Book Review: Legal Ethics and the Attorney General: A Canadian Analysis

Several times each month, we are pleased to republish a recent book review from the Canadian Law Library Review (CLLR). CLLR is the official journal of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (CALL/ACBD), and its reviews cover both practice-oriented and academic publications related to the law.

Legal Ethics and the Attorney General: A Canadian Analysis. By Andrew Flavelle Martin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2025. xxi, 288 p. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 9781487554736 (hardcover) $55.00; ISBN 9781487554774 (ePUB) $55.00; ISBN 9781487554767 (PDF) $55.00.

Reviewed by Emma Scott
Librarian
Legislative Library of British Columbia

Law societies across Canada have a statutory mandate to protect the public interest by regulating the professional and ethical conduct of lawyers. Discipline is rare, however, when it comes to the attorney general. In Legal Ethics and the Attorney General, author Andrew Flavelle Martin demonstrates that “the Attorney General is—and should be—accountable for their conduct under the same law of lawyering that is applicable to all lawyers” (p. 4).

In the first half of the book, Martin introduces and grapples with the complexities of the role of the attorney general regarding legal ethics. Through case studies and case law, Martin emphasizes that these difficulties tend to stem from the duality of the roles and responsibilities of attorneys general. Not only are they politicians with personal and political interests, but attorneys general are also Cabinet ministers ostensibly bound by Cabinet solidarity. Sometimes, they may serve as ministers of justice or ex-officio benchers of law societies, and they may be practicing lawyers themselves. At the same time, they are also chief law officers who provide legal advice to the Crown and ministries, oversee the law and judiciary, and conduct litigation for the Crown.

One of Martin’s strongest points is that being bound to the law of lawyering can sometimes be politically inconvenient for attorneys general. Lawyers and attorneys general have a duty to encourage respect for the administration of justice; however, as politicians, they may also be incentivized to criticize the judiciary. This is a timely discussion, as the rule of law has been recently questioned by politicians in several Canadian provinces, as well as internationally.

Martin’s text stands alone in its field. There is little academic legal literature on the application of legal ethics to the attorney general in the Canadian context, and book-length works on this topic tend to be biographical. As a result, Martin relies heavily on more general works, such as Adam Dodek’s articles on legal ethics.[1] In their respective forewords, former attorneys general Michael Bryant and Allan Rock emphasize this gap in the literature and the importance of Martin’s text.

The last three chapters consider methods for accountability. Martin emphasizes that law societies have disciplinary jurisdiction over attorneys general, with some exceptions like prosecutorial discretion, core policy advice, and parliamentary privilege. He warns against total immunity from law society discipline, as legislated in subsection 13(3) of Ontario’s Law Society Act (RSO 1990, c L.8). In response to the question of how to hold a non-lawyer attorney general accountable when they are not a member of a law society, Martin suggests that provincial legislation be amended to deem that an attorney general is a member of the law society while serving in the position.

Interestingly, Martin suggests parliamentary accountability as an additional method for holding attorneys general accountable. Law societies cannot discipline attorneys general for things said in the legislative chamber because members are protected by parliamentary privilege, but speakers have disciplinary powers they can use to ensure the debate remains focused. Martin suggests that speakers can use their jurisdiction’s standing orders to intervene and hold attorneys general accountable while in the Chamber. Whether this has already happened in any Canadian legislature is left unexplored, leaving room for further analysis. In addition to the standing orders, each jurisdiction’s codes of conduct and conflict of interest can be used to enforce legal ethics outside the Chamber. This was applied to Ontario MPP Robert Runciman while he served as Opposition Critic for the Attorney General, thus lending plausibility to employing this method to hold attorneys general accountable.

The book closes on a pessimistic but realistic note, with Martin raising doubts that attorneys general will be held accountable by law societies or notions of parliamentary accountability. Law societies have attempted to pursue discipline against attorneys general only three times in Canada, most recently in Law Society of Alberta v Madu, 2025 ABLS 11. No instances of parliamentary accountability involving an attorney general are mentioned, and its likelihood remains slim. Instead, Martin places the onus on attorneys general to hold themselves accountable out of sheer respect for the position of the chief law officer, the rule of law, and the possibility that they could be disciplined.

Overall, Legal Ethics and the Attorney General fills an essential gap in academic legal literature on the role of the attorney general and legal ethics in the Canadian context. A valuable addition to law school, legislative, and government libraries, this book is essential reading for regulators, Crown counsel, and politicians, as well as attorneys general themselves.

________

[1] See e.g. “Canadian Legal Ethics: A Subject in Search of Scholarship” (2000) 50 UTLJ 115; “Canadian Legal Ethics: Ready for the Twenty-First Century at Last” (2008) 46:1 Osgoode Hall LJ 1; “The Impossible Position: Canada’s Attorney-General Cannot Be Our Justice Minister”, The Globe and Mail (22 February 2019) O1, online: <theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-impossible-position-canadas-attorney-general-cannot-be-our> [perma.cc/U3TK-263K].