Amy Salyzyn posted to SLAW on July 25, 2013
Conventional models of regulating lawyer conduct tend to be largely reactive. In most cases, law society disciplinary regimes respond after a complaint is filed alleging that a lawyer has engaged in some kind of professional misconduct. One obvious shortcoming to this approach is that concerns are addressed only after they become problems. For clients and affected third parties, this type of “after the fact” regulation often provides little solace: lawyer discipline can be a lengthy, time-consuming process that yields little in the way of meaningful relief. Obviously, it would be preferable if the problem never occurred in the first place.
So, what if we didn’t wait for problems to occur? What if problematic lawyer conduct could be prevented? What if we had a more proactive regulatory regime for governing the ethical conduct of lawyers?
To help us think through answers to these questions, we can, once again, look to encouraging developments in other jurisdictions.
For the rest of the post, and comments, go to the SLAW posting HERE