Law Times

PAGE 8 COMMENT A the bar, and not enough time truly preserving that independence and maintaining the confidence and trust of lawyers. Actually, I should say licensees, for the "new and im- proved" Law Society Act now re- fers to persons licensed to practise law as a barrister and solicitor and persons licensed to provide legal services (paralegals). t the law society we spend far too much time talking about the independence of The legal profession in On- tario no longer consists exclu- sively of lawyers. The fact the law society now governs both lawyers and paralegals was but one more step in weakening the traditional independence of the bar. My own view has always been that the law society should not be in the business of governing paralegals (see "Public interest re- quires no independent paralegals," Bencher's Diary, Law Times, Losing our independence Bencher's Diary By Gary Lloyd Gottlieb March 20, 2000, "Paralegals: the profession's last stand," Oct. 22, 2001, "The paralegal proposal: the final nail," June 17, 2002, and "Paralegal motion betrays small MAY 12/19, 2008 / LAW TIMES here, I recognize they must be treated with fairness and respect. So when the request came firms," Feb. 16, 2004), but my views notwithstanding, we are now saddled with the task of regulating them. Personally I may wish that paralegals were not at Osgoode Hall, but since the government has given them the right to be before the professional regula- tion committee, of which I am a member, to change the com- position of the proceedings au- thorization committee by add- ing a paralegal bencher, my view was that the paralegal bencher should be added only for the purpose of considering matters involving paralegals. The primary function of PAC is to consider requests for the author- ization of conduct, capacity, and competence proceedings under the Law Society Act. How can para- legals be expected to respect the law society and submit to governance by it if they have no input into when proceedings about a paralegal's conduct, capacity, or competence are instituted? That does not mean paralegals should have a say in when proceed- ings about conduct, capacity, or competence are instituted against lawyers. The government required paralegals to be regulated by law- yers, not lawyers by paralegals. Lawyers have traditionally had the right of self-regulation primar- ily for the following reasons: (1) It saves government, and therefore the taxpayer, the ex- pense of regulating us. (2) We should be governed by our professional peers because our peers have the special know- ledge, practical and substan- tive, to assess our conduct, competence, and capacity. ers ensure the public interest is adequately represented and not shunted aside at Osgoode Hall. Notwithstanding that lay benchers are political appointees, whose reappointment is depend- ent on their political masters, many of them have made a valu- able contribution to the govern- ance of lawyers. The public interest, however, does not require paralegal represen- tation on PAC, to decide when proceedings regarding conduct, competence, or capacity be insti- tuted against lawyers. Convoca- tion, however, in adding a paralegal bencher to PAC did not restrict the participation of such benchers only to paralegal matters. Most lawyers who are the sub- ject of discipline proceedings are sole practitioners. How is our faith and confidence in governance by the law society to be maintained Lawyers can do everything a paralegal does, but paralegals are not permitted to do everything we do. when a paralegal bencher may have input into when proceedings may be instituted against us? In recent years the law society had a task force on the rule of law and the independence of the bar. The report of the task force and the research papers commis- sioned by it were published by the society under the title "In the Public Interest." Actions, however, speak louder (3) Governance from within encourages a higher rate of compliance than governance from without. (4) Democracy and the preserva- tion of rights and freedoms requires the independence of the bar. In recent years, a chink was made in the armour of lawyer independence when the Law So- ciety Act was amended to permit the appointment of lay benchers. The rationale is that lay bench- THE SIDNEY B. LINDEN AWARD 2008 Advocate. Champion. Trailblazer. Does this describe an individual you know? Someone whose exceptional commitment to access to justice stands out above the crowd? Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is accepting nominations for the 2008 Sidney B. Linden Award. The award honours individuals who have demonstrated a longstanding commitment to helping low-income people in Ontario and given their time, expertise and/or service to ensuring access to justice. Nomination forms and more information are available on LAO's website at: www.legalaid.on.ca, call 416-204-5428 or toll-free 1-800-668-8258, ext. 5428. Closing date for nominations: Monday June 30, 2008 Legal Aid Ontario provides legal aid services across Ontario and last year assisted more than one million people under its mandate to provide legal aid services to low-income Ontarians. www.lawtimesnews.com than words. Paralegals are not the profes- sional equals of lawyers. Lawyers can do everything a paralegal does, but paralegals are not permitted to do everything we do. I understand why a paralegal bencher should have a say in when conduct, cap- acity, or competence proceedings are authorized against a paralegal, but it is beyond my comprehen- sion why a paralegal bencher should have input into when such proceedings should be authorized against lawyers. Pray tell, how does whittling away the self-governance of lawyers preserve the independ- ence of the bar? Is this how we let right prevail? LT Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, a Toronto lawyer, is a Law Society of Upper Canada bencher and a Toronto sole practitioner. His e-mail address is glgqc@interlog.com

• Cover