I think Canadian judges and the oil and gas industry need to lose self regulation too.
Law Society of BC to be disbanded under new legislation, The new law means, in theory, you will be able to have broader access to legal services at a more affordable rate than lawyers. One stakeholder suggests lawyers opposed to the move wish to perpetuate a system that ‘does not work for so many people’ by Graeme Wood, Apr 12, 2024, BIV (Business Intelligence B.C.)
The attorney general of B.C. is forging ahead with a new single, legal regulator that is being hailed by proponents as a means to expand access to the justice system but also panned by organizations representing lawyers, out of fear independence from government will be eroded.
“I think we’ve really respected the independence of legal professionals while advancing really important things, which is access to justice, the public interest, reconciliation, making sure that underrepresented groups are better represented in our legal profession — all very important things and I think we struck the right balance,” Attorney General Nikki Sharma said Thursday after several organizations took aim at now-tabled Bill 21 to reform the Legal Professions Act.
In essence, the Law Society of BC is to be disbanded and a new regulator is to be established that also includes notaries public and paralegals, who will now be able to offer greater, more affordable legal services to the public; for instance, paralegals will able to provide clients legal advice and assist them in navigating the court system while notaries will have expanded duties in conducting probate and drafting wills, among other matters.
“The cost of legal services and the complexity of our justice system have put justice behind a paywall,” noted Bill 21 supporter Robert Lapper, KC, chair of the University of Victoria faculty of law, via a government press release.
A new independent tribunal will also be established to impartially hear disciplinary cases involving all these professionals.
If it’s anything like the Ontario “independent” Law Society Tribunal of four lawyers and another person (all but one unnamed) that ruled pedophile wanna-be-lawyer “AA” (his name is not disclosed either) must be allowed to practice law, I don’t think this new tribunal will improve anything in BC’s legal industry.
Control of new board root of controversy
Lawyers are self-regulated in B.C. so as to maintain their independence from government. This is widely accepted because lawyers represent individuals whose interests are at odds with those of the state.In my view, people retain lawyers for many more reasons than bad gov’ts abusing citizens. Rapists – men and industrial – and their enablers, cause much harm in communities to people, including kids, and communities. How the hell does society protect kids from rape when law societies and or “independent” law society tribunals clear the way for known pedophiles to practice law? (Supervision provides little protection from child molesters, I know, I experienced it’s failure too often.) And when self regulated judges write rulings like supreme court of Canada then J Russell Brown et. al.’s 2016 Jordan ruling (which I believe had more to do with letting rapists off using delay by prosecutors and or insufficient judges than protecting charter rights for criminals – quite the slick judicial trick – and why do judges worry about criminal rights while pissing on mine, a non criminal?), and when judges keep setting convicted rapists free to protect rapists’ futures/careers and show them care and compassion (but not the victims) even when there is no delay, and even in cases where the rapists admit to their crimes?
Presently, the society is the independent body comprised of lawyers who elect a board to draft industry policies and regulations, dictating how lawyers operate. B.C. lawyers elect 25 of 32 society board directors, referred to as benchers. Six benchers, including non-lawyers, are appointed by the government and the attorney general acts as a bencher as well.
At issue is the composition of the new regulator’s board. Under the proposed bill, there will be 17 directors, including a minimum of 14 licensees (notaries, lawyers and paralegals), nine of whom would be lawyers (providing for a majority).
But a chief complaint from lawyer groups, including the society, is that the legislation guarantees only five of 17 directors will be elected directly by lawyers.
Too funny, too typical. Of course the self regulated cling to regulating themselves with fervour. I don’t think more gov’t representation on law club boards will clean up the legal-judicial industry – mainly because some of the dirtiest lawyers in Canada work in gov’t and/or are politicians, including as prosecutors, Attorney Generals (e.g. genocide-enabling past AG of Canada, Irwin Cotler, and Alberta’s domestic abuser “Justice” Minister Jonathan Dennis come to mind). Lawyers are wildly over-represented in the House of Commons; in 2015 11% of the Members of Parliament were lawyers; in 2019, 30% of Prime Minister Trudeau’s cabinet were lawyers. And too many judges are misogynists, lie, re-victimize the raped (in my view, the legal-judicial industry is first and foremost at boys’ rape club serving the Patriarchy and profit raping polluting corporations), let criminals off, and serve their political pals that made them judges in the first place to scratch backs back for “donations” to their parties.
Among the 17 directors, nine would be elected within the profession (five lawyers and four notaries/paralegals), five would be appointed by the nine electees (including four lawyers) and three would be appointed by government.
This is an important oversight, said the society’s executive director Don Avison.
“The way it’s drafted is an intrusion on the independence and its regulation.
OMG! Do lawyers listen to themselves? I’d be fucking embarrassed as all hell if I was this whiner. By the way (I discovered and added this a few days after doing this post), Mr. Avison is an excellent example of a lawyer that has spent much time working in gov’t, he was even on the Board of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission (now BCER):
These are inextricably linked. You can’t have one without the other,” said Avison, who noted the society is generally in favour of a new single legal regulator — just one with clear and explicit control by lawyers.The self regulated clinging to regulating themselves with fervour! Just fucking wow. They can’t hide their selfish dirt even when they try to. Legal industry getting desperate?
Avison said there remains “ambiguity” around the new rule development process, in part because the legislation was drafted “behind closed doors.”Pffft. But but but, law societies do their diddling behind closed doors too! And much worse, they gag legitimate complainants to prevent the public from seeing the abusive reality too many clients endure from pissing-on-the-rule-of-law lawyers.
Avison said the Canadian Federation of Law Societies is considering legal action against the B.C. government — “We and others are giving thought to that,” he said.Just like the self-regulated oil and gas industry, the self-regulated legal industry gets bossy, huffy, mean and threatening when something comes along that might regulate and clean it up a tiny bit. In my view, this crumb of gov’t involvement is nowhere near enough. So gross, but not at all surprising. Canada’s Patriarchal legal-judicial industry is perpetually self serving, nasty, grossly unfair and unjust, dishonest, expensive and cruel.
The Canadian Bar Association BC (CBABC) also opposes the new legislation.Of course the bullies do
“To be independent, lawyers must be self-regulatedWhat? This is illogical! Self regulation does not mean or create independence, it creates corruption. Always (yes, there are some decent honest lawyers with integrity that truly care about the public interest and their clients, but self regulation for a group always turns into corruption – it’s human nature). with more than a slim majority of lawyers represented on the regulator’s board. And those lawyers must be elected, not appointed,” said CBABC president Scott Morishita, who suggested the public was not provided an opportunity to provide feedback on these issues.I bet he doesn’t give a shit about the public, rather has his knickers in knots because lawyers and their protectors of self-regulation (NGOs) weren’t able to stop this before it started. These lawyers are not doing a good job defending themselves or their worshipped self-regulation.
When asked about the new board composition, Sharma said there is a majority of lawyers who are elected members and it is those nine members (five elected lawyers) who then appoint four additional lawyers (from an unspecified merit-based process).
“Government is actually stepping back from its role,” said Sharma pointing out the attorney general loses its position on the new board and there are just three government appointees.
The Trial Lawyers Association of BC called Bill 21 “an egregious assault on the principle of lawyer independence” Hahahah! “Egregious?” Embellish much? Besides, it’s not independence! It’s clinging to corruption and power over clients that are often abused by their lawyers and complicit law societies.and “an enormous departure from the norms Ya, norms like the lawyer clubs/”independent” lawyer club tribunals want convicted rapists to be able to practice law so as to protect rapists in the court room, and evolve into plenty of judges that will keep rapists free to keep raping.governing legal regulation in liberal, democratic societies.”But there currently is no regulation! Lawyers regulating lawyers does not work, just like judges regulating judges also does not work. Self regulation fails intentionally; failure is its purpose.
Problem accessing legal system in B.C. is ‘staggering’
But not everyone is opposed to the new bill and many have expressed a positive attitude.
“The independence of lawyers is not under attack,” said John Mayr, executive director of the Society of Notaries Public of BC.
“One would think that if any government wanted to interfere with or direct how lawyers are regulated, having an MLA and attorney general as a director would create that opportunity,” said Mayr.
“Across the Commonwealth, the regulation of professionals has been undergoing significant change. Driven by concern that regulatory bodies were acting more like professional associations, advocating for members, and placing the public interest a distant second, governments have taken steps seeking to ensure that regulators understood their purpose — that they act in the public interest,” said Mayr.
The core matter to be mindful of, suggested Mayr, is that access to justice is in a crisis.
In 2022, noted Mayr, 22 per cent of cases at the B.C. Court of Appeal had a party that did not appear with a lawyer.
“The numbers in B.C. are nothing short of staggering. In 2021-2022, 66 per cent of small claims court matter, 40 per cent of family matters, and nine per cent of criminal matters were ‘lawyer free,’” Mayr told Glacier Media by email.
“It appears that lawyers and the law society are arguing for the perpetuation of a system that does not work for so many people,” said Mayr.
That’s what I see (because self-regulated corruption works well for the rich, law violating corporations, lawyers, including raping lawyers, and rapists, especially pedophile priests and higher ups in rape religions with masses of money and tax free status), and what lawyer Philip Slawton saw (Refer below to “Lawyers are Rats” interview with McLean’s in 2007).
An Indigenous-focused regulator
In attempting to improve access to justice, the new legislation will put a particular focus on Indigenous access and representation: one government board appointee must be “an individual of a First Nation” while one merit-based appointee must be an “Indigenous person.”
Committees must also have Indigenous representation and the law calls for Indigenous initiatives.
The bill has support from Kory Wilson, chair of the BC First Nations Justice Council.
“From excluding First Nations people from becoming lawyers to failing to adequately investigate complaints from Indigenous clients of their lawyers. To adequately undertake its mandate of protecting the public, specifically Indigenous clients, the legal regulator must increase the number of Indigenous lawyers and address the gross overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice and child apprehension system,” Wilson stated in a government press release.
Law Society of BC opposes Bill 21 – the Legal Professions Act by Jeevyn Dhaliwal, April 10, 2024
OMG, such bullshit. Since when do lawyers represent the public? Lawyers mostly represent themselves and their pockets and careers, not us ordinary citizens or the public.
ya, sure, which is self regulated, meaning, it’s not regulated!to protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons. It said the legislation tabled on Wednesday fails to protect the public’s interest in having access to independent legal professions governed by an independent regulator that are not constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion.Lawyers sure embellish how independent they are. Hogwash, lawyers are dependent on their ability to evade the law, including the rules of their professionWhile lawyer after lawyer gets away with breaking the law, raping clients or their kids, all nicely enabled by self regulation.Any erosion of this principle in BC threatens our free and democratic societyRoaring laughter! OMG! The end of the civilized world as we know it, all ’cause lawyers might be regulated, a tiny bit. Fucking hilarious, and may have impacts nationally and internationally.Comedy hour by cry baby lawyers, frightened about having to maybe heed the law. omg, so funnyThe legal-judicial industry is pathetic how it boasts of its non existent “independence.” If the industry were independent, lawyers and judges wouldn’t need to rub our faces in their trite embellishing baloney.
legal regulators,” it added.
Bunch of greedy bullies, addicted to regulating self.B.C. NDP Government introduces disturbing Bill 21 to end lawyer independence and politicize the legal system Press Release by Trial Association of BC, April 10, 202
Seems like lawyers think the rest of us are stupid. Galling arrogance. Regulating a dirty industry doesn’t politicize what is already political! The legal-judicial industry is political! Our courts are political! And neither are independent. It’s telling how lawyers expose themselves for who they are. “Disturbing” Bill 21? What’s disturbing is that powerful players – lawyers that become judges – get to regulate themselves and enable rapists, including of kids. It’s well known that pedophiles do not rehabilitate, but too many lawyers and judges don’t give a shit about our kids or us, and seems they need rapists of kids getting licence to practice law. I expect to serve profits for law firms and powerful and rich rape religions, raping politicians and or other rich/powerful rapists. There is massive profit to be made as lawyers serving rape.
VANCOUVER, BC – The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) stands opposed to Bill 21 ( Legal Professions Act 2024) , which was introduced in the legislature by the B.C. NDP Government today.
“The B.C. NDP Government introduced a disturbing bill to end lawyer independence and politicize the legal system,” said TLABC President Michael Elliott.“Disturbing?” It’s pathetic, what whiners so many lawyers are. Freaking out that they might be regulated. Oh Horrors. They are as pathetic as illegal aquifer frac’er Encana CEO Gwyn Morgan. Why did not one lawyer in Canada come to my aid when I was being lied to, bullied and taken advantage of by LSO board member Murray Klippenstein?
“Bill 21 is an egregious assault on the principle of lawyer independence, which is fundamental to the legal professions’ integrityWhat integrity? The legal-judicial industry has little, if any integrity, and lies. all. the. time.and the justice system at large. Lawyer independence ensures we can serveripoff, abuse, and lie to our clients without government interference, maintaining the lack of trust that is paramount to our work. Bill 21 is about one thing – government control over the legal system and the professions working in it,” said Michael Elliott.Such a baby. I doubt he would have survived the lawyer and judicial bullshit I endured.
Bill 21 ends the elected-lawyer majorityought to have never been one that currently exists on the Law Society of B.C.’s board. Just five of seventeen board seats will be elected lawyers under the new regulatory structure, and the remaining twelve board seats will be direct or indirect government-appointments. In comparison, in Ontario’s single legal regulator model, the board has forty elected lawyers, eight government appointments, and five paralegal representatives.
Ontario has much bigger population and far more lawyers than BC, and the LSO is crap. I don’t recommend any regulator modelling itself after it, notably because of this cruel devastating self-regulation by-product:
Slippery LSO. Yes, it’s known that some ‘people’ rehabilitate; it’s also known that pedophiles do not. This has been known for decades.
What the FUCK?! The child doesn’t matter, rape victims don’t matter, preventing rape of kids doesn’t matter, stopping a molester doesn’t matter, the law doesn’t matter, the truth doesn’t matter, the public interest doesn’t matter – all that matters to these lawyers is protecting lawyers?
Bill 21 is an enormous departure from the norms governing legal regulation in liberal, democratic societies.
“Stacking the board with B.C. NDP Government-appointed insiders. The end of lawyer self-regulation in B.C.GOOD! Needs to happen across Canada, and judicial self regulation needs to end too.Political control over lawyers practising in B.C. That’s what Bill 21 is designed to do. It is alarming that such an extreme attack on the independence of lawyers and the legal system has been introduced by a government that has already shown propensity for government overreach,” added Michael Elliott.
Within the last twelve months, both the Attorney General and the Premier have been criticized publicly in statements by the Law Society of B.C. and the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch for, among other issues, “interfer[ing] with the independence of no such thing as independence in our legal-judicial industry the judiciary and the Rule of Law” in the case of the Attorney General, and in the case of the Premier, actions that “tread on interference with the administration of justice by politicizing justice issues.”
“Moreover, the manner in which this reform is being introduced — without transparency, clarity, or ample consultation with those it will affect most — fits a pattern of contempt from this government for engagement with the public,” said Michael Elliott.Ya, like how lawyers and judges operate with their secrets, lies, pulling shit out of their corrupt asses as facts, gag orders, bullying, and other abuses of the public and the harmed
This bill was prepared with no transparency, and with no serious effort to consult the public about its implications.I applaud this bill, it needs to go much further.
Bill 21 increases government control over legal regulation in B.C., yet fails to meaningfully improve access to justice.Access to justice will never happen as long as judges and lawyers lie (with their self regulators enabling the lies) and serve the rich at the expense of ordinary citizens that pay for the courts, judges and staff; the only way access to justice might improve, is to criminalize lawyers becoming politicians. This Bill is being introduced by the same government that has long failed to adequately fund critical legal aid and access to justice organizations in this province. Legal reform should focus on making justice more accessible and efficient.
Further, TLABC is concerned that the Indigenous Council created by Bill 21 would be largely government-appointed and not selected or elected entirely by First Nations or leading, representative First Nations organizations. It is not immediately clear if an Indigenous Council determined directly by First Nations or Regional Chiefs was contemplated, and TLABC calls on the Attorney General to detail the full extent of the consultations with First Nations underway prior to the introduction of this Bill.
This bill is about giving the government political control over lawyers, paralegals, and notaries in B.C. Enhancing government control does not improve the justice system.True, but it’s a tiny badly needed and welcome start to cleaning up a tremendously expensive, evil and dirty public interest abusing industry, dirtier than even Alberta’s toxic bitumen industry.
TLABC is taking steps in coordination with leading legal organizations across B.C. and Canada to prepare for a constitutional challenge to Bill 21 if it receives Royal Assent.
-End-
Media Contact:
David Denhoff Manager of Public Affairs, Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia
E-Mail: email hidden; JavaScript is required
Phone: 236-317-1919
canadiancitizen@truecanadian867:
Bill 21 broader access to legal services at a more affordable rate. TLABC is just trying to keep its members rich.
Law Society of BC opposes Bill 21 – the Legal Professions Act Press Release by BC Law Society (self regulator of lawyers in BC), April 10, 2024
The Law Society of British Columbia is deeply concerned that Bill 21 – the Legal Professions Act, tabled by the Government of British Columbia today, will have detrimental effects on the ability of legal professionals to represent the public.
It already fails most of us in the “public.”
Bill 21 will create a single legal regulator for lawyers, notaries and licensed paralegals.
The Law Society has a statutory mandate to protect the public interest in the administration of justice by preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons.Legal societies and courts in Canada abuse the public interest with impunity. Rarely is there justice in our country; there is mostly prohibitively expensive law and self-regulating lawyers and dirty lying judges enabling lying lawyers. Even in the rare event that a civil litigant “wins,” judges make sure the litigant massively loses financially, usually to bankruptcy, especially if their case is vitally important, in the public interest, and the litigant refuses to gag to protect the public. Freedoms and rights? Fuck that propaganda. Prosecutors knowingly intentionally incarcerate innocent Canadians and then are rewarded with appointments to the bench by their political pals so they cannot be held accountable. Vast unjust grossness all around. The legal-judicial industry is in my view, the dirtiest industry in Canada. The legislation tabled today fails to protect the public’s interest in having access to independent legal professions governed by an independent regulator that are not constrained by unnecessary government direction and intrusion.Can’t you squeeze a few more “independents” in that victim statement?
As legal professionals represent clients whose interests often diverge from those of government, there must be trust that the legal regulator is independent of government influence. Any erosion of this principle in BC threatens our free and democratic society, and may have impacts nationally and internationally.
In 1982, the year the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, Justice Estey of the Supreme Court of Canada articulated the essential importance of an independent bar:
“The independence of the bar from the state in all its pervasive manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently, regulation of these members of the law profession by the state must, so far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from state interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to the individual citizens in the state, particularly in fields of public and criminal law. The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive than the independence, impartiality and availability to the general public of the members of the Bar and through those members, legal advice and services generally.” (Emphasis Added) Or, more succinctly, did he really mean to say: “Lawyers and judges must be self regulated to protect themselves first and foremost, and the raping rich, etc.”?
A.G. Can. v. Law Society of B.C., 1982 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 307 at 335–336. (http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1982/1982canlii29/1982canlii29.html)
What Attorney General Niki Sharma, KC has tabled today fails to meet that standard and has broad public interest implications well beyond the legal profession, and beyond regulatory governance structures.
Law Society President Jeevyn Dhaliwal, KC commented that:
“The Law Society of British Columbia is steadfast in our commitment to protect the independence of the legal profession and of the regulator. We see one as inextricably linked to the other. The example we set here in Canada is particularly crucial in the context of increasing threats to the legal profession around the world. Independence is essential to the proper functioning of the administration of justice and we cannot – and must not – permit its erosion.”
Should the seriously flawed regulatory model reflected in Bill 21 be passed and receive Royal Assent, the Law Society has instructed counsel to initiate litigation to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. We expect a number of organizations will join in the litigation, including the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the entity that speaks for all 14 Canadian legal regulators.
Media Contact:
Christine Tam
Director of Communications & Engagement
Law Society of BC
email hidden; JavaScript is required
604-417-5774
Bijan Ahmadian@Bijan_ca:
A lawyer told me today that LSBC opposing the reform legislation is enough reason for him to support it. That pretty much sums up the confidence lawyers have in the current regulator. We need a reset!
David Drover@IslandDrover:
Hahaha looks good on you!! The law society of bc one of the most corrupted professional associations in Canada let alone BC!!
Prairie Paul@PaulDoroshenko:
I see an upside. I don’t know that the Law Society should be backing a campaign or litigation opposing this legislation. … Also don’t see why the Law Society should suddenly be a political organization. They should trust democracy. Also should they not seek the specific backing of the membership for such an extraordinary step? In my view there is a conflict arising from their “too many duties.”
Stephen@prairieoceanboy:
I hate the @bcndp but this one I agree with as too many regulatory bodies Govs etc in BC interesting how you ambulance chasers are usually only interested in what impacts YOU ie NIMBY & very BCish plus you do NOT provide a simply version of what BILL means
Risk of ‘tremendous mischief’ by B.C. government on legal system, lawyers claim, Michael Elliott, president of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC, says the BC NDP government’s penchant for controlling professional regulators cannot cross into the legal system, as is the present fear with a proposed ‘modernization’ of the Law Society of BC by Graeme Wood, Mar 22, 2024, BIV (Business Intelligence B.C.)
Are the walls closing in on an independent legal system in B.C.?
That is the fear coming from the legal community as the B.C. Attorney General contemplates finalizing a new law to “modernize” the regulation of lawyers in this province.
At issue is the development of a new single legal regulator that will encapsulate not just lawyers, but notaries and paralegals under one umbrella, with the stated goal of expanding access to basic legal services and making regulation more streamlined for the public.
As such, the Law Society of BC, which sets professional standards and disciplines lawyers via independent hearing panels Giving me a fucking break. Lawyers that say pedophiles are of good character and must be allowed to practice law, giving said pedophile protected access to kids under the guise of supervision, is pure legal evil. A condition of supervision protects no child. I know, I was raped often by a married Christian man in his home with kids and a busy social life. He knew all the tricks how to abuse me with others in the room. The power of it turned him on, and they didn’t notice, or if they did, they pretended not to notice or care. He was a massive violent man. I expect the four lawyers on the LSO pedophile enabling panel bloody well know how easy it is to molest kids with supervision. Fucking demented and evil, but extremely telling., would no longer exist under its present format, exclusive to lawyers.
It’s a move that the society itself is generally in favour of but longstanding concerns about government overreach have not been addressed and legislation proposals are in their 11th hour with B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma set to table a bill this spring.
Lawyers are particularly concerned the government will strip a new regulator board of a majority of elected licensed lawyers and stack it in favour of government appointees who could be swayed by government interests over that of an independent legal system that is supposed to but rarely does, lawyers and judges often serve bad politicians (to get rewards like QC or now KC designation from them or promotions up the bench, or other gifts), rapists and or the richcounter the state.
“It’s crucial to ensure a functional justice system and to allow the judiciary to remain independent. All of these roles are critical for free and democratic society governed by the rule of law,” said Michael Elliott, president of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC.
“There’s concern,” said Elliott, “that this will, in fact, reduce the independence of the bar and increase government control over lawyers.”Pffffft! Many politicians and gov’t staff ARE lawyers
This month, Sharma’s office tabled an update with the ministry’s “contemplated framework.”
A new regulator board would consist of 17 directors, a minimum of 14 of whom would be licensees (notaries, lawyers and paralegals); of those 14 licensee directors, nine would be lawyers. And among the 17 directors, three would be appointed by government.Peanuts
The key from the lawyers’ perspective is to have a majority of elected lawyers. Elliott says the proposed framework does not guarantee this (government appointees could technically be part of the group of nine lawyers).
As it stands, the society has 32 benchers (directors), seven of whom are appointed by government, including a seat for the Deputy Attorney General.
“Do elected benchers still constitute a majority of the new board? It looks like based upon the most recent update by the government, the answer to this would be no, which would seriously threaten the independence of the bar in B.C.,” said Elliott.
Lawyers would like to see guarantees of a majority of elected lawyers running the board baked into legislation, said Elliott.
“Are important aspects of this proposed reform found in the legislation, or will they be found in regulations? And if they’re found in regulations the concern is that even if some of the concerns are dealt with initially, that this government or subsequent governments can then act to change things like composition of the board or other scope of practice matters by way of Orders in Council, which opens the door for tremendous mischief and further encroachment on the independence of the bar,” said Elliott.
The association asserts B.C. ought to model Ontario’s reforms when it grouped lawyers and paralegals together but kept 40 out of 53 board directors elected lawyers.
So far the ministry has yet to approve such a statutory framework, stating: “The Ministry believes a balanced board will focus on the public interest and avoid a board that is merely ‘representative’ of the interests of a particular profession.”
“Why the government is insisting upon greater government control over lawyers is unknown,”Come on, it’s obvious why. Duh.said Elliott.
But he said the BC NDP has shown a penchant for “greater influence and control over the professions in this province,” be it with reforms to regulatory oversight of real estate professionals, engineers and health-care workers, including doctors.
“That’s concerning, in and of itself, but where it becomes really concerning is when that control is attempted to be exacted over a profession whose role and job it is to help control government overreach and to be a check and balance against government,” said Elliott.
Most recently, the society has stated its concerns about the process.
“On the process side, discussions regarding the proposed legislative framework continue to take place behind closed doors, with non-disclosure requirements limiting the capacity for meaningful discourse with the profession(s) and with the public on core changes that have profound significant public policy implications,” wrote Don Avison, society president and CEO in his March 8 update to the bench.
Avison also quoted correspondence from Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada to the ministry: “We have become aware of concerns about draft legislation that has now been developed but has not yet been circulated for consultation with either the legal profession or the public. We draw your attention to international law and standards requiring public participation in the development of any proposed laws that affect people’s rights and freedoms.”
A key perceived benefit of the changes could be better access to justice by having paralegals conduct more routine legal services.
“The rationale for change is simple. Far too many people in B.C. cannot afford the cost of a lawyer,” stated the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General in its September 2022 intentions paper.For me to do my lawsuit (I am ordinary and was born into a poor immigrant family), I had to quit all manner of living, to “afford” the legal fees, courts costs, and ridiculously expensive and wasteful delay tactics by lawyers and politician-puppet-strung and shuffled judges alike, photocopying/phone charges, etc. No dinners out with friends, no movies in theatre (I love movies out, with popcorn), no visits requiring travel, no new clothes, no professional dental care, no more ability to help friends out financially, extreme chocolate rationing (chocolate is how I survive my childhood rapes), foraging on my land for free food, severe water rationing because driving two hours to haul water is incredibly expensive, etc. The lawsuit wiped out my savings and the legal-judicial system didn’t even let me in to their exclusive club, just strung me expensively along, lied about me in rulings to defame me and my case, disallowing my judge-ruled “valid” charter claim to proceed. Murray Klippenstein told me it was great the supreme court judges left me with my “valid” charter claim intact. What the hell am I to do with it? What value is a “valid” claim against AER (100% industry funded) that’s trapped in legal nowhere land? It’s useless and cost me a fortune, one hell of a lot of stress and sleepless nights, and wasted over a decade of my life. I think Klippenstein was trying to justify the massive amount of money wasted on his firm’s fees.
One day, early on in my working with my lawyers, I was shocked and sick to my stomach when Murray Klippenstein told me to go get a pedicure and relax, after I expressed dismay at his sudden demand for a $100,000.00 retainer after telling me he wouldn’t charge me fees because my case was in the public interest. How many Canadians can call up the bank, with no advance notice, to instantly transfer that much money to a law firm? How does one afford a pedicure while doing a lawsuit as an ordinary frac-harmed Canadian citizen? FFS!? Illegal aquifer frac’s by Encana and the bullying, lies, fraud, cover-up and charter violations by AER were/continue to be terrible harms to me; trying to do the lawsuit harmed me a hundred times more.
The ministry is also intent on having the new board include Indigenous representation.
“Another important guiding principle in carrying out its mandate is how the regulator will identify, remove, and prevent barriers to the practice of law that have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous persons and other persons or groups that are under-represented in the practice of law.”Easy, get rid of the racist mean lawyers, judges and politicians from their positions of power, and let them make money without harming Indigenous persons.
This is not the only battle lawyers in B.C. are fighting to maintain independence.
Last November, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada was granted an injunction against the federal government to delay the implementation of new laws under the Income Tax Act (Bill C-47). The bill is designed to further compel lawyers to report more instances of client transactions where abusive and aggressive tax avoidance is suspected, to the Canada Revenue Agency.
***
Tempo@Temp780 April 14, 2024:
Lawyers want everyone else to be regulated except themselvesand judges.
Avnish Nanda@avnishnanda:
This has been on the radar in BC and other provinces — like Zachary notes, I don’t think govt regulation of lawyers advances public interest — but if anything, this served as a wake up call to law societies, benchers, and lawyers to take that part of our mandate more seriously
Zachary Al-Khatib@ZaKhatib:
Allowing the gov’t to decide who can be a lawyer – ie who can take on the State – is what dictators do.
Saying it’s “in the public interest” b/ “people can’t afford lawyers” is BS.In my experience of being lied to, ripped off, and my suffering and case taken advantage of by Klippensteins, and in watching lawyers for the defendants and judges on my case lie and defame me in rulings and court filings, lawyers/judges are the last people that ought to regulate themselves. If lawyers do not want to hear the harms lawyers do to their paying clients, then listen to the harms lawyers do to victims of rape – women and kids – self regulators of lawyers are licencing known convicted pedophiles/rapists to practice law, giving them protected access to future victims, enabled by lawyer top heavy “independent” (my ass) tribunal/panels. Vile criminal acts, aided and protected by self regulators of lawyers. It needs to stop, and judges need to cease coddling rapists after conviction and setting them free.
The public needs legal professionals to be independent from gov’t.We need regulation of the legal and judicial industry more.
This has nothing to do with paralegals & notary publics being able to offer some legal services. They already can.
This is about maintaining an independent group of professionals who can take on the authorities without having to think about the gov’t taking their license away.
Refer also to:
2023: Judicial flashback 2010: Harper gov’t appointed politically like-minded judges who donated cash. Jacob Ziegel: “It’s a system that lacks credibility, it’s tarnished and highly partisan and it should be a national embarrassment.” It is an embarrassment. It’s why lawyers and judges work so hard abusing, lying about and silencing/gagging victims in the courtroom. Perception. It’s all about conning the public into thinking there is a justice system.
2023: “Miscarriage of justice” is what Canada’s legal players do best. The cruelty Tammy Bouvette (and others) endured at the hands of our callous self-serving judicial-legal industry is unforgivable. BC Court of Appeal “ordered stay of proceedings because retrying her case would be an ‘abuse of process.’” Why the hell did this take so long? Thank you, CBC Fifth Estate, you served Ms Bouvette justice; our “justice” system did not.PS The vile fucker lawyer that created this horror is now a judge in Alberta.
2021: If rape-enabling shit sits atop the judicial industry, what runs through it?
2020: Law Society Ontario (LSO)’s white privilege bucket runneth over
2020: Megan Brown: “This is how abuse of power works.”
Ed:
Our Courts are far far too lenient on perpetrators who commit violence against other people, whether the victim is a female, a child or a male.
Our Justice system appears to be set up to condone violence by men against women and children. The perps lawyer just has to get him into some wishy washy counselling and then our courts bring the kids gloves out and the victim seems to be the one on trial.
If anyone reading this can stomach watching horror shows where the bad evil monster always walks away happily into the sunset just go down to a provincial courtroom and watch how victims of violence are deliberately shattered by having the blame shifted to them. This is especially the case when the victim is female or a child of either sex.
2017: “Judges: a danger to Canadian women”
2014: Vic Toews appointment by Harper government seems to set new standard for blatant patronage Canada’s justice industry is a political-judicial circle jerk.
2009: Legal-judicial industry is already deeply political and always has been:The Intimidation of Ernst: Members of Harper Government’s Anti-terrorist Squad Intimidate and Harass Ernst after her Legal Papers were Served on Encana, the EUB (now AER) and Alberta Environment
2008: Philip Slaton: Lawyers Gone Bad, Money Sex And Madness In Canada’s Legal Profession
…
Q Well, is it self-destructiveness or is it arrogance? A: Arrogance is part of it. If you’re taught how to manipulate rules, you lose respect for them, and that leads to a kind of arrogance: I’m bigger than the rules, I’m not the average man on the street who needs to be law-abiding because I know how to get around the rules. And there may be just a touch of the more common form of arrogance, too, which is “I’m smarter than they are, they’ll never catch me.” But you can be arrogant and still have a healthy sense of what’s good for you, and what dangers you shouldn’t run. I have some speculation about why people behave this way, and one reason is simple boredom. When people are bored, there’s a tendency to take risks.
Q: What happens to lawyers who steal? How is the profession regulated?
A: The disciplinary process of the law societies in this country is deeply flawed. Lawyers are disciplined for breaches of professional rules, but it’s like so much in Canada: everything depends on where you live. What can get you disbarred in Alberta won’t have much effect on you at all in, say, Nova Scotia. The first difficulty with the disciplinary system is that if you’re a lawyer who’s alleged to have stepped afoul of the rules, you’re investigated by the law society. If they decide you’re a transgressor, they’ll prosecute you, they’ll hire a lawyer to do that, and the disciplinary committee itself is the law society. So you have the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge all essentially representing the same institution. I thought in this country we had a fundamental principle, that the person who investigates and prosecutes isn’t the same person who judges.
Q: Is yours a widely held opinion?
A: I haven’t heard people rising up to complain about this. In the United States, by the way, disciplinary matters in just about every state are heard by courts, not by panels of the bar association, which is how it should be. I think Canada really has to get its act together. Look at the reforms in the U.K., which woke up some years ago to this problem and [adopted] quite sweeping reforms that largely removed self-regulation from the legal profession. Why in heaven the same sort of reforms are not under consideration in this country I do not know, except that self-regulation is regarded with quasi-religious fervour.
Q: What’s the basis of the opposition to anything but self-regulation?
A: The ideological underpinning is that a fundamental responsibility of the legal profession is to help citizens fight the state. It’s an important offsetting influence to the power of the state, and therefore cannot be regulated by the state, because then it will tend to become subservient to it. I just simply reject that. There are all kinds of other ways that you could ensure independence when it matters, and there are all kinds of ways you could get advice from lawyers without giving them final say over what happens. And in any event, lawyers only regulate themselves pursuant to legislation that is passed by provincial legislatures, which they could change tomorrow.
Q: You talked to quite a few lawyers who’ve been caught doing something wrong. How many of them actually expressed remorse?
A: On the whole, there was not a whole lot of remorse expressed. I don’t think these were penitent people who were terribly ashamed of doing a bad thing. Take the case of Martin Wirick, the B.C. lawyer who was involved in a massive real estate fraud, I think it’s the single biggest legal fraud that Canada has ever experienced. It wasn’t as it he was stockpiling money to run off to South America. The most he ever got out of it was payment of very ordinary legal bills, and in fact I don’t think the client ever even fully paid them. So he didn’t do it for money. When I talked to him, he said things like, “Oh, I was just so tired, I just didn’t give a shit, I was unhappy, I hadn’t had a vacation in years.” What he did not say was, “When I think back on what 1 did, I’m so sorry about it, I’m so sorry about people who lost money as a result of my activities.” I think he was hapless, a bit of a schlemiel, and his client was a charismatic, glamourous person.
…