Law Times

Law Times • June 1, 2009 NEWS Self-regulation at stake in LSUC review BY ROBERT TODD Law Times ciety of Upper Canada pon- ders changes to its governance structure, say lawyers consulted through the initiative. "The real impetus behind T any move to amend any gov- ernance structure by a self-reg- ulating body is to ensure that it does continue to regulate it- self," says County and District Law Presidents' Association chairman Randall Bocock. "If legal service providers in Ontario and lawyers want to regulate themselves, then they have to have a governance structure that is understandable and comprehensible to the pub- lic, that is transparent, and also accountable. . . . The stake is simply that: does the profession want to be self-regulating?" Bencher Tom Heintzman, chairman of the law society's governance task force, says his group has wrapped up its con- sultations with groups of select- ed lawyers in cities throughout the province, as well as separate talks with legal organizations. "The people who attended were really interested in this process; I'm not saying they all have a unanimous view about the law society, but I think they were very interested. And I think they were very apprecia- tive of having been consulted," says Heintzman. "I think the process was a very good one from that standpoint." The task force asked for feed- back on the bencher election process, the size and nature of Convocation, and the separation of benchers as both adjudica- tors and regulators. According to an earlier report to Convoca- tion, specific questions included whether the size of Convoca- tion should be cut, if term limits Earl Cherniak says it's time for benchers to be subject to term limits — two four-year terms — and eliminate life bencher status. should be introduced for bench- ers, whether the treasurer should form an executive committee, and if life bencher status should be eliminated. Heintzman says there are "a lot of opinions out there," but declined to offer any com- ments on the content of any of the consultations. "All of these issues are inter- related, so I'd rather sort of talk about them when we get around to our report, and we'll see where we go," he says. "Be- cause there will be lots of opin- ion around the table, I'm sure." The task force will meet twice in June to "absorb what we've heard," he says, adding he hopes to issue a report to Convocation by September. Lerners LLP partner Earl Cherniak, who was a bencher from 1999 to 2007, took part in an April task force consul- tation session in Toronto. He says it's time for benchers to be subject to term limits — two four-year terms — and life bencher status should be done away with. "As long as appropriate steps can be taken to appoint quali- fied people to be able to sit on he future of self-reg- ulation hangs in the balance as the Law So- law society discipline matters, the institution of life benchers is probably no longer necessary, because it just makes the body way too big," says Cherniak. He notes that the main ben- efit of life benchers, who are unable to vote at Convocation, is their availability to sit on dis- cipline panels, where they "per- form a very valuable service." He suggests that people who have acted as benchers could automatically qualify to sit on discipline panels and continue to do that important work. Cherniak also believes the treasurer should be able to form an executive committee, a body he says most organizations have. "Every treasurer in effect forms his own ad hoc executive committee of those people who have been his principle advisors or close friends," he says. Term limits would ensure a larger turnover at Convocation, says Cherniak, while maintain- ing "a cadre of people" with ex- perience. This view was part of the reason he chose not to seek re-election after his second term as a bencher, says Cherniak. He says the stakes of the governance review are high for the profession. "I believe that if the law soci- ety loses the ability to self-regu- late it'll be a very bad day for the public generally and for lawyers. Because the alternative is regula- tion by government, which I am dead against," he says. "The law society must do, and must be seen to do, an independent job in the public interest. So having the appropriate governance is one of the ways to instil public confidence." Cherniak notes that the law society seems to go through the process of considering gover- nance changes every four years, but change has been elusive. "Generally speaking they go nowhere, in part because there are so many entrenched interests with the way it's set up now with so many benchers who have been there for a very long time," he says. Bocock says CDLPA, which met with the LSUC task force, has undertaken a broad review of the law society's governance structure, and is expected to submit its findings to the law society later this month. "The issues obviously that we'll be dealing with are pro- fessional representation versus lay representation on Convoca- tion, the issues of the discipline function and how best that and efficiently that be dealt with, life benchers and past treasur- ers and those kinds of ex officio appointments, and also general transparency and openness of proceedings at the law society, and enhanced participation by the regulated — that is to say legal service providers — and the public," says Bocock. He agrees that the results of the governance review could determine the future of self- regulation. He adds, "Self-regulation of the legal profession is a critical cornerstone of a long-standing tradition of the independence of the bar in a free and demo- cratic society. Without the bar regulating itself, it would have to be accountable to some arm of government. The minute a profession is accountable to some arm of government, then of course it's no longer inde- pendent. The independence of the bar is a little different than other professions — it's abso- lutely a fundamental corner- stone of democracy." Advocates' Society presi- dent Peter Cronyn, who par- ticipated in the consultation process on behalf of his orga- nization, credits the law soci- ety for undertaking the gover- nance review. He declined to offer up the position taken by the Advocates' Society, saying The Winning Brief The Acclaimed LawProse Workshops — 2009 Series 100 Tips for Persuasive Brie ng in Trial and Appellate Courts Featuring one of America's most effective and entertaining CLE speakers: Bryan A. Garner Editor in Chief, Black's Law Dictionary (West, 9th ed. 2009), and author of: Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges with Justice Antonin Scalia (West, 2008) Garner on Language and Writing with foreword by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (ABA, 2009) Garner's Modern American Usage (Oxford, 3d ed. 2006) The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style (West, 2d ed. 2006) Winning vs. Losing LawProse methods will make you more powerfully convincing in court. In empha- sizing often-overlooked techniques of framing legal arguments, Bryan Garner draws on the most current scholarship about the science of persuasion. You may be surprised to discover that some of your writing habits can subtly prejudice your client's case. Phoenix – June 1 Minneapolis – June 5 Seattle – June 8 Dallas – June 10 Washington – June 16 Newark – June 18 New York – June 19 Chicago – June 22 Untitled-1 1 Philadelphia – June 23 Boston – June 24 San Diego – June 29 Los Angeles – June 30 San Francisco – July 1 Toronto – July 3 Charleston, SC – July 8 Atlanta – July 10 Even if you pride yourself on your writing, come prepared to discover how many of your brief-writing habits can be simply and immediately improved with the knowledge you'll gain at this fast-paced seminar. If you've taken The Winning Brief before, come again — as so many do. You'll take away new ideas and know more about what wins cases. All participants receive two autographed books: The Winning Brief and its companion work, The Winning Oral Argument. Whether you're a seasoned or a edgling litigator, The Winning Brief will help you establish a winning record. www.lawtimesnews.com Register Online at www.lawprose.org or call 214-691-8588 5/27/09 9:06:32 AM the meetings were intended to be private and he wants the committee to debate the issues on its own. "I certainly felt like they took our comments seriously and thought they were help- ful," he says. "We did recommend a num- ber of things that we thought should be changed, and it's our hope that we see those happen." Heintzman says the gover- nance review is "extremely im- portant," but he does not believe that it alone will determine the future of self-regulation. "The whole status of self- regulation is up for grabs at any time," he says. "I think what you have to do at any time is say, 'Now is a good time to make sure you're as good as you can be, because some mistake or some incident is going to come along that's going to cause ev- erybody to scrutinize.' And if you think now everything is perfect, something is going to happen. It happened in Eng- land, it happened in Australia. We can't know what it will be, but something will come along to focus attention on the way we govern ourselves." Some benchers have ex- pressed concern with the gov- ernance review process. At April Convocation, Bencher Bradley Wright suggested the unique nature of the law soci- ety's role could make it difficult for members of the profession to offer useful thoughts on im- proving its governance struc- ture. "We're not a legislature; we're not a private corpora- tion," Wright said at the time. Life bencher Ross Murray urged Convocation to fully debate the matter before go- ing to the profession for con- sultation. Some benchers also pointed out that after sitting at Convocation they realized how little they previously knew about their role. LT PAGE 3

• Cover
• Self-regulation At Stake
• Tizzy In Lotusland
• Focus On Criminal Law