THE Law Society of British Columbia said on Wednesday that it is deeply concerned that Bill 21 – the Legal Professions Act, tabled by the Province will have detrimental effects on the ability of lawyers to represent the public.
The Law Society noted that it 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. 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.
It said that as lawyers represent clients whose interests often diverge from those of government, lawyers must trust that the body that regulates them 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.
“The Bill will establish a single legal regulator for all legal professions in BC, including lawyers, notaries and licensed paralegals. While the Law Society generally supports the creation of a single legal regulator, we are of the view that, given the seismic shift contemplated by the Bill, greater transparency and meaningful engagement with the professions and with the public is essential,” the Law Society said.
It pointed out that in 1982, the year the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, Justice Willard Zebedee 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.”
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)
The Law Society said that what Attorney General Niki Sharma has tabled 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 said: “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 said it 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,” it added.
