Why Canadians Need the Luxembourg Convention on Protection of the Legal Profession

Several Canadian governments have been using politicized rhetoric against “self-interested” lawyers and biased courts to garner popular support for increased control of the legal system. This column examines threats to the independence of the legal profession in Canada and explores how the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer (Luxembourg Convention) could fortify the rule of law.

The Luxembourg Convention: “Survival mechanism for the Rule of Law”

Threats to lawyers and judges in the United States (US) have triggered worldwide alarm. In 2025, research by Canadian law societies uncovered widespread public concern that erosion of the rule of law could occur in Canada.

Several provincial governments have fuelled this uneasiness with rhetorical and legislative moves against Canada’s legal profession and judiciary. Canadian lawyers are resisting the spectre of government interference through public education, advocacy, and litigation. Globally, lawyers’ organizations are examining the potential of the Luxembourg Convention to protect the independence of the legal profession.

Concern about threats to lawyers in several European countries led the Council of Europe (COE) to draft the Luxembourg Convention. Since its adoption in May 2025, 31 of the COE’s 49 member States, have signed it. It will enter into force once eight European countries have ratified it. It will then be open for accession by other countries, including Canada.

The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers and several international bar organizations are recommending that countries around the world join the Convention. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association calls the Convention “an urgent survival mechanism for the Rule of Law.”

The Convention is grounded in international law and standards, particularly the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (Basic Principles). While the 1990 Basic Principles are not a binding treaty, they are authoritative, representing the longstanding international consensus that people’s rights to equal access to justice and fair trials require an independent and impartial judiciary sustained by a competent, independent bar. Equal access to justice entails provision of legal aid where needed, in criminal, civil, and administrative matters. The Basic Principles require self-governance of the legal profession and cooperation between the legal profession and governments to ensure equal access to legal services (Preamble; Principles 24, 25).

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has cited the Basic Principles as part of the “overwhelming evidence of a strong and widespread consensus concerning the fundamental importance in democratic states of protection against state interference with the lawyer’s commitment to his or her client’s cause.” The Basic Principles elaborate on fair trial rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Canada acceded to the ICCPR in 1976 and incorporated the Covenant’s fair trial rights into the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

Canada’s domestic commitment to equal access to justice and fair trials established by the ICCPR and the UN Basic Principles, plus Canada’s status as a COE observer State, make accession to the Luxembourg Convention a logical step to guarantee independence of Canada’s legal profession as articulated in international human rights law and standards.

In summary, the Luxembourg Convention requires States Parties to ensure:

• lawyer-client confidentiality and privilege, including prompt, confidential access to clients, including those in custody;
• protection of lawyers from discrimination, threats, assaults, intimidation, or harassment, including politicized or discriminatory discipline;
• protection of lawyers from adverse consequences of being identified with clients or clients’ causes;
• lawyers’ freedom of expression; and
• self-governing bar organizations free from State or non-state interference, including the requirement that governments consult lawyers’ professional associations on legislation affecting lawyers.

Why Canadians need the Luxembourg Convention

Independence of Canada’s legal profession is inextricable from independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Constraints on lawyers that hinder their zealous advocacy of clients’ rights can result in flawed judicial decisions that fail to incorporate the full range or weight of available arguments. Judicial impartiality relies on advocacy by fearlessly independent lawyers who have confidence that their lawful work will not result in adverse consequences, including discipline by regulatory bodies that lack independence from political or other powerful interests.

Together, the independence of judges and lawyers forms a single, intertwined pillar essential to everyone’s right of access to justice and fair trials. This pillar stands alongside other pillars of the rule of law: separation of powers and democratic governance.

Independence of judges and lawyers is deeply-rooted in international human rights law and standards and Canada’s Charter. Despite these safeguards, some provincial and federal politicians in Canada have been undermining the independence of lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Canadians need the specifically-worded protections of the Luxembourg Convention.

Politicized criticism of lawyers and courts

A cardinal principle of the legal profession is that lawyers must retain their independence, advocating for lawful fulfilment of their clients’ legal rights. Lawyers are not mere “mouthpieces” for their clients. Lawyers often represent clients in unpopular or controversial cases, including people they dislike or with whom they disagree. Canadian lawyers’ ethical standards affirm that while lawyers may choose not to represent someone, they should not decline clients merely because they or their causes are unpopular or notorious, or because representing them might offend powerful government or private interests.

The UN Basic Principles affirm that lawyers “shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions” (Principle 18). When lawyers’ security is threatened because of their work, “they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities” (Principle 17). The Luxembourg Convention requires States Parties to “ensure that lawyers do not suffer adverse consequences as a result of being identified with their clients or their clients’ cause” (Article 5).

British Columbia: Chilling zealous advocacy

Despite these well-established principles, lawyers’ organizations in British Columbia (BC) have expressed concerns that BC’s Premier and Attorney General (AG) have criticized lawyers and courts in ways that undermine “public confidence in the administration of justice.”

For example, during the lengthy, highly publicized 2023 jury trial of a man accused of sexual assault and murder of a 13-year-old girl, defence lawyers received numerous threats of violence. The lawyers expressed concern about inadequate response to their requests for better court-room security. BC Premier David Eby (a lawyer) said he was troubled by the threats to lawyers. The jury convicted the accused. After the trial, Premier Eby castigated the defence lawyer for making closing arguments that were “profoundly offensive” to the memory of the victim. The Premier called the case an example of how the legal system fails victims, saying the AG was working on reforms. The defence lawyer countered that neither the judge nor prosecutors had objected to his closing arguments. He accused the Premier of “undermining zealous representation,” saying that the Premier’s comments could have a chilling effect on the work of defence lawyers in other cases. The case remains under appeal.

In 2025, the Law Society of BC (LSBC) and the Canadian Bar Association’s BC Branch (CBABC) criticized the Premier for his statement in the legislature that the person accused in a Vancouver mass killing “should spend the rest of his goddamned life in prison.” Thus, he prejudged the guilt and sentence of the accused. The Premier subsequently apologized for “intemperate language,” declaring his confidence in the independence of judges and their ability to withstand his “feelings about what should happen to this individual…” He did not retract the substance of his opinion about the accused. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada warned that the Premier’s comments could “have a chilling effect on the work of lawyers and judges.”

Manitoba: Expelling a lawyer from a political party

In 2024, the ruling political party in Manitoba expelled from its caucus a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Mark Wasyliw, because the MLA’s law firm represented a man convicted in notorious sexual assault cases. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew (not a lawyer) said the MLA could be affiliated with the Party or affiliated with the convict, but “can’t do both.” Two weeks later, Premier Kinew apologized and backtracked – in part. He articulated respect for “defence lawyers as a profession” and “for the independence of the justice system” but confirmed the reasons for expelling the MLA. In December 2025, the now-independent MLA sued the Premier and others for defamation.

In October 2025, Premier Kinew criticized a bail decision in another ongoing case. The CBA’s Manitoba branch said that the Premier’s statements could affect the fairness of the trial, “undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and run counter to the constitutional principles that separate the judicial and legislative branches of government.”

Ontario: Threats against a lawyer amid political pressure on a judge

In 2021, Ontario Premier Doug Ford (not a lawyer) and Toronto mayor at that time, John Tory (a lawyer), criticized a judicial decision granting bail for a man charged with murdering a police officer. In a social media comment, the Premier said it was “beyond comprehension” that the man “responsible for this heinous crime” would be released pending trial. He later deleted part of his comment prejudging the man’s guilt. The accused’s lawyer received death threats for taking the case. A jury acquitted the accused in 2024. In 2026, an Ontario Provincial Police report contradicted judicial concerns about police untruths in the case. Premier Ford and the Toronto Police Association demanded that the judge apologize, leading to judicial and bar concerns about attacks on judicial independence.

Federal MPs: Criticism of Crown prosecutors

In 2024, Members of Parliament, including federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, criticized prosecutors for seeking prison sentences for organizers of the 2022 Ottawa truckers’ convoy and blockade. The Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association called Mr. Poilievre’s comments an attack on prosecutors’ independence. The defence lawyer for one of the accused commented that while he “liked” what Poilievre said, he should not have said it, because the “separation of…legislature from judiciary, is…highly valued in our country.”

The sub judice principle is being selectively ignored in Canada. Politicians decline to comment on ongoing cases when it suits them but increasingly criticize lawyers, prosecutors, or judges when it fits their political objectives.

Politicization of judicial appointments: Ontario and Alberta

Judges are drawn from the legal profession. Federally-appointed judges are recommended by independent Judicial Advisory Committees comprising representatives of federal and provincial governments, the provincial law society, the CBA, and the judiciary.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have publicly denounced judges for decisions they dislike and are seeking judicial selection processes that would produce judges aligned with their political parties. In March 2026, Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan Premiers wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney “requesting that federal judicial appointments for superior trial courts and courts of appeal of the provinces be chosen from candidates recommended and approved by the relevant provincial government…” The CBA pushed back against this attempt to politicize judicial appointments. Canada’s Minister of Justice declined these provinces’ request.

Politicization of judicial appointments would not only threaten judicial independence and impartiality but would also discriminate against lawyers seeking judicial appointments whose views differ from those of the government in power.

Self-governance of the legal profession: A “privilege” or an imperative?

The UN Basic Principles stipulate that lawyers’ professional associations must be self-governing and that the “executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.” The Luxembourg Convention stipulates that “Parties shall refrain from adopting any measures or endorsing any practices that would undermine the independence and self-governing nature of professional associations” (Article 8.10) (emphases added).

The Convention specifies that States Parties “shall ensure that professional associations are consulted in a timely and effective manner on proposals by government for any change in legislation, procedural and administrative rules directly affecting the professional activities of lawyers and the regulation of the profession” (Article 4.3) (emphasis added). The Convention requires Parties to ensure the right of lawyers, including professional associations, to “take part in public discussion on the substance, interpretation and application of existing and proposed legal provisions, judicial decisions, the administration of and access to justice and the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as to make proposals for reforms concerning these matters” (Article 7.2).

Critics of lawyers’ self-governance often portray it as a “privilege,” saying self-regulation is historically and currently based more on lawyers’ self-interest than the public interest. The SCC has called self-regulation a “privilege.” Views portraying self-governance as optional put Canadian law societies on their back foot when defending longstanding self-regulation mandates.

Alberta: Regulating lawyers’ education

In December 2025, Alberta’s government, without apparent consultation, amended Alberta’s Legal Profession Act to allow the Minister of Justice to make regulations regarding lawyers’ education and training. In early 2026, the Law Society of Alberta said it was reviewing the legislation to determine its impact on the public and legal profession. The Advocates Society raised concerns about this intrusion on independence of the legal profession, urging the government “to return the regulation of the legal profession to lawyers.”

British Columbia: The 2024 Legal Professions Act

In 2024, the BC government adopted a new Legal Professions Act (LPA) which, after a transition period, will replace the LSBC with a regulatory board of 17 persons, of which five will be lawyers elected by the BC’s 14,000 lawyers. The other Board members will be elected by paralegals and Notaries Public or appointed by government. Four additional lawyers will be appointed by the board. A bare majority of nine of 17 board members will be lawyers.

The BC government promoted the legislation as providing improved access to justice through licensure of lawyers, Notaries Public, and paralegals under a single regulator. However, it was not clear just how this plan would improve access to justice, and the BC government did not substantially address years of concern about inadequacy of legal aid.

The LPA was co-developed with Indigenous lawyers’ groups including the BC First Nations Justice Council to align the legislation with the requirements of DRIPA. Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives on the Board are provided through Indigenous representation on the Board and an advisory Indigenous Council.

Otherwise, consultation with lawyers and the public on the draft law was limited. The new regulatory body was designed by the government in consultation with some (but not all) benchers of the LSBC and other selected unnamed legal consultants, including some members of Indigenous lawyers’ associations, all under non-disclosure agreements. The government allowed no consultation with BC lawyers on the full text of the draft legislation, which was rushed through the legislature amid rushed criticism but without full legislative debate and promulgated in violation of democratic principles.

Legal challenges to the LPA’s intrusions on independence of the legal profession by the LSBC and the TLABC resulted in a Supreme Court of BC (SCBC) decision on 29 April 2026, which recognizes independence of the bar as an unwritten constitutional principle “necessary for maintaining an independent judiciary and the proper administration of justice” and confirming that “independence of the courts is…inextricably tied to the independence of the Bar.” Nevertheless, the SCBC upheld the constitutionality of BC’s Legal Professions Act, agreeing with the BC government that: “Self-regulation is a model in which the government delegates to a profession the privilege to regulate itself on the basis that it must do so in the public interest” (emphasis added). The SCBC found that the government’s lack of consultation had “minimal bearing” on the issues before the Court. In May 2026, the LSBC and the TLABC issued notices of appeal to the BCCA.

Ontario: Mitigating risk of losing self-regulation

Soon after the BC government adopted the 2024 Legal Professions Act, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) formulated a “good governance” plan that includes reducing the proportion of lawyer-elected benchers. The LSO engaged in public consultation on its proposals and, on 30 April 2026, voted to propose to the Ontario government that the LSO board’s size be reduced while maintaining a 65 percent majority of benchers elected by lawyers, with remaining seats comprising elected paralegals, lay benchers appointed by the Ontario government, and benchers selected by the other benchers themselves.

Not all lawyers favoured the change. The proponents expressed concern about “a risk of losing the ability of our profession to self-regulate if we do not have good governance.” Opponents of the change, including the Ontario Bar Association president, argued: “We can’t protect self-regulation by taking the ‘self’ out of ‘self-regulation.’” However, the changes were adopted by a vote of LSO members themselves after consultation with lawyers and the public.

Meaningful consultation: Not optional

A central issue is the international law duty of consultation required by the ICCPR and confirmed in the Luxembourg Convention. The right of public consultation is grounded in the ICCPR which guarantees the right of all people to participate in public affairs (Article 25).

In Canada, public consultation is a “Constitutional convention.” Constitutional conventions are not justiciable. Indigenous Peoples have a justiciable right of consultation on matters that adversely affect treaty rights under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution. Yet, according to UN Guidelines on the Right to Participate in Public Affairs, welcomed by consensus of the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, all States should ensure non-discriminatory public consultation on the full text of draft laws before tabling them in the legislature. BC and Alberta passed laws affecting the legal profession without meaningful consultation with lawyers or the public. Failure to ensure meaningful consultation contradicts the plain meaning of independence.

Conclusions

Canadian lawyers need to begin now to take firm measures to protect the independence of the legal profession. Public education, advocacy, and litigation are important but not enough. Recent efforts by several provincial governments to seek control over lawyers and courts require firmer measures. Lawyers and bar organizations need to engage in consultations with their members and with provincial and territorial governments to build momentum and political will for Canada’s accession to the Luxembourg Convention, which would require all levels of government to implement the details of the Convention in their laws, policies, and practices.