In “The Lawyer as Friend,” a famous 1976 law review article, Charles Fried proposed that a lawyer should act as a “special-purpose friend” to each of his or her clients. Within the bounds of the retainer, Fried argued, the lawyer must adopt the interests of the client as their own — just as a friend would.

This analogy helps clarify why conflicts of interest are so toxic to lawyer-client relationships. A conflict of interest usually arises because a lawyer’s loyalty to a client is undermined by the their work for other clients, or by the lawyer’s own personal interests. . . . [more]

As a person who articled and practiced with a provincial government, and now teaches at a law school that defines itself in part by “the Weldon tradition of unselfish public service”, I encourage my students to consider a career of legal practice in the public service – but to do so with their eyes open. While I have written elsewhere about how government practice is different than other legal practice,[1] here I want to discuss the important but sometimes overlooked difference between the concepts of “social justice” and “public service”.

There is plenty right, and nothing wrong, with the . . . [more]

Canadian courts are concerned about AI. They are concerned that litigants may misuse AI and attempt to introduce fake cases or deepfake evidence into court proceedings. They are also concerned about AI potentially usurping judges’ decision-making role and thereby undermining the proper administration of justice.

These concerns don’t merely exist in the ether – they have become embedded in roughly a dozen AI practice directions or notices from individual Canadian courts addressing the use of AI by litigants (see, e.g. here and here), as well as in recent AI guidance from the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) and the Action . . . [more]

The Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) has issued ethical guidelines for judges on the use of social media. These guidelines could be a useful template for updating or expanding codes of ethics for tribunal members. In this column I identify some of the key parts of the guidelines as well as some of the shortcomings.

The CJC defines social media, using the Oxford English Dictionary definition as its foundation:

 … social media is defined as “websites and applications which enable users to [access], create and share content or to participate in social networking.” This definition encompasses a wide variety of tools,

Why are some restaurants great, while others are so lousy? The great ones don’t usually have better ingredients in the kitchen, or better written policies, or even more talented people.

Usually, they have better culture. The folks leading and working in great restaurants have developed expectations, attitudes, and social practices that produce terrific results, night after night.

What if the same is true of justice systems? Maybe culture is the reason why some courts, tribunals, and segments of the bar consistently produce substantively just outcomes after processes that are quick, affordable, and procedurally fair. And maybe culture is the . . . [more]

The decision of the Law Society of Alberta in Law Society of Alberta v Shandro (2024 ABLS 14) has received media attention, but primarily for the result. In the process of dismissing three citations against politician Tyler Shandro, the Hearing Committee panel makes some important points about politicians who happen to be lawyers – points that are worthy of more attention independent of the result in the specific matter.

It seems intuitive that law society regulation, including complaints and discipline, could be ‘weaponized’ or otherwise abused as a tool against lawyer-politicians.[1] At the same time, it does . . . [more]

At the LSBC’s AGM tomorrow, several member resolutions will be up for a vote. Among them is a controversial resolution (Resolution 3) submitted by two BC lawyers that calls for changes to certain language in the LSBC’s Indigenous Intercultural Course. The language at issue references an unmarked burial site at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Various legal organizations have condemned Resolution 3 as being, among other things, “alarming Residential School denialism”, “an attack on the principles of Truth and Reconciliation”, an “insidious attempt to distort history” and as “undermin[ing] engagement with Indigenous communities”.

Resolution 3 follows . . . [more]

Earlier this summer, I attended Pride Toronto, an annual festival celebrating the queer community that attracts three million people to its events. Pride Toronto kicks off a wave of pride festivals across Canada throughout the summer.

While I’m not a member of the 2SLGBTQI+ community, it feels very important to show support for those who are, especially given sharply increasing rates of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation in our country. But like many Canadians, I didn’t always understand this, or know how to be an ally.

Twenty years ago, I was a student at the University of Toronto when . . . [more]

Justice Jamal and the Supreme Court deserve passing marks for their transparency in addressing the request by the Quebec Government that the judge recuse himself in Quebec Secularism Law (Bill 21) case. This is in sharp contrast to the “F” that almost every commentator would give the high court for its dealings with the complaint against Justice Russell Brown in 2023 (see for example this scathing critique from Professor Geoff Sigalet).

Just to remind readers, the Supreme Court’s strategy in that instance was to say nothing and hope no one noticed that Justice Brown did not sit on any cases . . . [more]

For decades, the ideas of equality, justice, and human rights have been the core pillars of Canada’s national identity. However, the reality embedded within our criminal justice system creates a significant obstacle to the actualization of those ideas. Overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black individuals in Canadian jails and prisons, and systemic racism in the criminal justice system, have been well documented in numerous studies and inquiries.[1] The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged this systemic issue over thirty years ago in R v Parks, 1993 CanLII 3383. This necessitates a pressing reconsideration of the “public interest” test used . . . [more]

Following ChatGPT’s public release in November 2022, there has been growing discussion about how generative AI intersects with lawyers’ professional obligations as found in codes of conduct. I published some early thoughts on this topic in Slaw.ca (see here and here). Several Canadian law societies have now also published guidance. Providing this sort of information is essential, in my view, for building needed tech literacy in the profession, particularly as AI becomes increasingly integrated into common tools that lawyers already use on a daily basis. Unfortunately, we have already seen that appropriate AI use by lawyers is not inevitable . . . [more]

Singapore’s courts were a mess in the late 1980s. There was a five year backlog of cases, and the average commercial matter took between five and six years to resolve. Hearing dates were being set as much as two years in the future.

These timelines may sound familiar, if you’re involved with Canada’s civil courts. The numbers are eerily similar here right now.

And yet what happened in Singapore in the 1990s should encourage Canadians who want to see speedier access to justice in our country. A dramatic improvement was delivered, in only ten years. By the end of the . . . [more]