Don’t include fake cases in court submissions. Don’t miscite cases for wrong propositions of law. Don’t refer to cases in court if you haven’t read them. This is the most basic of lawyering stuff. Probably too basic to even be included in an Advocacy 101 course. Yet, over the last two years, lawyers have made headlines for doing exactly these things. Their common partner in misadventure? Generative AI.

The landscape of AI-generated errors in court submissions

AI-related mishaps first came to the attention of the legal community (and the rest of the world) in May 2023 when an American lawyer . . . [more]

While many in the justice sector are confused and ambivalent about artificial intelligence, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has taken a clear stand. CHRT “tribunal members,” as announced in a Practice Direction last fall, ”do not use AI to write decisions or analyze evidence.”

To understand why the CHRT (and some other Canadian tribunals and courts) have explicitly banned AI in adjudication, read the work of Prof. Amy Salyzyn. The “corrosive risks” she identifies include hallucinated cases, biased language, and subtle (and not-so-subtle) legal errors. Then there’s the issue of litigants’ confidential data being provided to AI companies through queries . . . [more]

After I wrote this column but before it went to press, my colleague Brandon Trask of UManitoba posted a similar column to the RobsonCrim blog. To the extent that I repeat some points he’s made, that repetition is valuable and worthwhile. I encourage readers to check it out.

What should and must a lawyer do when their client, or the representative of their client, attacks judges and large unidentified swaths of the entire bench? What if the lawyer is standing next to them when they do so? What if the lawyer is the Attorney General and the speaker is the . . . [more]

My last Slaw column discussed two recent cases in which Ontario’s Law Society Tribunal found individuals who had previously engaged in sexual misconduct involving minors were currently “of good character”. The findings in those cases, AA and Colangelo, have since been (repeatedly) upheld on appeal.[1]

Unsurprisingly, these decisions were controversial in the court of public opinion (sample Toronto Star comment: “When your [sic] a member of a governing body that characterizes pedophiles as people ‘of good character’, you have a problem”). Lawyers and law students similarly expressed dismay with the outcomes (for example, one commenter on . . . [more]

Ten years ago, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set out some recommendations for cultural competency training for lawyers, law students and public servants. The Calls to Action (numbers 27, 28 and 57) call for education/training on the history of Indigenous peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. The Commission stated that such training would require “skills based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism”.

There were no calls to action for education or training of judges. . . . [more]

Ontario’s Civil Rules Review Working Group has proposed the most comprehensive reform of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure since their introduction in 1985. The Consultation Paper released in early April weighs in at 122 pages, with recommendations affecting every major element of civil litigation within the province.

The Working Group’s overarching goal is to get “all cases heard within two years.” This is certainly not unambitious, given that the status quo average is between four and five years. Quicker times to disposition, the Working Group hopes, will generate lower legal bills and better access to justice.

There seem . . . [more]

How will generative AI impact the legal profession? This was the big question in late 2022 when ChatGPT was first released. How would this seemingly magical word machine collide or coexist with a profession that is, if not “essentially word merchants” (to use phrasing in a New York Times article), certainly deeply engaged with language?

Much has changed over the last two and a half years. To give just one illustrative example: fueled by hundreds of millions in investment, there are now over 500 legal tech tools that incorporate generative AI. The interest, money and work being poured into . . . [more]

When a stranger breaks the rules in a scary way, it is always tempting to banish them.

This old-fashioned word might suggest disgraced medieval nobles driven from of their kingdoms. But banishment occurs whenever a person is cast out from what used to be their home or social group.

A few examples of modern-day banishment:

• Expelling high school students who have committed acts of violence is a straightforward way to show “zero tolerance” for their misbehaviour. Doing so is often welcomed by other students and parents who have suffered from the misbehaviour.
• If unhoused people are or might

Civility and its importance are contested in the Canadian legal profession and the Canadian legal academy. [1] Moreover, civility and the broader concept of professionalism have a shameful history as exclusionary concepts with significant negative impact on the ability of members of equity-seeking groups to join the legal profession and succeed in the practice of law. [2] The contemporary complexities of civility and professionalism remain problematic.[3] And even at its pinnacle, the civility movement had its critics as well as its supporters.[4] In the aftermath of Law Society of Upper Canada v Groia, the movement may not . . . [more]

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 . . . [more]

What happened in Canadian lawyers’ ethics and legal services regulation in 2024? This column looks back on three high-profile areas of development. It also flags several major court cases and disciplinary proceedings from 2024, as well as cases to watch for the year ahead.

Three High-Profile Areas of Development

1. Generative AI and the delivery of legal services

AI was one of the big stories in 2023 and continued to be big in 2024.

The year started with a cautionary note: there were headlines about a British Columbia lawyer who had included non-existent cases – provided to her by ChatGPT . . . [more]

I typically write about lawyer discipline, not judicial discipline. But to my surprise, there seems to have been virtually no attention to the important decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Gibbon v Justices of the Peace Review Council in the year and a half since it was released.[1]

Gibbon was an Ontario Justice of the Peace who had attempted to influence Highway Traffic Act proceedings against her son, specifically by contacting the assigned prosecutor and by inviting the assigned Justice of the Peace to dinner.[2] While the panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council was . . . [more]