Ab Law Society Rules
The western provinces have therefore replaced the complex rules of the safe harbor of protocol with a principle of self-supervised jurisdiction. An analogy to this is the driver`s license rule: we allow people who have a valid driver`s license to drive their car across state/provincial/international borders, with all the associated issues of jurisdiction, liability, violation of local rules, enforcement, etc. The protocol also covers the constant mobility of foreign legal advisors and provides a very minimal set of rules for interjurisdictional law firms. In Black v. Law Society of Alberta  1 P.C.R. 591, the Supreme Court found that the Law Society Rule was unconstitutional because it infringed the right of lawyers under section 6 to earn a living anywhere in the country, regardless of provincial boundaries. The court recognized the duty of law societies to regulate jurisdiction, ethical standards and financial accountability in the public interest, but stated that they should not interfere with section 6 rights by doing so. Foreign lawyers and law firms are treated differently from local lawyers in the application of these rules. Subsection 78(2) of the Law Society of Alberta Rules provides that when an authorized foreign legal counsel engages in advertising or marketing activities in Alberta, the authorized foreign legal counsel designation must use the designation of authorized foreign legal counsel, indicate the country in which the authorized foreign legal counsel is qualified to provide legal advice, and may not use a designation that could lead a reasonable person to conclude: that the consultant is a member of the Law Society.
In other words, there is no need to convince the courts to accept changes to the rules. We can make a lot of changes ourselves, and the ones we can`t make ourselves, we bring to the legislature, not to the courts. And at least in Alberta, we have a very good relationship with our legislators, so it was not difficult to get the legislative changes we needed to move forward in this area. The corresponding provisions are found in the Law Society of Alberta Rules: The western provinces have also gone beyond rule 10-20-12 for casual practices and now allow a lawyer admitted to one western Canadian province to practice in any other western Canadian province for up to six months per year in a number of cases. Anyone who wants to practice more than that must apply to become a member of the local bar association. This very open agreement, which is very close to the internal free trade of legal services, is open to any province that will reciprocate. While the government argues that Mr. Wirring`s Charter rights have not been violated, the defence also argues that, even if that is the case, any violation under section 1 of the Charter may be justified. This article states that rights may be restricted by law as long as they are reasonable in a free and democratic society. One of the first Supreme Court of Canada cases to interpret section 6 concerned my law firm. A group of lawyers from Alberta has partnered with a Toronto law firm. The Law Society of Alberta responded by prohibiting Alberta lawyers who normally live and practice in Alberta from associating with a person who was not an active member of the Alberta Bar with normal residence in Alberta.
“Addressing systemic discrimination requires honest introspection and bold advocacy to identify policies and practices that marginalize members of our communities,” he said, while issuing a call to action for the Alberta government to listen to society and quickly remove “this unnecessary barrier.” The Law Society of Alberta said in its defense that it took “no position” on the plaintiff`s claims. Lord. Wirring would like to take another oath or be exempted from the existing oath in order to be admitted and registered as a member of the Bar – options that are already available in other provinces and territories in Canada. Wirring said in a statement that it is encouraging to see the company deliver on its commitment to ensuring justice, diversity and inclusion in advocacy. The general principle that our profession can set rules regarding competence and ethical conduct is certain, but some of the specific limitations of multi-jurisdictional practice are unlikely to be allowed under the GATS. The Alberta government and the Law Society, an independent body that sets standards for lawyers, are being named as defendants in a lawsuit filed last month by Prabjot Singh Wirring, a future Edmonton lawyer. Lord. Wirring argues that this requirement violates his religious freedom as an Amritdhari Sikh (initiate) because he has already taken an absolute oath to Akal Purakh, one of the Sikh names for the divine being in his religious tradition.
The implementation of the protocol was delayed because provincial laws governing legal societies had to be amended. It has also been delayed by the very high standards it sets for jurisdiction-specific jurisdictions, a costly and cumbersome requirement for on-the-spot consultation, and very complex rules on different types of practices that would have made administration very complex and costly. Chief Executive Elizabeth Osler issued a statement on the company`s website Tuesday, saying the optional oath “would be consistent with the approach taken in several other Canadian jurisdictions and remove unfair barriers to the exercise of the right.” She said in a later statement to The Globe and Mail that the company was not formally asking the government to make such a change. These requirements are the same as the rules applicable to local applicants, except that most local applicants have a degree in Canadian law and therefore would not have to apply for equivalency with the National Accreditation Committee and would instead apply directly to the Law Society based on their Canadian common law degree. The relevant legislation is the Legal Profession Act and the Law Society of Alberta Rules, Rules 47 to 69.1. The IWA will help us face a particular danger we face. While professional governance is a provincial jurisdiction, the treaty powers conferred on the federal government are of paramount importance. If the federal government introduces legal services under the GATS with a more open set of rules than the existing internal mobility restrictions, we could find ourselves in the crazy position that it is more difficult for a lawyer from another Canadian province to practice temporarily locally than for a lawyer from another country who is licensed to practice here under the GATS. Before I get to the heart of the matter of my presentation, perhaps I should clarify very briefly some important differences in the way the legal profession is governed in our countries. In Canada, the courts play a very limited role in establishing ethical rules and assessing the conduct of lawyers. According to the relevant provincial laws, the professions are a provincial jurisdiction.
They also investigate, prosecute and rule on legal faults independently of the courts. The role of the tribunal in the discipline of lawyers is limited to judicial review and appeal in legal matters. In Canada, the regulation of the legal profession is the exclusive responsibility of provincial and territorial law societies. Law societies are required by provincial and territorial laws to regulate the profession in the public interest.