The names and faces at Ontario’s ‘call to the bar’ show immigration is working

2023/07/11 Leave a comment

Of note:

The Law Society of Ontario is one of the oldest and, until recently, one of the stodgiest institutions in the country.

Up till 2018, it was still known by its original name, the Law Society of Upper Canada. Founded in 1797, it has its offices in Osgoode Hall, the grand court complex that stands behind an imposing iron fence on Toronto’s Queen Street West. Pictures of its leaders hang on the walls. Until 1983, all of them were men.

But the law trade is changing. Last month, I had the opportunity to see a new crop of lawyers, my daughter among them, being officially admitted to the profession – called to the bar. One by one, they made their way across the stage at Roy Thomson Hall as their names were called out and parents and friends clapped and whooped.

The variety of those names would have astonished the dour men in those Osgoode Hall portraits. Spanish names. Italian names. African names. South Asian names. Eastern European names. Chinese names.

Anglo-Saxon names, too, but they were outnumbered. Three Patels and five Singhs heard their names read out, but not a single Smith, Brown or Taylor.

Remember that this was not a high school or community college graduation, where that sort of diversity is so common now as to be hardly noteworthy. This was a ceremony welcoming new members to one of the country’s leading professions. A law degree opens all kinds of doors. Among the men and women crossing the stage could be future judges, politicians and business leaders (along with a few ambulance chasers).

Law society figures from 2021 shows that just 5.7 per cent of surveyed Ontario lawyers aged 65 and older identify as racialized. That is the old generation, overwhelmingly white and predominantly male. The number rises to 24.3 per cent for those aged 45 to 54, and 35.7 for those under 35. A look at the group that was called to the bar last month suggests it will rise even further in years ahead.

The rise in the representation of women is just as striking. Fifty-six per cent of lawyers under 35 are women, compared with 18.5 per cent for those over 65. It is now routine for women to outnumber men in law school classrooms.

What I saw at Roy Thomson Hall is part of a much bigger story. For decades now, Canada has been taking in high numbers of immigrants, a deliberate policy choice that sets us apart from most other developed countries. Many laboured in menial jobs to make ends meet as they adapted to life in their new country. Others built themselves impressive Canadian careers. The federal government reports that immigrants account for 41 per cent of engineers, 36 per cent of doctors and 33 per cent of business owners with paid staff.

Now their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters are climbing the ladder of success. In Toronto’s recent by-election for mayor, four of the leading candidates came to Canada from somewhere else when they were young. The winner, Olivia Chow, spent her childhood in Hong Kong.

The law society would no doubt be the first to admit that it has a way to go still. There are fewer Indigenous lawyers than the profession would like. Women are underrepresented in the top ranks of leading law firms. Many leave the practice of law and move to jobs in government, education and other fields.

But the arc of progress is unmistakable and vastly encouraging. Despite all the justified concern about lingering prejudice and continuing barriers for newcomers, Canada’s experience with mass immigration on the whole is a remarkable success story.

You can see it all around. In the schools. In the colleges and universities. In the city councils and the legislatures. In the downtown office towers. Even, yes, in the Law Society of Ontario.

Source: The names and faces at Ontario’s ‘call to the bar’ show immigration is working

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Law Society scraps key diversity initiative, leaving supporters concerned about future programs

2019/09/13 Leave a comment

Step back:

Lawyers and paralegals in Ontario are no longer obliged to adopt a “statement of principles” acknowledging their “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.”

The key diversity initiative of Ontario’s legal regulator was scrapped Wednesday, leaving its supporters concerned for the future of other programs that promote equality and inclusion.

The requirement that every lawyer and paralegal adopt such a statement of principles (SOP), which they could write themselves, was repealed in a 28-20 vote of the Law Society of Ontario’s board of directors. There were two abstentions.

Instead, the board voted 27-18 with five abstentions to mandate lawyers and paralegals to acknowledge annually that, under their existing rules of professional conduct, they already have a “special responsibility” to respect the requirements of Ontario human rights law and the obligation not to discriminate.

The repeal of the statement of principles was a victory for a slate of 22 lawyers, known as StopSOP, who had campaigned against the statement of principles and won their seats in the election in April for the board of directors. These lawyers argued the statement requirement was “compelled speech” and unconstitutional.

Expressing concern about the kind of message the vote sends to the legal community, especially racialized lawyers, and the public in general, some board members described the decision to scrap the statement of principles as a “sad day” for Ontario’s legal profession.

“This was a devastating blow to all racialized licensees and the public at large,” member Atrisha Lewis told the board after the vote. Lewis said it felt as though it was a “metaphorical punch in the face to racialized licensees.”

The statement of principles was perhaps one of the most divisive topics in the legal profession in recent years. It dominated the law society’s last board meeting in June, where after many hours of debate, board chair Malcolm Mercer was compelled to adjourn after members were unable to come to a final decision on the statement’s fate.

Aside from the 40 lawyer seats on the board, 22 of which are occupied by StopSOP members, there are also five paralegal board members and eight non-lawyer public members appointed by the provincial government.

“We are concerned that (the repeal) sends the message to the public that equality, diversity and inclusion are values that the legal profession does not share,” said Gerald Chan, president of the Ontario chapter of the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers, in a statement.

“No less than the Supreme Court of Canada has said that a diverse bar is more responsive to the needs of the public it serves and promotes public confidence in the administration of justice.”

The statement of principles was one of 13 recommendations made in 2016 by the law society’s Challenges faced by racialized licensees working group, which had spent four years studying those challenges, finding they were both “longstanding and significant.”

A vote earlier Wednesday to salvage the statement by making it voluntary, not a mandatory requirement, was voted down.

Its repeal has left some board members and legal organizations concerned that other diversity initiatives at the Law Society could be next on the chopping block.

“We’re always concerned about the equity initiatives. We didn’t like the idea of this being a slippery slope, that, if you can get rid of one of the recommendations, it could lead to others,” said Lori Anne Thomas, president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, who said her association will work to ensure the other initiatives “stay in place and grow.”

Another of the StopSOP members, Lakehead University law professor Ryan Alford, told the Star after Wednesday’s vote that he would be “shocked” if other diversity initiatives were rolled back. “Of all the recommendations of the racialized licensees working group, we opposed one. None of us expressed any concerns with any of the other regulations that were approved,” he said.

Other recommendations implemented in 2016, which remain in place, include requiring legal workplaces of at least 10 lawyers and/or paralegals to develop and implement a human rights/diversity policy.

Another major recommendation was an “inclusion index,” the first of which is to be published later this year. Information in the index will be based on several sources, including demographic data pulled from lawyers’ annual reports to the Law Society and lawyers’ voluntary responses to questions about inclusion in their workplace. The index will apply to legal workplaces with 25 or more licensees (lawyers and/or paralegals), and is to be updated every four years.

“It is absurd to say this is about compelled speech when the StopSOPers voted down a voluntary statement. What this is about is resistance to anti-racism initiatives, and I predict this is only the beginning,” board member Julian Falconer, who was vice-chair of the racialized licensees working group, told the Star.

Board member Sidney Troister proposed Wednesday that, instead of the statement of principles, lawyers and paralegals be required to acknowledge every year in their annual report to the Law Society that, under the Society’s rules of professional conduct, they already have a special responsibility to abide by Ontario human rights laws.

Troister’s motion was met with resistance from some StopSOP members, who spoke about being “sandbagged” by a motion without prior notice, and argued it should first be studied by a committee.

But supporters of the motion argued it simply reiterated some of the requirements of being a lawyer or paralegal. “You’ve been ambushed by the rules of professional conduct. You’ve been ambushed by human rights law,” said board member Orlando Da Silva to members who were taken aback by the motion.

Troister’s proposal passed in a 27 to 18 vote.

Source: Law Society scraps key diversity initiative, leaving supporters concerned about future programs

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Law society’s Statement of Principles may be useless, but it does not compel speech

2017/11/18 Leave a comment

The counter arguments, well articulated, by Alice Woolley:

The Law Society of Ontario’s requirement that its licensees create a Statement of Principles acknowledging their “obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally” has outraged many, but none more than this paper’s opinion writers. Bruce Pardy, Conrad Black, Jonathan Kay, Christie Blatchford and the editorial board as a whole have condemned its “egregious foray into compelled speech,” its North Korean-style requirement of “adherence to specific beliefs,” and its “virtue-signaling kabuki.”

And so I enter the lion’s den. I do so not to support compelling speech or belief. Nor to argue that the law society’s current initiative is useful or lawful. My goal is more modest. Simply put, the critics rest their argument on a particular interpretation of the law society’s requirement: that it asks lawyers to affirm their belief in equality, diversity and inclusion. That interpretation is wrong.

The argument that the law society compels speech turns, first, on its “acknowledgement” requirement, and, second, on its requirement that lawyers “promote” equality. Provided that this duty exists, however, no meaningful incursion on speech or belief follows from being required to acknowledge its existence. As an active member of the Law Society of Alberta and its outspoken critic, I have many duties that I think are stupid—overbroad or too narrow, poorly expressed or badly enforced. But I still have them, and can be required to acknowledge them as a condition of my license.

Law societies require such acknowledgements for good reason, particularly as they move toward compliance regulation. In compliance regulation, law societies alert lawyers to their duties (such as avoiding conflicts and maintaining confidentiality), make them explicitly acknowledge that the duties exist, and require them to develop systems to ensure compliance.

Evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that compliance regulation produces better lawyer conduct than the existing reactive disciplinary model. The law society’s requirement that lawyers acknowledge the duty to promote equality is thus not some bonkers PC foray into compelled speech; it is rather part of a larger effort to increase the effectiveness of lawyer regulation.

And as for “promote,” why assume that the law society means “state your belief in equality,” rather than “do something to advance equality, diversity and inclusiveness (no matter how insincerely or reluctantly)”? Even I can’t believe the law society would be dumb enough to think equality can be progressed merely by enthusiastic lawyer statements.

Surely the goal is to get lawyers to do something about inequality

Merriam-Webster (online) defines “promote” as: 1) “to contribute to the growth or prosperity of;” b) “to help bring (something, such as an enterprise) into being; c) to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting.” Generally speaking, therefore, “promote” means to do something, not to say or believe something. It can mean to say something, but that’s the less common usage, and there’s no particular reason to assume it’s what the law society meant here. As law society bencher Malcolm Mercer said during the discussion of this initiative at Convocation (the law society’s governing body): “All of this is… to ensure that within our workplaces people are hired fairly, promoted fairly, advanced fairly, treated fairly with a desired outcome of diversity and inclusion.”

To be fair, critics’ compelled speech argument is in large part the law society’s fault. In its explanatory materials, it stated that the intention of the statement is “to demonstrate a personal valuing of equality, diversity and inclusion.” It is understandable that this would lead people to see the law society as making lawyers personally value something—that’s what it says!

But those explanatory materials were not the product of Convocation. They have no legal force. They can (and should!) be revised. They do not change the ordinary meaning of “promote” to a less common one. Notably, the materials go on to list sample principles all of which relate to lawyer conduct: not discriminating, not harassing, abiding by workplace human rights policies and providing service to clients consistently with human rights law. The document as a whole emphasizes what lawyers ought to do, not what they ought to say and believe.

I am no mindless supporter of the law society’s efforts here. Their impact can be debated, and the legal basis for the duty to “promote” has not been sufficiently explained. On the other hand, evaluation of the law society’s initiative should be based on what it is, not what it isn’t. What it is is a good faith effort to get lawyers to do the work necessary to decrease inequality in the legal profession. That inequality has been well documented. It does real harm to those who suffer from it, and to the profession’s claim that it is working for the rule of law and justice.

The required Statement of Principles is one of a number of steps being taken by the law society to redress inequality. Speaking personally, until I can look out at my first-year students, and not believe that the students who are white and privileged have a material advantage in getting law firm jobs, and until I cannot believe that students of colour will suffer stereotyping and disadvantage, all in the name of a firm’s pursuit of “fit,” I will not rush to condemn law society efforts to encourage lawyers to change that reality—or, at least, I will try to interpret their efforts accurately and fairly.

via Law society’s Statement of Principles may be useless, but it does not compel speech | National Post

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,