In December and January, four legal ethics columns were posted on Slaw.ca that may be of interest to website readers:
- Why Do We Regulate Lawyers? by Brooke MacKenzie (January 14, 2021): Exploring the fundamental purposes of lawyer regulation and “suggest[ing] that both regulators and their critics sometimes lose sight of the “why” of lawyer regulation when caught up in the details of how to regulate legal services and their providers”
- Is It Time to Regulate Collaborate Practice? by Deanne Sowter (January 6, 2021): Considering whether collaborative practice in family law should be regulated.
- A Taxonomy for Lawyer Technological Competence by Amy Salyzyn (December 18, 2020): Outlining a six part taxonomy for thinking about technologically competent lawyering.
- If You See Something, Say Nothing: Why Lawyers Don’t Report to the Law Society by Noel Semple (December 2, 2020): Exploring why lawyers do not report misconduct and canvassing possible solutions.
Co-editors Richard Devlin and Sheila Wildeman, both of the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, have published the first comprehensive comparative analysis of judicial discipline. Disciplining Judges: Contemporary Challenges and Controversies is now available from Edward Elgar Publishing.
From the publisher’s site (here): “The jurisdictions examined are Australia, Canada, China, Croatia, England and Wales, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, and the United States. The core findings are four-fold. First, the norms and practices of each discipline regime differ in ways that reflect distinct social, political, and cultural contexts. Second, some jurisdictions are doing better than others in responding to challenges of designing a nuanced and normatively defensible regime. Third, no jurisdiction has yet managed to construct a regime that can be said to adequately promote public confidence. Finally, important lessons can be learned through analysis of, and critically constructive engagement with, other jurisdictions.”
Judicial ethics has become an important area of concentration within the field of legal ethics. CALE/ACEJ in its institutional capacity and several of its members are active in that area. The links between judicial ethics and judicial discipline make this book a valuable contribution to the ongoing scholarship about judicial ethics.