Call to order: 12:30 pm PDT
Meeting location: Virtual meeting via Zoom webinar
Pursuant to Rule 1-13.1(1), the Benchers have authorized the Executive Director to permit advance online voting on the 2023 Annual General Meeting (AGM) resolutions, which will be available from Friday June 9, 2023 until 5:00 pm PDT on Monday, June 26, 2023. Voter credentials and instructions on how to access the voting site will be sent to all eligible voters shortly, and will be displayed in the member portal, following the receipt of this Notice. All resolutions will continue to be available for view and comment within the member portal, throughout the voting period, along with any commentary on the resolutions from Benchers. Only Law Society of BC members in good standing will be eligible to vote and to comment on the resolutions.
Pursuant to Rule 1-9.1, the Executive Committee has directed that the 2023 AGM will be a virtual meeting, and there will not be any physical meeting locations. Members will be able to join, vote, and speak at the meeting virtually.
If you are planning to attend the virtual meeting, you will need to register prior to the meeting. Please register by using the RSVP function available in the Member Portal. Please RSVP by 5:00 pm PDT on Monday, June 26, 2023.
Instructions on how to join the meeting will be sent to all registered members in advance of the meeting.
To watch a live stream of the meeting, go to the Annual General Meeting page on the Law Society website on the day of the meeting, and click on the link to access.
The Law Society’s audited financial statements for 2022 are now available on the Law Society website.
The business of the 2023 AGM will be as follows:
Each year at the AGM, a Second Vice-President for the following year is confirmed. Pursuant to Law Society Rule 1-19, if only one candidate is nominated, the President will declare that candidate to be Second-Vice-President-elect. The Benchers are pleased to announce their nomination of Lindsay LeBlanc for Second Vice-President-elect.
Lindsay R. LeBlanc
Lindsay R. LeBlanc is a partner with the Victoria based firm Cox Taylor and was called to the bar in 2006. Lindsay practices as a solicitor and litigator in the areas of property development, municipal law, wills and estates, complex commercial transactions & litigation and administrative law.
First elected a Bencher in 2022, Lindsay is Vice-Chair of the Trust Review Task Force and a member of the Executive Committee and Practice Standards Committee. Prior to her election as a Bencher, she served as a member of the non-Bencher LSBC Tribunal hearing panel pool and lectured at PLTC sessions.
Lindsay has an extensive organizational governance background. She is an active volunteer in the legal community having recently completed a six-year term as Governor with the Law Foundation of BC, the last two years serving as Chair. She is presently a member of the Supreme Court of BC Rules Committee and a member of CBA committees. In the community, Lindsay served a six-year term as Governor of UVic and continued on as a Director of its property boards along with her present director role on the BC Scholarship Society where she Chairs the Indigenous Scholarship Committee.
Lindsay is a member of the Métis Nation and was born and raised in Quesnel before moving to Victoria.
Pursuant to Rule 1-8(4), on behalf of the Benchers, President Christopher A. McPherson, KC will provide a brief outline of Law Society proceedings since the 2022 Annual General Meeting.
BE IT RESOLVED that PricewaterhouseCoopers be appointed as the Law Society of British Columbia auditors for the year ending December 31, 2023.
WHEREAS persons with physical disabilities are a diverse group who experience societal barriers in many different ways; and
WHEREAS the Law Society's Report titled, Towards a More Representative Legal Profession: Better practices, better workplaces, better results (2012) recognizes the importance of developing effective strategies to break down unintentional barriers that members of the legal profession may face; and
WHEREAS some members of the legal profession with physical disabilities view that the Law Society and the judicial system are discriminatory against persons with disabilities and fail to provide adequate accommodation; and
WHEREAS a fundamental objective of the Law Society is to promote diversity and ensure adequate representation based on gender, Aboriginal identity, cultural diversity, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity; and
WHEREAS the Diversity Action Plan calls for the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society Rules, and the Code of Professional Conduct and related policies, procedures, and practices to be reviewed for possible improvements that might help to support diversity in the legal profession.
Be it resolved that membership directs the Benchers:
To create an independent task force headed by persons with physical disabilities to review the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society Rules, the Code of Professional Conduct and related policies, procedures, and practices, so that recommendations may be made to improve the Law Society's inclusion of persons with physical disabilities and to break down unintentional barriers that members of the legal profession may face.
WHEREAS pursuant to section 3-2 of the Law Society Rules, any person may deliver a written complaint against a lawyer or law firm to the Executive Director; and
WHEREAS the Credentials department can unilaterally prevent a member from being a principal where the Law Society receives a complaint against a member, in effect terminating an articled student's articles; and
WHEREAS pursuant to section 3-10 of the Law Society Rules, an interim action board may impose conditions or limitations on the practice of a lawyer or on the enrolment of a prospective articled student whose principal is the subject of a written complaint that has yet to be investigated; and
WHEREAS a member can provide a written request to have submissions to the Credentials Committee to reconsider the decision of the Credentials Department; and
WHEREAS it could take several months to have a decision from the Credentials Committee, leaving the articled student without articles and the principal without a student, disrupting the student's education and career as well as the principal's law practice; and
WHEREAS this rule disproportionately affects small firms and sole practitioners, as an articled student may not be able to be transferred to another member in the firm; and
WHEREAS articled students produce valuable work, attend court on behalf of clients, and contribute to the success of law firms and organizations; and
WHEREAS a member of the Law Society is considered of good standing, of good character and repute unless proven otherwise under the Law Society Rules; and
WHEREAS the presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person is considered innocent until proven otherwise.
Be it resolved that membership directs the Benchers:
To amend section 3-10 of the Law Society Rules and any other appropriate sections of the Law Society Rules from the date of this resolution, revoking an interim action board's right to restrict the enrolment of a prospective articled student whose principal is in good standing with the Law Society.
WHEREAS:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
Bencher Commentary:
Further to the proposal in paragraph 4 of “Resolution 4: Member Resolution regarding Climate Change,” the Law Society is pleased to provide information regarding steps taken to reduce the climate impacts of our organization.
The Law Society’s values include being responsive to the changing needs of the public and the profession and responding to such changes in a timely manner. Recognizing the broad societal impact of climate change and other environmental concerns, the Law Society has taken a number of proactive measures linked to our properties, operations, and investments.
Our offices have undergone a number of cost-effective upgrades to enhance energy efficiency, decrease resource consumption (water, electric, and natural gas), and reduce our carbon footprint. The Law Society building has earned Natural Resources Canada’s Energy Star certification since 2018 and, in 2022, was ranked more energy efficient than 83% of similar properties nationwide.
Operationally, the Law Society’s adoption of hybrid work arrangements and the increased use of virtual board meetings, compliance audits, and hearings, has allowed board members, staff, and licensees to reduce their transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Other environmentally-conscious choices are promoted through our transition to paperless files, bike-friendly amenities for staff, and the use of composting, recycling, and donation programs.
Recognizing the importance of considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters in our investment decisions, the Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures for the LIF investment portfolio includes policy requirements for responsible investing that considers ESG matters along with other risks, and requires investment managers to report to the Benchers on a regular basis on these matters.
WHEREAS:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Benchers call for an immediate referendum without waiting for the estimated 700 required signatures, on the issue contained in the petition attached as schedule 1 of this resolution, at the next Bencher meeting.
Bencher Commentary:
The Ministry of Attorney General has expressed the government’s intention to table legislation to permit a new class of legal professionals, namely licensed paralegals, to practise law, and to provide for the regulation of such paralegals together with lawyers and notaries under a single legal regulator. This member resolution calls upon the Benchers to conduct an immediate referendum, without receiving the petition signed by 5% of the members required by s.13 of the Legal Profession Act, to put to the members a resolution that directs the Benchers to oppose the proposed legislation and support the existing Legal Profession Act regulating lawyers only. The recitals reference two previous member resolutions to the same effect.
Section 13 of the Legal Profession Act provides a method by which members can require the Benchers to implement member resolutions. By referendum, the members may require the Benchers to implement a member resolution. However, s.13 places limits on the ability to require that referendum by giving the Benchers 12 months to implement the resolution and requiring that at least 5% of the members must sign a petition requesting such a referendum. In addition, s.13(4) provides that Benchers can only implement a resolution, even after a successful referendum, if to do so would not be a breach of the Benchers’ statutory duties, which are defined by the public interest. The Benchers are of the view that those limits are important in serving the Benchers’ statutory obligations to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice. Although the majority of Benchers are elected by licensees, Benchers are not “accountable to the profession/members” as indicated by the movers of this member resolution, but are obligated to serve the public interest. What the movers of this member resolution are attempting is to circumvent at least one, if not both, of those limits.
The Benchers are also of the view that this member resolution reinforces the government’s concern that regulation of the legal profession requires consideration. While not the intent of the movers, the resolution can too easily be characterized as lawyers looking out for lawyers and not acting in the public interest. To the extent that this resolution and other objections to the practice of law by licensed paralegals plays into the narrative that lawyers may place their economic interests ahead of the public interest, it harms the credibility of our profession to self-regulate.
In response to the government’s Intentions Paper proposing both licensing of paralegals and the creation of a single legal regulator, the Benchers have made it clear that a single regulator of legal professionals may be supported provided that specific considerations are taken into account. Chiefly, we have repeatedly asserted to government that lawyers must form a majority of the regulator’s board. We consider such governance structure to be essential to maintaining an independent bar and an independent regulator. In addition, our response to the government’s Intentions Paper outlines other important considerations, such as the need for diversity on the board and ensuring that the regulator retains broad authority to regulate the competency and integrity of legal service providers. As Benchers, we accept that a new category of legal service providers is likely to become a reality in British Columbia. Rather than confronting or opposing this change, we believe the public interest is best served through the Law Society’s proactive engagement with government and other stakeholders regarding the development of an appropriate regulatory framework.
As stated in our response to the government’s Intentions Paper, any new regulatory framework for legal professionals must be consistent with the principles upon which our free and democratic society is based and we are confident that self-regulation of the legal profession will be held to be a principle of fundamental justice.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the essential conditions put forward by Benchers will be reflected in government’s legislation. In the meantime, the Benchers continue to engage with government in an effort to reach an acceptable regulatory framework.
Executive Summary:
The legal work experience of lawyers, judges and masters is considered under Rules 3-36(1)(b) and 3-37(1)(b) for the purposes of qualification as a family law arbitrator or parenting coordinator. These Rules are silent respecting the legal work experience of tribunal members (who, though they may be lawyers, usually maintain non-practising status), which means their legal work experience is not considered at all.
The Law Society should amend these Rules to recognize the legal work experience of tribunal members for the purposes of qualification as a family law arbitrator or parenting coordinator.
Full Text:
WHEREAS:
Law Society Rules 3-36(1)(b) and 3-37(1)(b) (the “Rules”) impose requirements that family law arbitrators and parenting coordinators have, respectively:
... “at least 10 years, engaged in the full-time practice of law or the equivalent in part-time practice or sat as a judge or master”; and
... “at least 10 years, engaged in the full-time practice of law or the equivalent in part-time practice or sat as a judge or master, including considerable family law experience dealing with high conflict families with children”,
AND:
Though family law arbitration and parenting coordination invoke aspects of mediation, they are also, in large part, if not primarily, adjudicative roles;
AND:
Judges and masters, who are adjudicators, are considered to meet the work experience requirements of the Rules even if they are not “engaged in the full-time practice of law” like a barrister or solicitor might be;
AND:
Tribunal members (who, though they may be lawyers, usually maintain non-practising status), like judges and masters, are adjudicators who, among other things, preside over hearings, hear and test evidence, examine parties and witnesses, assess the substantive merits of legal submissions, and write complex legal decisions subject to review in courts and other bodies;
AND:
Tribunal members are not considered in the Rules, so their experience does not “count” for the purposes of qualification as a family law arbitrator or parenting coordinator;
AND:
The foregoing yields the inequitable result that a seasoned tribunal member, including one who has adjudicated for 10 years or longer, is deemed not to meet the work experience requirements under the Rules, and is likely to be treated under the Rules as less qualified for family law arbitration or parenting coordination than a lawyer who has practised law for 10 years, but has zero adjudication experience;
AND:
This (a) denies the public access to a vast array of highly-qualified adjudicators who may wish to leave the public sector and enter the private sector (as these adjudicators may be dissuaded from the private sector due to significant career prejudice), and (b) is unnecessarily prejudicial to public sector tribunal members who elect to leave the public service (as they are unreasonably disqualified from private sector work that may be directly aligned with their previous adjudicative experience in the public sector);
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Law Society Rule 3-36(1)(b) be amended to state:…
“at least 10 years, engaged in the full-time practice of law, or the equivalent in part-time practice, or sat as a judge or master, or sat as a tribunal member”;
and
2. Law Society Rule 3-37(1)(b) be amended to state:…
“at least 10 years, engaged in the full-time practice of law, or the equivalent in part-time practice, or sat as a judge or master, or sat as a tribunal member, including considerable family law experience dealing with high conflict families with children”.
WHEREAS:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Law Society of British Columbia: