The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50817
opinion low-level functionaries who could only be expected to do what they were told and didn't understand the significance of what they were about. They included Jay Bybee, an assistant attorney gen- eral and now a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and John Yoo, a deputy assistant attor- ney general and former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, now a law professor at the University of California Berkeley. I can hear the reader mumbling, 'Just a minute, Slayton, what are you going on about?' Writing U.S. legal opinions justi- fying torture is a world away from what happens in law offices on Toronto's Bay Street, or on 13th Street in Prince Albert, Sask., or — come to that — in the Justice Department building on Wellington Street in Ottawa. But, every day in law offices across Canada, legal opinions on a vast variety of questions are being care- fully crafted to meet a client's needs and desires. Most of them are entirely innoc- uous and not controversial, dealing with routine matters. But some are not. Some sail close to the wind. They might bless doubtful tax shelters, for example. They might sanction employer contribution holidays from defined-benefit pension plans. They might approve huge reten- tion bonuses for senior executives of a company in serious financial difficulty. But there are no Canadian "torture memos," right? If only that were true. The Canadian Press reported that in December 2005, the Department of Justice Canada gave a 10-page opin- ion to the foreign affairs department that "extraordinary rendition," the U.S. practice of shipping terrorism suspects to foreign prisons where harsh inter- rogation techniques are used (remem- ber Maher Arar?), was lawful in some circumstances. Extraordinary rendition is sometimes called "torture by proxy." So far as I can discover, the text of this Canadian government legal opinion has not been made public. It should be. We need to know what it says. When I practised law as a partner in a big firm, I told junior lawyers, echoing the party line, that our job was to find a lawful way for clients to do whatever they wanted. There was almost always a path to the desired result, I said, pro- vided we were imaginative and clever. The law is so complex and difficult that it permits a wide variety of plausible interpretations, including ones that completely contradict each other. So, let's find the right answer — the one the client wants — and be prepared to write an opinion that says everything is fine. Anything is legally possible, if we law- yers try hard enough; that's why clients pay us, and pay us well. Is it OK for lawyers to be just guns for hire? Or should legal practice, including the giving of legal opinions, be under- pinned and constrained by commitment to personal and social ethical standards? I was lambasted a few months ago for arguing in these pages that lawyers should take into account the values and well-being of their community. A law- yer's job, my bad-tempered critics said, is to represent the client, any client, to the utmost, no matter what, without allowing particular ethical consider- ations (which may not be universally shared) to muddle things up and get in the way. Our very system of justice, they told me, the entire adversarial system, etc., etc., depends on it. Maybe, but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere. Even if you embrace the hired-gun theory, surely not every- thing and anything is OK. Where and how do you draw the line? Torture memos? Most lawyers, I believe, would say that such opinions are not accept- able, but Judge Bybee, professor Yoo, and perhaps some lawyers in the Department of Justice, thought differ- ently. Aggressive tax shelter opinions, helping the rich get richer and depriv- ing the public treasury of funds needed for great public projects? That's more difficult; most would think that such opinions are just part of a normal day's work, but a very senior tax lawyer of my acquaintance, impressively, would have nothing to do with them on ethical grounds. Good for him. Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm. Visit him online at philipslayton.com THIS JANUARY ONLY ON EXCLUSIVE ONLINE COLUMNS Human Rights ... Here & There Professor Lucie Lamarche, the Gordon F. Henderson Human Rights Chair at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law debuts her monthly column on human rights and international affairs. IT Girl Sara Dale-Harris' writes on technology and the law. The Immigration Line Read about what's hot in immigration law from Jennifer Nees. Financial Adviser Alan Acton discusses the pros and cons of incorporating your legal practice. More Analysis, opinions, and book reviews from practitioners around the country. WEB VIDEO Interview with Marc-André Blanchard, the new CEO and chairman of McCarthy Tétrault LLP. WEEKLY NEWS AND NEWS UPDATES www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com J A NU A R Y 2010 15 January_online.indd 1 12/21/09 3:17:15 PM