As a member of the Law Society of Ontario, I believe the profession is at a crossroads. At Convocation, in February, benchers will decide whether or not to endorse the decision of the previous bench to impose a minimum wage for the services provided by articling students. In 2018, upon learning that some articling students were not paid or were receiving compensation less than the minimum wage, the benchers passed a resolution that all such positions would be paid a reasonable minimum. To even think that some of my lawyer colleagues would take advantage of the requirement of law students to participate in either the articling process or the law practice program by not paying a minimum wage is unconscionable. Members of the profession should watch the deliberations in Convocation in February and take names. I cannot think of anything more demeaning to the profession or damaging to the reputation of all lawyers than to be involved in this debate. To exploit in this manner is reprehensible. Personally, I will not support a candidate for re-election who does not approve the 2018 plan.
It is time to take names. I wonder how many of the current bench were not paid to article. My guess is none. The shallow excuse of “times were different then” holds no water. To now take advantage of those seeking admission to the profession by not paying for services rendered, and presumably billed to the client, is deplorable. I recognize that there are far fewer positions than candidates seeking positions to article. The increasing enrolment of students at law schools and the over-population of lawyers in the province is a separate argument for another day. However, the current issue to continue to regulate articling and not impose a minimum wage reflects a desire of some to get something of value and not to expect to pay. Frankly I have no interest in associating with those who might support such a proposal.
Many on the current bench refused to endorse the Statement of Principles that recognized the duty of lawyers to recognize principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Many current benchers were elected solely upon their opposition to the Statement. Many of those same benchers strangled the operation of county and district law associations by reducing the support of local law libraries only to yield to the overwhelming pressure to re-instate, but not increase, the funding that had been withheld. One questions whether the approaching bencher election had anything to do with that about face? The law libraries are the lifeblood of the county and district associations and in many cases are the only contact lawyers have with the Law Society. Practising lawyers not only look to them for library services but they also provide a number of ancillary services to the profession not available anywhere else.
As with all lawyers, I am obliged to pay annual dues and like it or not I am a member of the Law Society of Ontario. Given the current direction of the Society, and given a choice, I would pay my dues but decline to be associated with an organization endorsing some of the flawed decisions that are currently being made.
I urge all members of the profession to closely monitor the business of the Law Society conducted in the next few months and take note of the pending decisions and who support those decisions and keep that in mind when voting at the next election of benchers in 2023.
This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily, a division of LexisNexis Canada.
