The Law Society of Ontario, the regulatory body responsible for governing the legal profession in the province, is set to hold an election this month for its benchers (its Board of Directors).
Voting opens on April 19 and closes on April 29, 2023. All LSO licensees whose licenses have not been suspended as of April 12 are eligible to vote.
To help inform voters, the LSO has published Voting Guides (one for lawyers and one for paralegals) which include a one page profile of each bencher candidate summarizing their platform. Licensees who have consented to election emails will also be receiving candidates communications directly. While this election includes many candidates who have aligned themselves with one of two slates (the Full Stop Team and the Good Governance Coalition) there are many who are running as independents as well.
Upon a review of the profiles in the Voting Guide for lawyers, one issue clearly stands out as a common concern, regardless of affiliation, and that is “fiscal responsibility” at the LSO. While many candidates raised this issue, there was no consensus on how to make the LSO fiscally responsible or what that even means. Some candidates are concerned about the LSO’s spending practices and are calling for greater transparency and accountability in budgeting and spending decisions. Others talk about cutting spending (including potentially cutting funding to county and district law libraries) and lowering fees. Others are opposed to cuts but would promote greater “fiscal accountability”. While many candidates, and likely licensees in general, are concerned about the amount Ontario lawyers and paralegals pay in fees and how the LSO spends that money, few candidates have provided concrete plans on how they propose to keep the LSO fiscally responsible.
Access to justice is another key issue raised by a cross-section of candidates. Some candidates have emphasized the need to improve access to legal services for marginalized communities and to address the systemic barriers that prevent many people from accessing the justice system. This includes supporting the legal aid program and promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that can be more accessible and affordable than traditional litigation. Other candidates emphasized the importance of using technological innovation to help underserved communities gain access to justice.
Other issues are clearly split down the “party lines”. Many Full Stop candidates expressed concerns about what they describe as “wokeism”* or what they see as a trend towards excessive “political correctness” and social justice activism. They argue that the Law Society should be a neutral regulator and focus on its core mandate of regulating the legal profession rather than getting bogged down in contentious social and political issues and enforcing certain “ideologies” on its members. Many Full Stop candidates support curtailing or eliminating EDI measures altogether. The Good Governance Candidates have emphasized the need for professionalism and civility among members of the legal community, respectful debate among benchers, evidence-based decisions, as well as the importance of promoting diversity and inclusivity in the profession and a diversity of views amongst the benchers.
Some other issues mentioned in the Voting Guide (but with less frequency), include: assisting solo and small firms, supporting new lawyers, addressing mental health issues in the profession, bringing back the Certified Specialist Designation, addressing issues faced by internationally trained lawyers, re-opening the Osgoode restaurant, improving Ontario’s court system, fighting climate change, and one candidate wants to revive the name “Law Society of Upper Canada”.
While the issues raised by the paralegal candidates have some overlap with the issues above, including access to justice and fiscal responsibility, there are other issues raised that are specific to paralegal practices, including expanding paralegals’ scope of practice, increasing the number of paralegal benchers, and giving paralegal licensees access to local law libraries.
The upcoming bencher election is likely to be a contentious and closely watched affair, although if history repeats itself, few licensees will actually exercise their right to vote (in the last election only 30% of the eligible voters voted). Issues such as fiscal responsibility, good governance, avoidance of “wokeism”, access to justice, and civility and respect are all likely to play a significant role in shaping the outcome of the election and the future direction of the Law Society of Ontario. It will be important for members of the legal community to remain engaged and informed throughout the election process.
Resources:
LSO information on the election: https://lso.ca/about-lso/2023-bencher-election
Candidates Responses to Survey Conducted by the Federation of Ontario Law Associations (including questions on cutting funding to law libraries): https://fola.ca/bencher-elections-2023#79343140-5b9b-4008-a050-1c977723671c
* “Woke” is a term that originated from African American Vernacular English to refer to being aware of the systems that harm Black people. However, it is now almost exclusively used as a pejorative by the political right and is frequently invoked by Full Stop candidates. Search how many times the words “woke”, “wokeness” and “wokeism” appear in the Voting Guide. One candidate used it four times in his profile.