The Glass Half Full: Respect for the Administration of Justice in Canada

Lawyers should “encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice,” according to our code of professional conduct.

The “try to improve” part is fairly straightforward. When we see problems in our legal system we should try to fix them, whether or not we personally or our clients are affected. We should be part of the solutions, not part of the problems.

But what about “encouraging public respect” for the justice system? Improving it is one way to encourage respect for it: by making it more worthy of respect. But I don’t think that’s all the Code’s drafters had in mind.

They also wanted us to speak up for the justice system and its people when they are being unfairly maligned. If a lawyer hears it said that a certain tribunal is corrupt, or that a certain judge always sides with defendants, or that a criminal defence lawyer is a bad person because their client is alleged to have done an awful thing— and the lawyer believes it might be untrue — “encouraging public respect” might mean the lawyer has to speak up. As the Code’s commentary points out, often the direct targets of such criticism are prohibited to defend themselves against it, so they need champions.

“Encouraging public respect for the administration of justice” also has a special meaning for those of us who teach law, in my view. It’s tempting for law teachers to focus on the problems, and on possible remedies for them. I’m teaching Civil Procedure this term at Windsor Law and I’m starting to feel like a broken record mentioning, just about every class, how expensive and time-consuming it is to get access to any sort of courtroom justice in Ontario.

My New Year’s resolution is to be bit more positive, and hopefully encourage respect for the things that are working well in our system. I’m going to talk more about the its strengths, including honest and knowledgeable judges, relatively efficient appeal practices, and a tradition of public interest litigation that has moved the law forward in very important ways.

I’m going to tell the students not only about Canada’s 44% failing grade from the World Justice Project (WJP) for the timeliness of civil justice in this country, but also about our 89% score from the same study for the absence of corruption in our civil justice system.

If we don’t understand and appreciate what’s working — if we succumb to pessimism or even nihilism about justice in Canada — we not only sell ourselves short, we might lose the courage and resolution to improve.