R Devlin and O Morison: Access to Justice and the Ethics and Politics of Alternative Business Structures

Richard Devlin and Ora Morison have published an article: “Access to Justice and the Ethics and Politics of Alternative Business Structures” (2012) 91:3 Canadian Bar Review 483.

The Abstract:  Despite ongoing concern about access to justice in Canada, the problem persists. Meanwhile, the basic model for legal practice in Canada is the same as when the profession first emerged centuries ago in England. Only lawyers can own and control legal practices. This is not the case in other common law jurisdictions where rules have evolved to allow non- lawyers to own the companies that provide legal services. Based on a comparative analysis of the development of these alternative business structures (ABSs) in Australia and the United Kingdom, and the non- development of ABSs in the United States, the authors argue that ABSs may be at least a partial solution to the access to justice problem in Canada. Recent developments indicate ABSs will eventually come to Canada, at which point, the authors argue the legal professional societies will have a crucial role to play in developing appropriate regulation to ensure ABSs improve access to justice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Access to Justice, Articles/Books, Ethics and Professionalism

CBA Ethics Forum June 2, 2014

First Annual Ethics Forum 
The First Annual CBA Ethics Forum will provide an opportunity for learning and dialogue among academics, law firm ethics counsel, regulators and regulatory defence counsel.

Topics will include: 

  • The End of Articling?
  • Ethical Issues in Criminal Law
  • Do Law Firms Still Work?
  • What About Alternative Business Structures?

For the full program, visit the CBA website 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferences and Calls, Ethics and Professionalism

T Farrow, Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy

By Trevor C.W. Farrow
University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division © 2014
World Rights
400 Pages

30% discount when you buy the book online; link to publishers website HERE.

Privatization is occurring throughout the public justice system, including courts, tribunals, and state-sanctioned private dispute resolution regimes. Driven by a widespread ethos of efficiency-based civil justice reform, privatization claims to decrease costs, increase speed, and improve access to the tools of justice. But it may also lead to procedural unfairness, power imbalances, and the breakdown of our systems of democratic governance. Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy demonstrates the urgent need to publicize, politicize, debate, and ultimately temper these moves towards privatized justice.

Written by Trevor C.W. Farrow, a former litigation lawyer and current Chair of the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy does more than just bear witness to the privatization initiatives that define how we think about and resolve almost all non-criminal disputes. It articulates the costs and benefits of these privatizing initiatives, particularly their potential negative impacts on the way we regulate ourselves in modern democracies, and it makes recommendations for future civil justice practice and reform.

Leave a comment

Filed under Access to Justice, CALE business

R Devlin and D Layton, Culturally Incompetent Counsel and the Trial Level Judge: A Legal and Ethical Analysis

A new article by Richard Devlin and David Layton “Culturally Incompetent Counsel and the Trial Level Judge: A
Legal and Ethical Analysis” (2014) 60 Criminal Law Quarterly 360-385.

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles/Books, Cultural Competence, Ethics and Professionalism

D Martinson and N Bell, “Legal Professionalism and Access to Justice: Lawyers as Champions for Children”

Please find attached the “in press” version of the article “Legal Professionalism and Access to Justice: Lawyers as Champions for Children” which will be published by The Verdict.

It is authored by the Honourable Donna Martinson, QC and Dr. Nancy Bell.  This article makes an important contribution to the Ethics literature and Access to Justice literature by arguing about lawyers and the justice system need to do much more to represent the interests of children.

D. Martinson and N. Bell Legal Professionalism and Access to Justice – Lawyers as Champions for Children


Leave a comment

Filed under Articles/Books, Ethics and Professionalism

A Woolley, “The More Things Change…. A Post-McKercher Conflicts Case”

Posted to ABlawg on February 11, 2014

Case Commented on:  MTM Commercial Trust v Statesman Riverside Quays Ltd.2014 ABQB 16

In his decision in MTM Commercial Trust v Statesman Riverside Quays Ltd. Justice Macleod determined whether Bennett Jones LLP could act for Matco Group, a client of many years, in a dispute with the Statesman Group, for whom Bennett Jones acted on a very limited retainer, and who had been advised that Bennett Jones would act for Matco in the event of a future dispute between the two clients.  Somewhat surprisingly, Justice Macleod held that Bennett Jones could not represent Matco.  In this comment I will suggest that this judgment supports the position I set out in an ABlawg post in 2011, that “in actual cases judges are less concerned with carefully articulating the applicable rules, and more concerned with reaching the right outcome on the facts, all things considered” (The Practice (not theory) of Conflicts of Interest; see also Conflicts of Interest and Good Judgment).

For the rest of the post on the ABlawg website, click HERE

Leave a comment

Filed under Conflict of Interest, Ethics and Professionalism

A Dodek, “The Most Dangerous Client? Rob Ford and Legal Ethics”

Adam Dodek posted to SLAW on February 13, 2014.

For the original post and comments, click HERE

In The Lincoln Lawyer, lawyer-hero Mickey Haller learns from his father that “there is no client as scary as an innocent man”. In an interview, author Michael Connelly explained that for the lawyer defending an innocent man there can only be one acceptable outcome: Not guilty. “There can be no middle ground. No deal. No plea bargain.” According to Connelly, this places enormous pressure on the lawyer because if the lawyer fails and the client is convicted and goes to prison, the lawyer “has to live with their own guilt in knowing that an innocent man is in prison because their effort wasn’t good enough.”

If the innocent man is the scariest client for a lawyer, someone like Toronto Mayor Rob Ford may be the most dangerous client. Rob Ford has demonstrated certain qualities that should make any lawyer hesitant to take him as a client. The most critical of these are the trio of an apparent absolute refusal to listen to advice, a belief that the rules do not apply to him and a remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Together, these make for a dangerous combination.

Can a lawyer trust someone like Mayor Ford? Is Rob Ford likely to trust his lawyer? These are critical questions because the lawyer-client relationship is based on mutual trust. The Supreme Court of Canada set out the importance of this trust in articulating the lawyer as a fiduciary in R v. Neil (2002) as confirmed in Canadian National Railways v. McKercher (2013).

The client must trust the lawyer but the lawyer must also trust the client. When there is no trust between client and lawyer, it is both difficult for the lawyer to help the client and also dangerous for the lawyer.

For the rest of the post and comments, click HERE

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics and Professionalism

L Sossin & M Bacal, Judicial Ethics in a Digital Age

TITLE: Judicial Ethics in a Digital Age

AUTHORS: Lorne Sossin & Meredith Bacal

SOURCE: University of British Columbia Law Review

CITED: (2013) 46 UBC L Rev 629 – 664

One thing seems to me to be clear. In facing the reality of the modern communications revolution, it is crucial that we understand the technology and how it is being used — something lawyers and judges, often castigated as Luddites, may not find easy. And having understood the new technology and its uses, we must do what we are doing today — discuss, reflect, and share experiences and best practices.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin1


1 Is there anything distinct about the judicial engagement with social media that would constitute an ethical concern? If judges engage in improper communication, for example, we tend to focus on the substance of the communication, not whether it was in person, in print, over the phone, or through some other medium. With social media,2 however, we confront the question of whether the medium in some real sense may become the message as well.3 In other words, in this context, there are really two issues — one is a question of engagement itself (e.g., should a judge have a Facebook page or a blog?) while the second question is one of substance (e.g., what kinds of tweets are acceptable or unacceptable for members of a court to post?). This brief study is devoted to addressing the question of whether social media represents a field of judicial ethics in Canada or simply a new venue for existing ethical guidelines to be applied. Further, if there are new and distinct ethical quandaries to which social media gives rise, we explore how those issues should be resolved, building on the existing ethical templates both in and out of the courtroom.

2 Ethical guidelines in the context of Canadian judicial conduct are advisory in nature, and designed so that they may be adapted to various scenarios. Unlike fixed and precise rules, the guidelines are meant to be both enduring and evolving. The guidelines ought to be adaptable to developments in law, culture, and technology. That said, it is equally true that guidelines may become outmoded (indeed, the Canadian Judicial Council announced a review of the Guidelines in 2011).4 For example, rules provide judges with the tools to control the flow of information in the courtroom — to close a hearing or issue a publication ban, etc. Those rules cease to have meaning in an era when “citizen journalists” may publish information on trials in their blog, or live tweet a motion, or use their cell phones to record the events transpiring in the courtroom. “Crowdsourcing” justice has the potential to make the judge just a participant in a connective community, rather than the person in control of a legal process. Technology, in this sense, has disruptive potential in the justice system (just as it does in every other system).

3 The rise of social media will provide an unprecedented level of access by the public into the lives of judges, and by judges into the lives of everyone else. Ethical implications of social media include not simply whether judges choose to engage with various new media for connectivity, but also how they respond when they become the subject of interest and scrutiny in those media. The recent tabloid judicial investigation into the conduct of Justice Lori Douglas represents, in this sense, a particular kind of canary in a particular kind of coal mine. Soon, it will be hard to imagine a judicial appointee who does not bring significant social-media baggage of one kind or another. We believe the rise of social media represents one of those occasions where the existing guidelines are insufficient to adapt to the disruptive potential of new technology.

4 This analysis has two parts. In the first part, we explore the current ethical guidelines for federally appointed judges in Canada and how these may be adapted to the realities of social-media connectivity.5 We also highlight what we believe to be the gaps in the current ethical framework. This analysis is complemented by selected comparative insights from peer jurisdictions that face similar challenges. In the second section, we suggest some forward-oriented considerations for reform and further development both of judicial ethics and judicial discretion in the context of social media.

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles/Books, Ethics and Professionalism

Adam Dodek and Michael Morris on Ethical Challenges of Government Lawyers

A McGill Law Journal podcast on this topic can be found here:



“Despite a significant place in the legal profession, little attention has been given to the unique ethical challenges of the government lawyer. We spoke with Professor Adam Dodek (University of Ottawa) and Michael Morris (Department of Justice) on their efforts to change that.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics and Professionalism, Government Lawyers

Lawyers urged to embrace in-house ethics counsel

Posted to Law Times, January 27, 2014

Law Times article mentions Stephen Pitel’s (Western) comments on in-house ethics counsel, and Amy Salyzyn’s (Ottawa, Yale) comments on regulating law firms.  Comments were made at the recent Conference on Ethical Issues in the Law Firm Setting held by the University of Toronto Program on Ethics in Law and Business.

For the full story, click HERE.


Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics and Professionalism, News Items