Law society diversity plan to be challenged
Making lawyers, paralegals adopt statement of principles called ‘compelled speech’
A key aspect of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s plan to address systemic racism in the legal profession is coming under fire.
The issue is whether Ontario’s legal regulator should require lawyers and paralegals to adopt a statement of principles that “acknowledges (their) obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in (their) behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public,” as described in an email sent last month by the law society to all licensees, reminding them that the statement is mandatory.
Licensees can either adopt a statement of principles prepared by the law society, or come up with their own, but they must indicate whether it has been done in their annual report to the law society, the regulator says. They do not have to submit the actual statement for approval.
The statement of principles was one of the recommendations stemming from a law society working group that looked into the challenges faced by racialized licensees, and which were adopted unanimously (with three abstentions) at the society’s board meeting in December.
Toronto lawyer Joe Groia, a member of the board of directors (known as “benchers”), said he supports efforts to improve equality and diversity in the profession, but takes issue with making the statement mandatory. He will bring a motion at December’s meeting to allow an exemption for those who have a “conscientious objection” to the requirement, which is proving to become a divisive topic in the profession.
“Not that these are not laudable objectives, because they are, and not that lawyers don’t occupy a special position, they do, but I think that the real question is: Is this requirement, which I think amounts to compelled speech, compelled belief, is that something that the law society is allowed to do? And even if it is, is it something that the law society should do?” he told the Star.
Groia’s motion is being seconded by Ottawa lawyer Anne Vespry, a racialized licensee.
“I believe I have a duty to act in a way that does not discriminate, but I do not believe that I have a duty to promote anything except maybe my own business.” Vespry said she will “stand up for this motion and any other motion that will make the recommendations make better sense.”
Both Groia and Vespry were among the 19 benchers who had supported bencher Sidney Troister’s unsuccessful motion to discuss and vote on each recommendation separately last December.
“I have been approached by more lawyers and paralegals and asked to reconsider this initiative than I have on any other matter that’s been before the law society in my time as a bencher,” Groia said.
The working group spent four years looking into challenges faced by racialized licensees, finding them “both long-standing and significant.” It came up with a total of 13 recommendations, three of which, including the statement of principles, are being implemented this year. Another mandatory recommendation requires “legal workplaces” with 10 or more licensees to develop and implement a human rights and diversity policy. The third recommendation, that licensees to participate in an “inclusion survey,” is optional.
The law society has said change is needed now more than ever, as the number of racialized lawyers in Ontario has doubled — from 9 per cent of the profession in 2011, to 18 per cent in 2014.