benefit from quick access to a small enclosed space for a virtual meeting, confidential call or extended voice interaction with an AI tool.

In that context, products such as acoustic booths can become less about creating a novelty "phone booth" and more about providing acoustic infrastructure for increasingly verbal work.

The principle remains the same: Start with the work, not the product.

Details Matter: Start With the Door

Sometimes a surprisingly small detail can compromise an otherwise well-designed room.

The door is a perfect example.

A firm can invest in high-performing walls and glazing, but if there are significant gaps around or beneath the door, conversations may still be heard from the corridor.

Where greater speech privacy is required, details such as door construction, perimeter seals, thresholds and surrounding conditions should be considered as part of the complete acoustic strategy. The same principle applies to ceilings, electrical outlets, wall penetrations and mechanical systems.

Acoustic performance is only as strong as its weakest path.

Looking at the acoustic rating of one product does not necessarily tell you how the completed room will perform.

The wall might perform exceptionally well. The glass might be appropriately specified. But if sound is travelling around the door, above the ceiling or through another opening, the experience can still fall short.

Glass Doesn't Have to Mean Giving Up Privacy

Glass has become an important element in contemporary legal workplace design.

It allows natural light to penetrate deeper into the workplace, creates visual connection and can make enclosed offices and meeting spaces feel more open.

But visual privacy and acoustic privacy are two different things.

When sensitive conversations regularly occur behind glass walls, the acoustic characteristics of the glazing, framing, doors and surrounding construction should all be evaluated together.

The answer does not have to be choosing between openness and privacy. With proper planning, firms can often create environments that provide both.

The important point is that privacy should be intentional. It should not be assumed simply because there is a wall between two spaces.

Sound Masking: What It Does and What It Doesn't Do

Sound masking is another tool that can contribute to a better acoustic environment, and it is frequently misunderstood.

Sound masking does not "cancel" conversations. Instead, a professionally designed system introduces a controlled level of background sound that helps reduce how intelligible surrounding speech is.

Think about the difference between overhearing a conversation in a silent library and hearing the same conversation in a restaurant with a consistent level of background sound. The conversation has not disappeared, but it may become considerably less noticeable.

This is also relevant to the issue of a workplace becoming too quiet.

A certain level of consistent ambient sound can help a workplace feel comfortable while making individual conversations less prominent.

Sound masking can therefore be useful in open work areas and other shared environments, particularly when it is used alongside good planning, appropriate absorption and physical separation.

It should not, however, be expected to correct a poorly constructed confidential room.

Once again, acoustics work best as a system.

Hybrid Work Has Already Changed the Sound of the Office

AI may add another layer of speech to the workplace, but it is not the first technology to do so.

The office already sounds different than it did several years ago.

People participate in Teams and Zoom meetings throughout the day. Client consultations happen virtually. Hybrid meetings place some participants in the room and others on-screen. Employees spend more time speaking at their desks than they once did.

One employee may be actively collaborating on a video call while the person beside them is reviewing a complex document requiring intense concentration.

Neither employee is working incorrectly.

The environment simply needs to support two very different activities.

Phone rooms, focus rooms, enclosed meeting spaces, private offices and appropriately positioned collaboration zones can give people more choice about where different types of work happen.

The objective is not to eliminate conversation. It is to give conversation the right place to happen.

As voice AI develops, this principle becomes even more important.

Rather than continually asking people to behave more quietly, firms should ask whether the workplace provides the right environments for the increasingly diverse activities people are expected to perform.

Start With an Acoustic Walkthrough

One of the easiest ways to begin evaluating acoustics costs nothing.

Walk through the office during a normal workday and really listen.

1. Outside a meeting room

Can you understand the conversation taking place inside?

2. At a workstation near a collaborative area

Are you hearing general workplace activity, or can you clearly follow individual conversations?

3. In reception or client areas

Does sound feel controlled, or does every conversation seem to travel?

4. In focus areas

Does the space feel calm, or so silent that every small sound becomes noticeable?

5. In private offices

Does closing the door create meaningful separation from the activity outside?

Then ask employees about their experience. Where do they go when they need to concentrate? Where do they take sensitive calls? Are there rooms they avoid for confidential conversations? Are certain spaces consistently too loud? Are there areas where people feel uncomfortable speaking because the environment is too quiet?

And looking ahead, consider one more question:

If employees increasingly speak to AI tools, where would you want those conversations to happen?

Patterns will begin to emerge.

This type of walkthrough helps distinguish between a general complaint that an office is "too noisy" and a specific acoustic problem that can actually be addressed.

That distinction matters because the solution to reverberation is different from the solution to sound transfer. The solution to poor speech privacy is different from the solution to distracting open-office conversations. And the solution to an environment that is uncomfortably silent may involve adding appropriate background sound rather than removing more of it.

A Practical Tool for Understanding Reverberation

For firms interested in better understanding reverberation, technology can provide a useful introduction.

BuzziSpace offers a free RT60 app for iPhone that measures reverberation time in small to medium-sized rooms. Users can take a basic measurement of a room and simulate how introducing various BuzziSpace acoustic products could affect reverberation time.

It is not a substitute for professional acoustic testing when confidentiality or technical performance needs to be verified. But it is an interesting way to experience just how differently sound behaves from one room to another.

Try measuring a conference room with substantial glass and hard finishes. Then compare it with a room containing carpet, acoustic ceiling material, upholstered furniture and other absorptive elements.

The difference may be significant.

More importantly, the exercise creates a tangible connection between the materials we see and the acoustic environment we experience.

What Can Firms Do Today?

If an office is already occupied, improving acoustics does not automatically require a major renovation.

The first step is to identify the actual problem.

Consider:

• Is sound lingering too long within a room?
• Are conversations travelling between enclosed spaces?
• Are employees distracted by understandable speech?
• Are there enough places for phone and video calls?
• Is a collaborative area positioned beside concentration-heavy work?
• Does a particular meeting room lack appropriate privacy?
• Are employees reluctant to use certain spaces because they are too noisy?
• Has sound been controlled so aggressively that another area feels unnaturally quiet?
• Are people changing their behaviour because of the acoustic environment?
• If voice-based AI use increases, does the workplace have appropriate places for those conversations?

Once the problem is understood, possible responses may include:

• Adding absorptive wall, ceiling or furniture elements
• Introducing acoustic dividers or screening
• Improving door seals or other gaps
• Reviewing partition and ceiling conditions
• Reconsidering how spaces are assigned or used
• Adding enclosed phone, focus or meeting spaces
• Evaluating acoustic booths where they support the way people work
• Introducing sound masking where appropriate
• Repositioning collaborative activities
• Testing rooms where greater speech privacy is required
• Reviewing whether background sound levels are appropriate for how a space is being used

Sometimes the solution is architectural. Sometimes it is furniture. Sometimes it is technology. Sometimes it is space planning. And sometimes it is simply using the existing workplace differently.

The important point is to diagnose before prescribing.

Design for the Work That Is Coming

For firms planning a new office or significant renovation, the most important advice may be the simplest:

Have the acoustic conversation early.

Determine which spaces need true speech privacy. Identify where concentration-heavy work will occur. Understand where collaboration and social interaction will happen. Think about phone calls, video meetings and hybrid work.

But do not design solely around the way the firm works today.

Consider how technology may change behaviour over the life of the workplace.

If voice becomes a more common way of interacting with AI, how might that affect the number of conversations taking place during the workday? If lawyers spend less time typing commands and more time speaking them, what does that mean for shared environments? Where will people go when they need to have a ten-minute spoken interaction without distracting colleagues?

No one can predict exactly how quickly these behaviours will change.

But good workplace strategy does not require perfect prediction.

It requires creating enough flexibility for the environment to adapt.

Consider how ceilings, walls, doors, glazing and mechanical systems work together. Think about the desired level of ambient sound, not simply the amount of sound that needs to be removed. Provide a range of spaces that support different levels of interaction and concentration.

Solving these questions on a floor plan is considerably easier than discovering them after everyone has moved in.

The Sound of the Next Law Office

Clients may never know the acoustic rating of a wall. Employees may never know why a particular ceiling product was selected. Visitors may never notice that an absorptive material has been incorporated into the design. They may never think about the sound masking system operating quietly in the background.

But people notice the experience those decisions create.

A client notices whether a conversation feels private. An employee notices whether they can concentrate. A lawyer notices whether closing the door creates meaningful separation from the activity outside. A team notices whether collaboration feels energetic without becoming disruptive.

And increasingly, people may notice whether the workplace allows them to use new tools and new ways of working without negatively affecting everyone around them.

That is what successful acoustic design provides.

Not silence. Balance.

Enough privacy for sensitive conversations. Enough acoustic control for focused work. Enough background sound for people to feel comfortable. Enough choice for collaboration, virtual meetings and increasingly verbal interactions with technology.

The legal workplace is changing, and its acoustic requirements will change with it.

The question for firms is no longer simply, "Can people hear us?"

It is, "Have we designed the workplace for everything people are going to need to say?"

With three decades of experience in the industry, Dave Turner's successful track record as a corporate leader demonstrates the ability to maintain long term, mutually beneficial relationships with CTI's clients. Dave has a broad background as a consulting professional and senior-level executive on personal and organizational development, strategic planning, and change implementation at CTI.

Dave is happy to answer any questions you may have about the services or products offered by CTI Working Environments. t: 905.362.2785  I  e: dturner@ctiwe.com

Gather, Reflect & Celebrate the magic of the season; toast to another successful year with your fellow TLOMA Members.

Gather in the elegant surroundings of Convivium for a special members-only celebration filled with seasonal cheer. Share stories, reconnect with colleagues, and reflect on a year of growth and accomplishment while enjoying a memorable afternoon of wonderful food and meaningful conversation. Whether you’re raising a glass to new milestones or simply savouring the warmth of the season, it’s the perfect way to celebrate the year together.

Seats are limited – secure yours today! NOTE: This is a TLOMA MEMBER event only.

By this point, the operational case for information governance should feel clear.

It strengthens lifecycle control.
It reduces drift.
It supports innovation.
It embeds accountability across systems and teams.

But operational clarity alone does not secure leadership commitment.

In most firms, governance competes with visible priorities: lateral recruitment, practice growth, technology upgrades, client acquisition, and profitability targets. Unless governance is positioned in business terms, it risks being viewed as background compliance work - important, but not urgent.

To gain meaningful buy-in, governance must be framed not as a technical initiative, but as a strategic business decision.

Understanding what leadership actually prioritises

Managing Partners, Executive Committees, and COOs do not typically prioritise retention schedules or workflow diagrams. They prioritise:

• Risk exposure
• Financial performance
• Client confidence
• Competitive positioning
• Operational efficiency
• Strategic readiness

The business case for governance must align directly with these priorities.

When governance is presented as “improving records processes,” it struggles to gain traction, but when it is presented as reducing unmanaged risk, controlling cost growth, strengthening client trust, and enabling innovation, the conversation changes.

Risk: From abstract to measurable

Risk is one of the most effective entry points for the governance discussion.

Firms face increasing scrutiny from:

• Clients conducting detailed data governance audits
• Cyber insurers evaluating lifecycle control
• Regulatory frameworks addressing privacy obligations
• Cross-border mandates requiring defensible retention practices

Weak lifecycle discipline increases exposure in each of these areas. But leadership needs more than general statements about risk. They need clarity.

• What volume of dormant matters remains open?
• How much data is retained beyond defined lifecycle thresholds?
• How consistently is retention enforced across systems?

When governance is tied to measurable indicators, risk becomes concrete and concrete risk prompts executive attention.

Cost control: The quiet financial impact

Storage growth is often treated as an IT infrastructure issue. But over time, uncontrolled data accumulation has measurable financial consequences. Expanding repositories increase storage costs, backup demands, disaster recovery scope, and system performance pressure. Periodic clean-up campaigns consume internal resources. AI searches become more costly and less accurate and reliable against large data sets, particularly those with outdated data.

Governance, when embedded properly, distributes lifecycle control across routine workflows, preventing accumulation from escalating. This is not about aggressive deletion. It is about proportional retention aligned with policy.

For leadership teams focused on operational efficiency, governance offers predictable cost management rather than reactive expenditure. Framed correctly, governance supports financial discipline.

Client confidence and competitive positioning

Firms increasingly compete for mandates that require demonstrable data control maturity.

Sophisticated clients want to know:

• How long and where is their data is retained
• How retention is enforced
• Who can access their matter content
• How access is reviewed
• How disposition is documented

Firms that can answer these questions with structured reporting - rather than policy explanation - gain credibility. This credibility influences procurement decisions, particularly in regulated industries. Governance, therefore, supports competitive positioning and it signals operational maturity.

Supporting strategic initiatives

Many firms are investing in AI-assisted research, document automation, analytics, and client-facing collaboration platforms but these initiatives depend on structured data environments.

Leadership may not initially connect AI readiness with lifecycle control. But the relationship is direct. Poorly governed information increases exposure (and costs) when deploying automation tools. Clean, classified, appropriately retained data reduces uncertainty.

Governance becomes the quiet enabler of innovation and positioning governance as infrastructure for strategic initiatives strengthens its relevance.

Anticipating leadership concerns

Executive teams will naturally ask:

• How much will this cost?
• Will it disrupt lawyers?
• Do we need additional headcount?
• How long will it take?
• Are there software tools available to assist?

The strength of a phased governance strategy lies in its ability to answer these questions clearly.

A realistic business case demonstrates that governance can be implemented incrementally, using existing structures, supported by technology that enhances efficiency rather than adding manual burden. It shows that governance reduces disruption over time by preventing large-scale remediation efforts later and it frames governance as operational refinement, not organisational upheaval.

The importance of timing

Governance discussions are often most productive when aligned with existing leadership priorities.

For example:

• During technology upgrades
• Following client audit feedback
• During cyber insurance renewal cycles
• As part of strategic planning discussions
• When exploring AI deployment

Linking governance to existing initiatives prevents it from appearing isolated as it becomes part of broader firm evolution.

Presenting governance as measurable progress

A compelling business case avoids vague aspirations.

It outlines:

• The current lifecycle landscape (visibility)
• The structural gaps (misalignment)
• The phased plan (practical implementation)
• The measurable outcomes (risk reduction, cost control, improved defensibility)

Leadership responds to clarity. They do not need perfection at launch but they need confidence that governance is structured, proportionate, and aligned with firm priorities.

From approval to commitment

Gaining buy-in is not only about initial approval. It is about sustained commitment. Governance must remain visible through periodic reporting and metrics must connect back to leadership priorities. Progress must be demonstrable.

When executive teams see incremental improvement - reduction in dormant matters, improved retention enforcement, stabilised data growth - governance moves from initiative to expectation and it becomes part of how the firm operates.

The final step: Demonstrating return

Once leadership commitment is secured, a new question naturally follows: What is the measurable return?

Governance value is not always immediate or purely financial. It includes risk reduction, operational efficiency, client trust, and strategic readiness.

In the final article of this series, we will explore how firms can measure and demonstrate the long-term impact of information governance - articulating return on investment in both financial and strategic terms.

Because governance is not simply about control. It is about value.

Katherine Donovan is VP North American Operations, at LegalRM, the makers of iCompli.

LegalRM have hosted many educational webinars over the last few months. These webinars are all available free of charge and on demand by clicking here.

If you would like to find out how iCompli, from LegalRM can help your firm manage and govern data more efficiently and compliantly then do not hesitate to get in touch.

Transparency comes up in almost every conversation we’re having with law firm leaders right now.

It’s widely understood to be a foundation of trust. And in many ways, it is.

But what’s becoming clear is that transparency is also one of the most misunderstood leadership expectations in firms today.

Because somewhere along the way, it has started to sound like full access, complete visibility, or open-book everything. And that’s where leaders begin to hesitate, not because they don’t value transparency, but because they’re trying to balance it with other equally real obligations: confidentiality, privacy, and the complexity of partnership dynamics.

So the question isn’t whether transparency matters. It’s how to practice it in a way that actually builds trust.

One of the most useful ways to think about it is this:

People start to notice the gaps.

And when there’s a gap, people will fill it.

Not with facts, but with assumptions.

That’s the dynamic that sits underneath most breakdowns in trust.

In the absence of context, people create their own. They interpret decisions, read into silence, and try to connect dots that may or may not actually belong together. Over time, those interpretations start to feel real, and once that happens, it becomes much harder to rebuild clarity.

What’s interesting is that this rarely has anything to do with leaders withholding sensitive information. In most cases, the issue is that the right kind of information wasn’t shared in the first place.

Transparency, in practice, is less about volume and more about relevance.

It means helping people understand how the firm works in the areas that affect them. It means giving context around decisions, direction, and expectations so that people aren’t left to reverse-engineer what’s going on. It means being deliberate about closing the gaps that invite speculation.

At the same time, transparency requires discernment.

There are always categories of information that cannot be shared, and that boundary is part of responsible leadership. Financial details tied to individuals, confidential conversations, and sensitive firm decisions sit in a different space than the broader business realities that help people make sense of their work.

The nuance is in recognizing that you can share meaning without sharing everything.

You can help associates understand how the business of law operates, how matters are staffed, how profitability is shaped, and how client relationships evolve, all without disclosing personal or confidential financial information.

In fact, that level of transparency is often what people are actually asking for. They want to understand how things work and how they fit into it.

When that understanding is missing, the gaps widen.

And when the gaps widen, the assumptions get louder.

This is where transparency becomes a leadership discipline rather than a general principle. It requires paying attention to where people are likely to be making meaning on their own and stepping in with enough clarity to guide that understanding in a more grounded direction.

The goal isn’t to remove all gaps. That isn’t realistic, and it isn’t necessary.

The goal is to close the ones that matter.

Because when people feel informed about how decisions are made, what is changing, and what is expected of them, trust builds in a much more durable way.

Transparency, then, is not about access to everything. It’s about making sure people are not left to guess at the things that shape their experience of the firm.

And in a professional environment where assumptions can travel quickly and take hold just as fast, that distinction matters more than most leaders realize.

 is the Director, Programs + Services at Southren Group, overseeing the creation of coaching and training programs in support of mastering the skills needed for success. Christine also works on the development of the tools and resources that support our programs, and is one of the facilitators of our group training sessions and workshops.

A skilled researcher and facilitator, Christine has devoted much of her career to all aspects of the research spectrum - as a consumer, provider and consultant - interpreting and applying insights to the decision making process. Her unique perspective allows her to examine how insights, and the information garnered from them, facilitate behaviour change.

Is your firm's benefits and wellness program delivering the results that matter most to your employees and your law firms?

Moving beyond industry trends, this session will explore three key factors that influence the success of your benefits and wellness program: plan design, communication, and employee well-being.

You'll leave with a personalized three-step action plan, identifying a meaningful improvement in each area that you can take back to your firm to help you evaluate what's working, identify opportunities for improvement, and make meaningful changes. Register today!

SPEAKER

Roger Thorpe

President

Thorpe Benefits

Roger Thorpe is President of Thorpe Benefits, an integrated benefits and wellness consulting company based in Toronto since 1982.

Building law firms that last

For Stephen Mabey, the strongest law firms are not necessarily the boldest or fastest growing. They are the firms that make deliberate decisions about growth, risk and the future they are building.

That conviction is at the heart of his new book, The Cautious Firm: The Five Dimensions of Excellence©. Written for law firm leaders and operations professionals, the book asks a practical question: what does it take to build a durable, profitable and respected firm?

Stephen challenges the idea that caution means timidity, stagnation or resistance to change. Instead, he presents caution as a strategic discipline - a practical approach to risk and uncertainty that helps firms pursue opportunity without compromising their finances, culture, client relationships or future.

The framework brings together five connected dimensions of deliberate-firm excellence: financial discipline, cultural coherence, governance integrity, client relationship architecture and deliberate growth. It also introduces the Annual Deliberate Firm Audit©, an evidence-based assessment that helps leaders evaluate overall firm health and determine whether the firm is living up to its stated values and principles.

The book reflects more than four decades of Stephen’s experience in professional services, including 25 years in senior management at one of Atlantic Canada’s largest law firms and more than 16 years advising small and mid-sized law firms through Applied Strategies Inc. A CPA, CA and Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management, he is known for bringing clarity, candour and common sense to complex firm decisions.

Since founding Applied Strategies in 2009, Stephen has helped law firm leaders navigate strategy, governance, operations, financial management, technology, talent and growth. His approach is practical and direct: understand the business clearly, confront risk early and ensure that today’s decisions support the firm leaders’ goals.

His advice for legal professionals navigating an evolving workplace is straightforward: do not confuse movement with progress. Verify demand before expanding, hire at a pace the culture can absorb and invest in systems before prestige. Growth gets attention; durability builds stronger firms.

The Cautious Firm: The Five Dimensions of Excellence© is available for $25.00 plus HST in digital format. TLOMA members can learn more about Stephen, Applied Strategies, and the

If your firm is planning an upcoming strategy session of leadership discussion, please reach out.  Stephen would be pleased to explore how the framework can help focus the conversation, test current assumptions and support more deliberate decisions.  Connect with him directly at smabey@appliedstratgies.ca.

has been advising law firms for over 15 years on a wide range of issues, including - strategic action planning, leadership, understudy (succession) planning, compensation (Partner and Associate), organizational/governance structures, partnership arrangements, business development, capitalization of partnerships, partnership agreements, lawyer &staff engagement, marketing, key performance indicators, competitive intelligence, finance, mergers, and practice transitions.

Applied Strategies Inc.'s website contains references from clients describing the value of the services rendered https://www.appliedstrategies.ca/references.php.

New Members:

Chloe Sousa
Client Success Coordinator
Kormans LLP

James Buenavides
Application Support Specialist
Beard Winter LLP

Alison Furtado
Human Resources Manager
Grillo Law

Celestina Azuure
Supervisor, Records Management
FASKEN

Jessica Samson
Firm Administrator
Stohn Hay Cafazzo Heim Finlay LLP

Lori Gracan
Office Administrator
LLF Lawyers

Silvia Rebelo
Firm Administrator
Burrison Hudani Doris LLP

Members Who Moved:

Nour Salman
Director of People/Operations
Niman Mamo LLP