2000: No. 2 March-April

Table of contents

The Hon. Andrew Petter (left) joins in a moment of good-spirited repartee at the Benchers meeting in April, his first meeting with the Law Society as Attorney General. In welcoming Mr. Petter, the Benchers reminded him of his responsibility to fight for fair legal aid funding as a government priority and questioned the government’s future use of PST on lawyers’ bills. When President Karl Warner, Q.C. said he hoped the discussion would not discourage the Attorney from attending future Benchers meetings, Mr. Petter quipped that he actually found the reception very warm ... especially after meeting with Caucus and Cabinet.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

New marketing rule

Lawyers must take care in marketing track record or testimonials

A new rule passed by the Benchers in April prohibits lawyers from stating or implying in any marketing activity that they are aggressive, and sets requirements for lawyers when advertising their past successes or when using testimonials.

The changes are set out in new Rule 4.2 in Chapter 14 "Marketing of Legal Services" of the Professional Conduct Handbook. That Rule reads:

4.2 A lawyer must not do any of the following in any marketing activity:

(a) state or imply that the lawyer is aggressive,

(b) state an amount of money that the lawyer has recovered for a client or refer to the lawyer’s degree of success in past cases, unless such statement is accompanied by a further statement that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases,

(c) use a testimonial unless the content of the testimonial complies with Rule 4.

Rules 4 and 4.1 set the context for all lawyer marketing activities and state:

4. Any marketing activity undertaken or authorized by a lawyer must not be:

(a) false,

(b) inaccurate,

(c) unverifiable,

(d) reasonably capable of misleading the recipient or intended recipient, or

(e) contrary to the best interests of the public or to the maintenance of a high standard of professionalism.

4.1 Any marketing activity undertaken or authorized by a lawyer must be in keeping with the dignity and reputation of an honourable profession.

Last year the Benchers had planned to bring into effect more restrictive provisions than those now in Rule 4.2. Lawyers would not only be barred from implying they are aggressive, they would have been prohibited from stating their success in past cases or using testimonials in marketing.

The reason for restrictions is to ensure that marketing is not misleading or unseemly and does not bring the profession into disrepute.

The Ethics Committee has noted that statements of past recoveries (in the absence of other information) provide the public with no rational basis to decide whether or not to retain a lawyer. For example, a statement that a lawyer has recovered a $1 million judgment for a client is misleading if the client has no way to assess whether that was a reasonable recovery in the circumstances.

The Ethics Committee consulted the profession last year about implied lawyer aggression, client testimonials and statements of past successes in marketing: see the March-April, 1999 Benchers’ Bulletin. The Committee received a number of thoughtful submissions, most from the trial bar. There was a diversity of viewpoints – some lawyers agreed with the proposed prohibitions, but many disagreed, in particular over prohibiting testimonials and statements of past recovery.

For the Ethics Committee, there was another key issue: would prohibitions on testimonials and statements of past recoveries be constitutionally sound? The Law Society commissioned a legal opinion from Robin Elliot and Phillip Bryden, both faculty members at UBC law school and Associate Counsel with Heenan Blaikie in Vancouver, who considered the proposed changes in light of the leading decision on professional advertising, Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario [1990] 2 SCR 232, and other authorities.

In the view of Mr. Elliot and Mr. Bryden, a blanket prohibition against lawyers using testimonials and statements of past success in their marketing would violate their guarantee of freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights. In considering whether prohibitive rules could be saved under section 1 of the Charter as necessary to protect professionalism or suppress misleading information, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Bryden expressed considerable doubt that the rules represented the least restrictive means of achieving these regulatory objectives.

In light of this opinion and the serious impact of blanket prohibitions on B.C. lawyers, the Ethics Committee proposed to the Benchers that the rules be revised in two important respects. First, lawyers could advertise their past recoveries or past successes, but would need to provide a disclaimer to the effect that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases. Second, lawyers may use client testimonials, but only if the content of the testimonial is true and verifiable and complies with Rule 4 in other respects.

*   *   *

Lawyer viewpoints … on marketing

Here are a few extracts from letters from lawyers to the Ethics Committee last Spring on a proposed prohibition on marketing testimonials and statements of past success.

On testimonial advertising …

On lawyers stating past successes …

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

President’s View

Karl F. Warner, Q.C.

What should the Law Society do (or not do) to help lawyers compete? It may be getting harder for a B.C. lawyer today to make a living. Perhaps because of economic downturn, we have noticed fewer Ontario and Alberta lawyers moving here, and some recent B.C. law graduates are looking for greener pastures. We’ve also seen a recent slow-down in the growth of private practitioners and a decline in civil actions in our courts, despite continued growth in the general population.

Do you know what motivates the people you want as your clients? I think people and businesses see legal services as they see commodities, and are more actively shopping for whatever is better, faster and cheaper. This is underscored by a 1998 public survey the Law Society commissioned from Environics Research, which shows concern about cost is a key deterrent to many people seeking the services of a lawyer. One in four respondents in fact failed to seek out legal advice in a situation in which they thought they might have needed it, both because they worried about cost and because they did not necessarily understand the full benefit. Lawyers need to take the time to refocus and see things from the public’s perspective. If people do not value our services, or cannot afford those services, they will not become our clients.

What are you doing to compete? We all have to compete. Apart from the lawyer down the hall, today’s clients might well consider retaining a lawyer from another country or another professional. Or they might use an online advice service, consult an unqualified non-lawyer or go it alone (with or without the latest self-help guide).

Competition means we continually have to reinvent what it means to be a lawyer, the services we offer and how we promote those services to the market. Have you thought about how your practice should change in the coming years?

What can the Law Society do to help you compete? As a Bencher, I believe the Society’s traditional role as a gatekeeper is a valuable one, and we have to be ever vigilant to ensure that lawyers are properly qualified and also that non-lawyer entrepreneurs are not allowed to put the public in jeopardy through dishonesty or incompetence. That is why the Law Society has diligently and effectively tackled the unauthorized practice of law. But I must say that long-term success for the legal profession requires more by way of innovation than regulation. That is a philosophy I hope we share.

From the Benchers’ table to the floor of local bar association meetings, I’ve heard ideas on what the Law Society or the CBA could do to sharpen lawyers’ competitive edge. What do you think? Is there something we can do to help you move into new areas of practice? Can lawyers be repositioned to work more effectively in alternative dispute resolution? Could a collective marketing effort assist? Could lawyers benefit from more information on technology?

On a related point, can the Law Society deregulate to help you compete? This is a weighty question. The Benchers have to find the balance between preserving the core values of the legal profession for public protection … and giving lawyers more free rein to compete. Just within the past six months, we have started moving more liberally and more quickly than I would ever have thought possible. We now lead the rest of the country in facilitating the movement of lawyers from province to province on a temporary basis, and other law societies are following our lead.

The Benchers just recently agreed in principle to allow multidisciplinary practice between lawyers and non-lawyers because we see that the legal profession in Canada is already too far behind accountants and other groups. The public should not be deprived of the benefit of a lawyer’s advice or representation because of our regulation and lawyers should not be put at a disadvantage. Even when we tighten some areas of regulation — most recently our marketing rules — we have made only the changes thought necessary for public protection.* What else should we consider?

The Law Society cannot be progressive without your ideas, as we are acutely aware that we have a responsibility to the profession as well as to the public. The Benchers are always ready to listen.

* For more on the marketing rules and multidisciplinary practice, please see pages 1 and 4.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Benchers look at opening the door to multidisciplinary practice

Lawyers and engineers … future partners? B.C. lawyers may have the opportunity to work with other professionals, including accountants, health professionals and engineers, and other non-lawyers such as therapists, estate planners and litigation support consultants. Multidisciplinary practice has received approval in principle from the Benchers … provided it can be regulated in a way that lawyers remain faithful to such core values as solicitor-client privilege, confidentiality and professional independence. More detailed options are expected back before the Benchers for discussion in June. Multidisciplinary practice could offer B.C. consumers the convenience of one-stop shopping for professional services, and lawyers the opportunity to share their overhead costs, share profits from a variety of services and do more cross-referral of services

Although multidisciplinary practice (MDP) is already a reality in some professions, the legal profession has resisted — perhaps because MDPs evoke the image of a takeover rather than an opportunity for lawyers to broaden their own horizons. More importantly, there are regulatory problems to overcome.

Lawyers in the United States cannot yet practise in multidisciplinary practices, except in the District of Columbia. Ontario only recently allowed a limited form of MDPs — lawyers must control the firm or other entity in which they practise and all services must be legal services or directly connected with the provision of legal services.

The Benchers have spent some time reflecting on the future of the profession and considering whether B.C. lawyers have fair opportunities to compete. Last Fall, they agreed in general terms to look at relaxing the restrictions on fee-splitting so that lawyers could practise with non-lawyers — provided the regulatory scheme properly protects the core values of the legal profession.

A Multidisciplinary Working Group chaired by Nanaimo Bencher Peter Ramsay, Q.C. was charged with studying the issue as part of the work of the Access to Justice Committee. The other Working Group members are Bencher William Sullivan, Q.C. and Vancouver lawyer Ross Tunnicliffe, with staff support from General Counsel Jeff Hoskins and Staff Lawyer – Ethics Jack Olsen.

While the model of multidisciplinary practice is still to be decided, the Benchers gave the Working Group some general direction in March (through informal "straw votes") and expect to consider more details when the Working Group reports again in June.

Should the Law Society regulate lawyers or the MDP itself?

At present, most Benchers favour regulating lawyers directly to ensure that non-lawyer members of the firm do not contravene ethical standards of the profession — such as the marketing, confidentiality or conflicts rules. The Law Society could require, as a condition of lawyer participation in an MDP, that the non-lawyers contract in the partnership to adhere to certain professional standards.

The Benchers are less favourable to directly regulating the MDP as an entity in order to control the conduct of non-lawyers in the MDP, and it is unclear whether the Law Society would have jurisdiction to do so.

The Benchers expect to pass rules governing lawyers’ participation in MDPs. Most Benchers, however, do not currently favour a licensing scheme that would require lawyers to satisfy the Law Society in advance that they will be able to comply with core ethical standards.

Most Benchers currently favour permitting lawyers to associate in partnership, not only with other self-regulating professionals, but with non-lawyers in other businesses as well. Under this approach, a lawyer could enter a partnership with a person who works in media relations or labour relations or who manages entertainers, as well as self-regulated professionals such as chartered accountants, psychologists, architects and engineers. Restricting lawyers to partnering with other self-regulating professionals is not seen as necessary since all non-lawyer partners would have to undertake to respect lawyers’ professional conduct obligations. As pointed out by the MDP Working Group, any alliances incompatible with a lawyer’s professional independence could be excluded.

Most Benchers do not favour a completely open ownership model that would allow non-lawyers who are not partners in the MDP to contribute capital and share in profits. As noted by the Working Group, this model would be a significant departure from the partnership structure that is characteristic of the practice of lawyers and other professionals. It is also questionable whether the professional independence of lawyers could be preserved under this model, since non-lawyers whose only interest in the MDP is a financial one would influence its operations.

Most Benchers currently favour no restrictions. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary practice could provide any services its members are competent and licensed to provide.

The Benchers expressed little interest in a model of MDP — such as the one permitted in Ontario — that restricts the scope of services to those directly related to the practice of law. As noted by the Working Group, a client’s problems can cut across professional boundaries, and it is the potential convenience, lower costs and better advice that may attract consumers to a multidisciplinary practice. By way of example, a lawyer, a social worker and a financial advisor might form an MDP to provide legal and non-legal services in connection with counselling older clients about estate planning, nursing home care and living wills.

The majority of Benchers are not currently favourable to restricting the control of MDPs to lawyers. This approach does not resolve the profession’s interest in protecting core values and may provoke other professions to seek similar control.

* * *

The MDP Working Group is consulting with the Ethics Committee, and plans to bring more specific options before the Benchers in June. Your comments or concerns about multidisciplinary practice are welcome. Please contact the MDP Working Group, c/o Jack Olsen, Staff Lawyer – Ethics, by fax to (604) 646-5902, by email to jolsen@lsbc.org or by mail to the Law Society office, 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4Z9.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Law Society takes unauthorized practice action

On February 28 the B.C. Supreme Court granted an application from the Law Society, and ordered that Barry Traquair and Bar Legal Services Ltd., of Kelowna not appear as counsel or advocate, draw, revise or settle documents for use in judicial or extrajudicial proceedings, negotiate for the settlement of a claim or demand for damages, give legal advice or otherwise engage in the practice of law, or represent that they are qualified or entitled to do so.

The Law Society also recently obtained undertakings and covenants from the following people and businesses not to engage in unauthorized practice:

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

General reinstatements

The following people have been reinstated to membership in the Law Society. These reinstatements do not relate to discipline proceedings.

As of February, 2000: Patrick Murray Griffin, of Quesnel; Robb Philip Miller, of Vancouver; As of March, 2000: Adam Elliot Brosgall, of Vancouver; Leslie Rose Hildebrandt, of Victoria; Joanne Susan McKee, of Vancouver; As of April, 2000: Angela Barbara Bartram, of Vancouver; Robert Alan Currie, of Telkwa; Yasmin Lalani, of Vancouver.

Reinstatement with restrictions

After a credentials hearing, Patrick James Beirne, of Vancouver, was reinstated as of February, 2000. Mr. Beirne is restricted to the practice of criminal law.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Precedent letters added to Handbook for guidance in joint retainers

What to say when you act for more than one client

Lawyers who jointly represent two or more clients must comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Professional Conduct Handbook to ensure those clients understand the meaning of joint representation and also consent to a course of action should the lawyer receive from one client confidential information relevant to the representation or should a conflict arise.

Some lawyers are not complying with the Handbook provisions, which has resulted in the Discipline Committee ordering a number of recent conduct reviews.

To assist lawyers, the Benchers have adopted a recommendation from the Ethics Committee to add to the Handbook two precedent letters that are suitable for lawyers to send to clients in joint representations and can be tailored to individual circumstances.

These letters are set out for reference in a new Appendix 6 as part of the April, 2000 Member’s Manual amendment package.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Follow-up on relations with the judiciary

Concerns in the courtroom? Senior barristers are available to assist

Two senior practitioners and former Treasurers, Robert T.C. Johnston, Q.C. of Victoria and Karen F. Nordlinger, Q.C. of Vancouver, are volunteering their services to assist with problems that might occasionally arise between judges and lawyers in the courtroom.

Mr. Johnston and Ms. Nordlinger will serve as an independent special panel (which may be expanded if needed), and will follow a protocol recommended in 1997 by a special Law Society committee comprised of Leonard Doust, Q.C., as Chair, Bruce Fraser, Q.C., Marguerite Jackson, Q.C., Charles Maclean, Q.C., Karl Warner, Q.C. and Ms. Nordlinger. Their report was approved by the Benchers in 1997 and subsequently presented at the Law Society AGM.

Mr. Johnston and Ms. Nordlinger are available to provide emergency assistance or advice to a lawyer in the course of a trial or other proceeding when such assistance is requested by a judge who has concerns about that lawyer’s conduct or competence. The panel is also available to provide advice and assistance to lawyers who have complaints about judges. They will act in accordance with the protocol approved by the Law Society, and their services are entirely optional — no judge or lawyer is obliged to participate.

If a judge is concerned about a lawyer’s conduct or competence in ongoing proceedings

When a judge has concern a litigant is receiving inadequate representation, the judge may adjourn the matter so the litigant can retain other counsel, or may alternatively attempt to control the process to ensure the case is decided fairly. As noted by the Doust Committee in 1997, the urgency of an issue before the court may in some instances preclude a judge from adjourning the matter, or it may be difficult for the judge to control the process to ensure fairness.

In the Committee’s view, it is not appropriate for the Law Society to take any action on a judge’s complaint about a lawyer until the ongoing proceedings have been adjourned or completed, except in the most unusual circumstances. The Committee’s concern was that there be no miscarriage of justice or appearance of unfairness to the lawyer about whom the complaint is made, or to the lawyer’s client.

It was in this context that the Committee recommended that the services of an independent panel of senior and respected barristers should be available to judges in such circumstances to provide advice and assistance to the lawyer, in accordance with the following protocol:

No judge or lawyer is bound to avail themselves of the services of the special panel – participation is voluntary.

If a lawyer is concerned about a judge’s conduct

The special panel is also available to give advice and assistance to a lawyer who feels that a judge’s conduct has been inappropriate. The panel may advise on whether or not to proceed to a complaint and to canvass the options of making a complaint to the appropriate judicial council, raising as a legal issue in the trial whether the judge’s actions manifest a bias against the lawyer’s client or asking the Law Society to raise the matter informally with the appropriate chief justice or chief judge.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Referendum approval given to honoraria increases

At their November, 1999 meeting, under Law Society Rule 1-37, the Benchers authorized a mail-in referendum ballot of the profession on the following question:

Voting closed on Friday, February 25, 2000 and ballots were counted on Monday, February 28. A majority (60%) of B.C. lawyers voting in the referendum voted "yes;" 40% voted "no."

The referendum proposal was based on the recommendation of a blue ribbon task force, which looked at such factors as the magnitude of the duties carried out by the President and Vice-Presidents and the impact of inflation on the existing honorarium. The Benchers accepted the task force recommendation and sought approval from the profession through this referendum.

Of the 9,996 members of the Law Society eligible to vote, 4,214 cast their ballots, a turnout of 42%.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Legal Profession Act changes sought on solicitor’s lien registration

A change in policy of the Land Title Office (LTO) has prompted the Law Society to request an amendment to section 79 of the Legal Profession Act to specifically allow for the registration of a claim of solicitor’s lien.

The Law Society’s preliminary view is that the amendment should expressly authorize the Benchers to make rules for the registration of a claim of lien and prescribe the requisite form, which allows for future amendments and refinements without further recourse to legislation.

Background

At common law, a lawyer who has not been paid a proper fee for legal services is entitled to a lien on the client’s personal property that has been recovered or preserved as a result of the lawyer’s work. Section 79 extends that right to include a charge against real property that the lawyer has recovered or preserved on behalf of the client in a proceeding, including a matter before an administrative tribunal. This is similar to the liens that the law permits to builders, repairers and woodworkers, among others, giving them a claim on the property on which they have worked to ensure that their labours are rewarded.

Until recently, a lawyer could informally secure legal fees by submitting to the LTO a solicitor’s letter stating the basis for the claim against real property. But the LTO has reconsidered its policy and decided that, without a court order, it cannot be satisfied that an applicant seeking to register a lawyer’s charge is "entitled to good, safeholding and marketable title," as required under the Land Title Act. The LTO issued Practice Bulletin No. 0199 to the effect that, in order for a claim under section 79(1) of the Legal Profession Act to be registered, the application must be accompanied by a judicial order establishing the right to the charge.

The LTO Practice Bulletin states that, in order to assert a solicitor’s lien, a lawyer must now commence an action against the client and obtain an order declaring the solicitor’s interest in real property. In the interim, the lawyer may file a caveat or certificate of pending litigation under the Land Title Act.

A more expedient procedure is to bring a notice of motion in the existing action in which the lawyer has preserved or recovered the property in question. The courts have followed Henry v. Columbia Securities Ltd. (1942), 58 BCR 193 (CA) in allowing such an application. The lawyer may also apply to be added as a party to the action in order to file a certificate of pending litigation under section 215 of the Land Title Act.

Reason for legislative request

The section 79 solicitor’s lien is important, not only for lawyers but also for their clients. Lawyers may accept a retainer confident in the knowledge that their fees can be secured by a charge on any real property that they preserve or recover for the client. This has assisted litigants — very often women — with few or no liquid assets to obtain legal representation, while the other party may otherwise have the resources to hire counsel and attempt to defeat a valid claim.

The Law Society has requested a change in the legislation to ensure that there is an expeditious and cost-effective process for registering claims of liens and so that there are few situations in which lawyers will need to bring the matter before the courts to secure their fees, a practice that is not conducive to a trust relationship.

While the Law Society has requested specific remedial legislation, amendments can take some time. The Benchers are meanwhile considering whether their general powers under the Legal Profession Act already provide sufficient authority for them to make the remedial rules under section 79(1), or whether there are other legal options to pursue.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

BCCA practice directive on citation of authorities is revised

On April 25 the B.C. Court of Appeal issued a revised practice directive respecting the citation of authorities by counsel in preparing their factums.

The directive is available on the superior courts website at www.courts.gov.bc.ca/ca/pdir/pdir-04.htm.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Land Title e-filing initiative delayed

The electronic filing system under development at the Land Title Branch (see January-February, 2000 Bulletin for background) will be delayed six to eight months because the Land Title Branch has terminated its relationship with DMR Group Consulting and is seeking a new technology developer.

The Ministry of Attorney General has announced that it remains fully committed to this e-filing project and intends to continue to work with the Law Society, the Information, Science and Technology Agency and other stakeholders to ensure that the system meets emerging standards for e-commerce.

Under revised projections, electronic filing at the LTO would be available by late 2001 or early 2002.

*   *   *

The Law Society of B.C. is continuing to work toward becoming a certifying authority for B.C. lawyers to ensure the security of their electronic filings with public registries, and is leading discussion of this role with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, law societies and state bars in other countries and other governing bodies in B.C.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

View of the profession sought

The lawyer and ADR: what’s working and what isn’t

by Deborah Lynn Zutter,*  Chair of ADR Working Group

How is the role of counsel in alternative dispute resolution different from the role of counsel in litigation? What is appropriate advocacy at mediation? What conflicts or potential conflicts exist for lawyers who act as mediators in alternative dispute resolution? For lawyers working in the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), there may be more questions than answers. That is why the Law Society is undertaking a full examination of the

Consultation within the profession is critical to the success of this project. Later this Spring, the ADR Working Group will gather 36 lawyers (both ADR neutrals and ADR counsel) from across B.C. to participate in focus groups led by an independent facilitator. These lawyers have a broad range of experience and differing opinions on the role of lawyers in alternative dispute resolution.

It is important that they hear the views and concerns of other lawyers in their respective regions on: 1) What is working well for lawyers in alternative dispute resolution? 2) What is not working well? 3) What is missing? and 4) What new rules and changes to existing rules are needed to support the integrity of the system?

If you have thoughts about these issues, please take the time to contact any of the people in your region listed below before their focus groups meet.

* * *

ADR representatives to regional focus groups

*   *   *

* Deborah Lynn Zutter, a Vancouver lawyer and mediator, is past chair of the National ADR Section of the CBA. She is joined on the ADR Working Group by Ralston Alexander, Q.C., Robert Diebolt, Q.C., Wendy John, Jerry McHale and Jeffrey Hoskins (staff liaison). Future issues of the Benchers’ Bulletin will raise some of the ethical and practice issues lawyers face in alternative dispute resolution. Three respected lawyers in the ADR field — Joyce Bradley of Vancouver, Jane Morley, Q.C. of Victoria and Ron Smith of Kelowna — will contribute to this series.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Practice Standards Committee seeks volunteers

The Practice Standards Committee works to uphold the standards of lawyer competence and is responsible for overseeing both preventive and remedial programs. In this context, the Committee directs investigations of lawyers’ practices and makes recommendations to lawyers to improve their practice and knowledge of substantive areas.

On occasion, the Committee also carries out orders made by the Discipline and Credentials Committees or hearing panels in relation to a lawyer’s practice.

The Committee requires volunteers from the profession from time to time to serve as:

The Practice Standards Committee is also contemplating using volunteer lawyers in other roles from time to time.

If you are interested in serving as a volunteer, or have questions, please contact Deputy Executive Director Jean Whittow by mail at 845 Cambie Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4Z9, by email at jwhittow@lsbc.org, by fax at (604) 605-5399 or by telephone at (604) 443-5709 (toll-free in B.C.: 1-800-903-5300).

To assist in the compilation of a volunteer roster, please set out your full name, year of call, firm name and contact information (address, telephone, fax and e-mail).

Please attach an updated curriculum vitae, if available, and indicate 1) whether you are interested in serving as a practice reviewer or as a practice supervisor, and 2) what areas of law you would be comfortable reviewing or supervising and your experience in those areas.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

New Discrimination Ombudsperson

The Law Society is pleased to announce that, as of May 1, Anne Bhanu Chopra will become Discrimination Ombudsperson for the Society. Ms. Chopra is a former lecturer at the University of Alberta and human resources manager who brings with her experience in diversity and anti-discrimination issues in policy and workplace settings. She practised human rights, family and labour law in Alberta before moving to B.C. in 1996 and is a member of both provincial bars. She is also the author of the book Beyond the Mirror: Seeing Ourselves As We Are.

As Discrimination Ombudsperson, Ms. Chopra will be available part-time to:

Ms. Chopra replaces Gail Forsythe who has served the profession as Ombudsperson for the past five years.

The Discrimination Ombudsperson is independent of the Law Society discipline process. If a discrimination complaint is not resolved through the Discrimination Ombudsperson, a complainant can later make a complaint to the Law Society or can make a complaint without first going to the Ombudsperson — but that process is separate.

If you would like information or assistance from Ms. Chopra, please leave a confidential voice-mail message for her at (604) 687-2344 at any time. Ms. Chopra will be the only person with access to her messages and will return calls promptly.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

New PLTC Director

The Benchers and staff welcome Alan Treleaven as the new Director of the Professional Legal Training Course for the Law Society and the CLE Society of B.C. Mr. Treleaven was a PLTC faculty member from 1985 to 1989, and is returning to head the program after serving the past 10 years as the Director of Education for the Law Society of Upper Canada. During that time, Mr. Treleaven worked on a comprehensive requalification program, enhancements to Ontario’s specialization program and initiatives to make continuing education more effective and accessible. He earlier taught at Osgoode Hall Law School and practised in Vancouver with Macaulay McColl and Jeffery & Calder.

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Downtown Vancouver firms to keep articling offers open to August 21

The Credentials Committee has announced that law firms with an office in the downtown core of Vancouver (west of Carrall Street and north of False Creek) must keep open all offers of articling positions they make this year until at least 12:00 noon on Monday, August 21, 2000.

This date is set each year pursuant to Rule 2-31 to ensure students have an opportunity to consider more than one firm’s offer in interviewing for articles. The rule applies to offers made to second-year law students or first-year law students, but not to offers to third-year law students or to offers of summer positions (temporary articles).

Top of page | Table of contents | Index

Back to list of Benchers' Bulletins