The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50813
On a more fundamental level, he suggests that an independent bar provides an im- portant safeguard for constitutional de- mocracy. Pointing to persecution of law- yers in Kenya, Iran, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries, Pue writes: "The fate of lawyers is a bellwether of sorts for constitutional democracy and civil liberty alike." Even Canada's longtime constitution- al stability does not lead Pue to concede that the country could safely withstand dilutions to lawyers' independence. His paper calls attention to the so-called "APEC affair" of 1997 in which nomi- nally independent organizations like the CBC and the RCMP were compromised by government interference. For this reason, Pue suggests even minor distor- tions to lawyers' autonomy in the form of "back-channel government direction" are capable of subverting democratic governance. Pue and members of Can- ada's law societies offer powerful theo- retical arguments in favour of ongoing self-governance. It is unclear, however, whether their positions are persuasive to the practising lawyers who must pay the fees that sustain the profession's in- dependence. PROTECTING WHOSE INTEREST? While the rhetoric justifying the inde- pendence of Canada's law societies may be characterized by high-minded prin- ciple, everyday interaction with them is not. The average lawyer likely has little time to refl ect on the privilege of self- regulation, and will instead be more preoccupied with what they are receiv- ing for annual fees that are close to and in some cases above $2,000. More gen- erally, there is evidence of a disconnect between law societies and their mem- bers, one that may be especially appar- ent to those who have are called to a bar outside of Canada. Negar Achtari lives in Ottawa where she has practised immigration law for the past three years. Having also ob- tained law degrees in Switzerland and Delaware and a bar from the state of New York, she is skeptical about the effi - cacy of the Canadian model. While Ach- tari has praise for the country's articling program, she suggests that Canadian law societies are over-priced and needlessly fi xated with oversight powers. "No, I don't think so. I think the fees are elevat- ed," she says when asked whether Cana- da's higher professional fees supply extra value. "When I compare the fees [to New York], it doesn't make sense. There's not as many of us, yet there's a huge budget for governance. It's as if their starting as- sumption is that we are all crooks." "I don't believe I'm getting more in B.C. [than in California] for what I pay." Saba Naqvi, a lawyer with Bough- ton Law Corp. in Vancouver, is another practitioner whose experience south of the border has left her questioning Can- ada's steep professional fees. With bars in both British Columbia and California, Naqvi credits the Canadian model for helping her secure a high level of trust with her clients. Overall, though, she is unconvinced the tab she pays is worth- while. "I don't believe I'm getting more in B.C. for what I pay," she says, adding that a voluntary professional association to which she belongs supplies resources far more valuable than those provided by the mandatory associations. New entrants to the profession are an- other group that may be having second thoughts about the virtues of self-regula- tion. To those commencing articles, law societies do not appear as representative bodies designed for members to shape the development and governance of their profession. Rather, future lawyers are likely to feel vulnerable at the hands of an institution that has broad powers over their career and future. Nor have the law societies succeeded in offering practical and relevant profes- sional training. In the case of the LSUC, its mandatory skills program has recent- ly eschewed any instruction in practice software but instead provided lessons in managing clients through a "tickler system" of index cards. The LSUC has displayed a similar insensitivity to future lawyers through its requirement that arti- cling students surrender all bar textbooks — including newly purchased Crimi- nal Codes — that are taken into the bar exam for destruction after the test. There seems no viable explanation — such as a concern for intellectual property rights or a desire to protect the public from outdated information — for this practice. It imples a basic mistrust on the part of the law society towards its own members. If there is indeed — SABA NAQVI, BOUGHTON LAW CORP. mistrust between the law societies and those they oversee, it may be mutual. In the course of researching this article, the author posted a query to a popular legal discussion board asking if articling students would speak on re- cord about their views of law societies. Not a single individual agreed to do so. Instead, the post attracted a number of replies that were downright paranoid or sardonic. A number of replies suggested, without jest, that the query was in fact posted by a member of a law society looking to ferret out dissidents. Anoth- er simply wrote, "I'm sure you will fi nd tons of people willing to kill their career before it even begins." Responses from those identifying themselves as lawyers were hardly more positive. One particular curmudgeon gnashed that, "Law societies tend to be staffed by people with LLBs who can't practise or teach, so they regulate other lawyers' conduct through the imposi- tion of rules and requirements that have nothing to do with the real world. And they work for benchers, most of whom are the same kind of little farts who ran unsuccessfully the fi rst three times for election as high school president before learning that the fourth time can some- times be a charm. They seek election because the law society has a great wine cellar and they can all award each other law society medals and other awards at gala dinners funded out of compulsory professional membership fees." www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com JANU AR Y 2009 33