A key aspect of the Law Society of Upper Canada's plan to address systemic racism in the legal profession is coming under fire.

The issue is whether Ontario's legal regulator should be requiring lawyers and paralegals to adopt and abide by a so-called statement of principles that “acknowledges (their) obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in (their) behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public,” as described in an email sent last month by the law society to all licensees, reminding them that the statement is mandatory.

Licensees can either adopt a statement of principles prepared by the law society, or come up with their own, but they must indicate whether it's been done in their annual report to the law society, the regulator says. They do not have to submit the actual statement to the law society for approval.

The statement of principles was one of the recommendations stemming from a law society working group that looked into the challenges faced by racialized licensees, and which were adopted unanimously (with three abstentions) at the law society's board meeting last December.

Toronto lawyer Joe Groia, a member of the board of directors (known as “benchers”), said he fully supports efforts to improve equality and diversity in the profession, but takes issue with the fact that the statement is mandatory. He will be bringing a motion at the board meeting this December that would allow an exemption for those who have a “conscientious objection” to the requirement, which is proving to become a divisive topic in the profession.

“Not that these are not laudable objectives, because they are, and not that lawyers don't occupy a special position, they do, but I think that the real question is: Is this requirement, which I think amounts to compelled speech, compelled belief, is that something that the law society is allowed to do? And even if it is, is it something that the law society should do?” he told the Star.

Groia's motion is being seconded by Ottawa lawyer Anne Vespry, herself a racialized licensee.

“I believe I have a duty to act in a way that does not discriminate, but I do not believe that I have a duty to promote anything except maybe my own business,” Vespry told the Star, adding she will “stand up for this motion and any other motion that will make the recommendations make better sense.”

Both Groia and Vespry were among the 19 benchers who had supported bencher Sidney Troister's unsuccessful motion to discuss and vote on each recommendation separately last December.

“I have been approached by more lawyers and paralegals and asked to reconsider this initiative than I have on any other matter that's been before the law society in my time as a bencher,” Groia said. “Every single person I've spoken to have said ‘we are not opposed to the promotion of equality, we in fact support every effort, what we are opposed to do is being required to prepare a statement of principles that may indeed go against our faith, may go against our beliefs, may go against our conscience.’”

Groia is already locked in another battle with the law society; the Supreme Court of Canada is set to hear on Nov. 6 his appeal of his incivility conviction for being rude in court and one-month suspension imposed by the law society tribunal. More than 3,600 lawyers elected him a bencher in 2015 as his case — which is being closely followed in legal circles — was making its way through the courts.

The working group spent four years looking into challenges faced by racialized licensees, finding them “both long-standing and significant.” It came up with a total of 13 recommendations, three of which, including the statement of principles, are being implemented this year. Another mandatory recommendation requires “legal workplaces” with 10 or more licensees to develop and implement a human rights and diversity policy. The third recommendation, for licensees to participate in an “inclusion survey,” is optional.

The statement of principles “forces people to think about what exactly is their obligation, to understand that they have such an obligation and to think about how they're going to implement it in their own practice,” said lawyer Paul Jonathan Saguil, chair of the law society's equity advisory group. “There's no debate about the fact that people can decide what words to use (in the statement), but to fail to acknowledge that you have an obligation to promote equality and inclusion, if people don't want to do that, if people say they don't have any such obligation, that to me is a serious flaw on their perception of what it means to be a lawyer in the 21st century in Ontario.”

The law society has said change is needed now more than ever, as the number of racialized lawyers in Ontario has doubled — from 9 per cent of the profession in 2011, to 18 per cent in 2014.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Licensees who don't come up with a statement of principles this year will receive a letter indicating their non-compliance, said treasurer Paul Schabas, the elected head of the regulator. Whether they will face penalties in the future remains to be seen.

“We're trying to be positive and proactive,” he told the Star. “Our focus is on raising awareness and achieving the culture shift the working group recommended, which is make people aware of the challenges faced by racialized licensees in getting jobs and advancing in jobs. Our aim is simply to educate and raise awareness, we didn't bring this in to penalize.”