Article content continued

The argument that the law society compels speech turns, first, on its “acknowledgement” requirement, and, second, on its requirement that lawyers “promote” equality. Provided that this duty exists, however, no meaningful incursion on speech or belief follows from being required to acknowledge its existence. As an active member of the Law Society of Alberta and its outspoken critic, I have many duties that I think are stupid—overbroad or too narrow, poorly expressed or badly enforced. But I still have them, and can be required to acknowledge them as a condition of my license.

I do not support compelling speech or belief

Law societies require such acknowledgements for good reason, particularly as they move toward compliance regulation. In compliance regulation, law societies alert lawyers to their duties (such as avoiding conflicts and maintaining confidentiality), make them explicitly acknowledge that the duties exist, and require them to develop systems to ensure compliance.

Evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that compliance regulation produces better lawyer conduct than the existing reactive disciplinary model. The law society’s requirement that lawyers acknowledge the duty to promote equality is thus not some bonkers PC foray into compelled speech; it is rather part of a larger effort to increase the effectiveness of lawyer regulation.

And as for “promote,” why assume that the law society means “state your belief in equality,” rather than “do something to advance equality, diversity and inclusiveness (no matter how insincerely or reluctantly)”? Even I can’t believe the law society would be dumb enough to think equality can be progressed merely by enthusiastic lawyer statements.