Ethics are the core of the legal profession, guiding lawyers, young and old in their interactions with clients, the public, and the bar. Each jurisdiction maintains a Code of Professional Conduct as a set of rules for lawyers to follow as members of the profession to maintain the profession’s honour and dignity. Much of each Code is open to interpretation and therefore can only form part of a lawyer’s approach to ethical conduct. Every lawyer also relies on their personal ethics, character, and the advice of their mentors, colleagues, and peers.

This short paper will address the challenges of ethical . . . [more]

In a recent episode of HBO’s Succession, billionaire daughter Shiv Roy learns that she can’t hire her preferred divorce lawyer because the lawyer is “conflicted out”. Surprised that her husband, Tom Wambsgans, would have chosen the same lawyer she wished to retain, Shiv inquires after a few other top New York divorce lawyers, only to discover they too were conflicted out. Shiv realizes Tom “met with or retained every useable lawyer in New York” to prevent them from representing her against him—a move her shrewd father pulled on her mother many years before. (“I got mommed,” Shiv later tells . . . [more]

Each year, over 100,000 Ontarians seek justice from Tribunals Ontario. This group of people —the size of a small city— includes tenants, landlords, motor vehicle accident victims seeking insurance benefits, people denied disability benefits, and those who believe that their fundamental human rights have been infringed. This group of 100,000 is significantly larger than the number of plaintiffs who start civil lawsuits in the Superior Court of Justice each year. The numbers are similar in other provinces. For most civil rights, tribunals are Canadians’ first and only opportunity to seek authoritative dispute-resolution and enforcement.

The highest-volume fora within Tribunals . . . [more]

We lawyers have done a good job convincing ourselves, convincing the courts and convincing legislators that we are more special than other professionals. But are we really more deserving of the special protections and privileges that we have convinced others to afford us? Increasingly, those special privileges are being called into question around the globe and it is only a matter of time until the searchlights focus their lens on us here in Canada. I fear that we will be found to be wanting.

This occurred to me during a recent panel discussion on “The International Bar Association’s Gatekeepers Project: . . . [more]

Some lawyers dread the idea of reporting a colleague in the bar to the Law Society. Others are all too eager to file complaints against other counsel, including out of spite or to try to bring down the “competition”. Most of these lawyers share something in common: they have no idea what their professional obligations are when it comes to filing law society complaints.

Not too long ago, I acted for a lawyer in a discipline hearing that stemmed from a complaint by another lawyer. These two experienced counsel had previously been respected colleagues, but for a variety of reasons . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada has heard several family law cases involving intimate partner violence (“IPV”) in which they erased the abuse. Pettkus v Becker, [1980] 2 SCR 834 is perhaps the most well-known family law example of the tragic consequences of ignoring a survivor’s experience.[1] Less well-known, are the cases developing the law governing domestic contracts. Beyond the obvious trauma inflicted on survivors whose cases are heard but whose experiences are ignored, is the question of what the implications are for the soundness of the law generated by ignoring IPV. One of the issues discussed in these domestic . . . [more]

ChatGPT was launched by OpenAI, an American-based AI research and deployment company, in November 2022. The free, easy to access tool quickly captured the public’s attention. Described in the New York Times as “quite simply, the best artificial intelligence chatbot ever released to the general public”, ChatGPT hit 1 million users in 5 days and skyrocketed to 100 million users in January. In response to ChatGPT’s launch, both Microsoft and Google have announced plans to offer new AI-enhanced, chat-based search tools.

It wasn’t long before lawyers started paying attention. A quick Google search yields over 40,000 hits for “ChatGPT” and . . . [more]

A new American case, Upsolve v. James, suggests that freedom of expression might protect the right of non-lawyers to offer legal advice.

In both Canada and the USA, lawyers have a near-monopoly on legal advice. If anyone tells someone else how the law would apply to their circumstances, the first person is probably deemed to be “practicing law.” That is something that only lawyers are allowed to do.

There are a few exceptions. In Ontario, for example, (i) licensed paralegals acting within their scope of practice, (ii) people giving occasional advice to friends or family, and (iii) employees of some . . . [more]

Artificial intelligence has been in the news since late last year when OpenAI released ChatGPT, a large language model machine learning chatbot that provide surprisingly good responses to questions. This system can write essays, draft legal documents, and produce computer code.

To get a sense of the potential, consider Canada’s citizenship test. Applicants for Canadian citizenship must pass an online multiple-choice exam with questions about Canada’s history, geography, economy, government, laws, and important symbols. The government maintains a study guide to help applicants prepare, and many organizations, including the Toronto Public Library offer online practice questions. . . . [more]

In late December, Slaw received two recommended Op-Ed submissions from David Tanovich‘s legal ethics class at the University of Windsor. Today, we’re running them both. 

With holiday dinners right around the corner, family drama seems unavoidable as the strains of proximity and unresolved grievances test relationships during gatherings. This was certainly the case for u/redpanda891, who took to Reddit to after a disconcerting family dinner: “[Am I the A**hole] for calling my sister’s husband a piece of s**t because he’s representing my ex in our divorce?”[1]

In particular, the fiduciary nature required of the lawyer-client relationship aggravates the . . . [more]

In late December, Slaw received two recommended Op-Ed submissions from David Tanovich‘s legal ethics class at the University of Windsor. Today, we’re running them both. 

One hundred and eighty days. That is how long Richard Catcheway, an Indigenous accused, sat in a prison cell for a crime he did not commit. Five to eight years. That is the prison term Casey McIlvride-Lister avoided by pleading guilty. Then we have Dinesh Kumar who avoided a life sentence by taking an offer of 90-days to be served intermittently. While factually dissimilar, Richard, Casey, and Dinesh share a connection: they were . . . [more]

If a lawyer physically or sexually assaults their intimate partner, they may be penalized by their governing law society for conduct unbecoming a member of the profession. If a lawyer commits systems abuse while self-representing, the behaviour may amount to professional misconduct. However, if a lawyer in their representative capacity acts as a tool of abuse on behalf of their client, it seems as though they are unlikely to be found guilty of professional misconduct for their role in the intimate partner violence (“IPV”). To be sure, their professional conduct may be subject to judicial admonishment and even costs consequences; . . . [more]