Upload
horace-thornton
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Most benchers serve four-year terms 40 elected lawyer benchers 5 elected paralegal benchers 8 lay benchers (non-lawyers and non- paralegals) appointed by the government Also grandparented ex officio benchers
Citation preview
An Independent Tribunal Within a Self-Governing Law Society:
Ontario’s New Law Society TribunalDavid A. Wright
Chair, Law Society TribunalAdjunct Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
Ontario is Canada’s largest province (population 13.6 million)
Law Society of Upper Canada established in 1797
Governs approximately 46,000 lawyers and 5,000 paralegals
Rules of Professional Conduct established by the Law Society
National model code recently established by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada
The Context: Law Society of Upper Canada
Most benchers serve four-year terms 40 elected lawyer benchers 5 elected paralegal benchers 8 lay benchers (non-lawyers and non-
paralegals) appointed by the government
Also grandparented ex officio benchers
Law Society Governance
Cases come before the Tribunal following complaint (if applicable) and investigation process Conduct Licensing Capacity And others
In house and sometimes external counsel represent the Law Society
Cases before the Tribunal
Cases heard by the Hearing Division, may be appealed by either party to the Appeal Division
Appeal Division decisions may be appealed to Court
Appeals
Hearing Panel and Appeal Panel each led by a part-time bencher chair
Tribunals Office with eleven employees (Counsel, Clerks, Office Staff)
Hearing panels primarily composed of benchers; some non-bencher adjudicators added in recent years to increase linguistic, scheduling capacity
Adjudication mandatory for benchers Mandatory adjudicator education
The Previous Model
Little case management by the Tribunal LS counsel generally steered the proceeding Rules and processes based on criminal and
civil law models; sometimes complex and technical
Volunteer duty counsel available to self-represented licensees
No support to adjudicators on substantive law or reason writing (other than editing)
The Previous Model
Increasing complexity of cases Need for systematic and effective
adjudicative structure Delays due to unavailability of panels Successful appeals
◦ Insufficient reasons◦ Violations of procedural fairness◦ Misapplication of established principles of
substantive law
Reasons for Change: 2012 Tribunals Committee Report
Establish a tribunal in the model of other administrative tribunals
Leadership: full-time, independent non-bencher chair and two elected bencher vice-chairs
Increased use of appointed non-bencher adjudicators appointed by convocation
Appointments of new appointed adjudicators to be based on merit, adjudicative experience
Performance evaluation of all adjudicators, including benchers
Key Features of the New Model
Benchers are not required to sit as adjudicators; can decide to focus on policy work
Benchers must apply for tribunal membership; will be appointed to a first term if they agree to abide by requirements
Performance evaluation of all adjudicators, including benchers, by the chair and unsatisfactory evaluation will lead to non-reappointment
Mandatory enhanced training and education
Key Features of the New Model
Chair appoints each hearing panel By regulation, three-person panels on
lawyer hearings require at least one elected bencher and at least one lay adjudicator; chair can depart
Three-person panels on paralegal hearings require one lawyer, one paralegal, one lay adjudicator
Most appeals heard by five adjudicators – similar regulatory requirements
Key Features of the New Model
Chair started September 2013 – background in administrative tribunal leadership
Legislation to formally establish Tribunal took effect March 12, 2014
Eleven new non-bencher adjudicators appointed in September 2013, training session conducted in November, fully on the schedule starting January 2014
Progress on Implementation
Early priority was to work on identity for the Tribunal as a whole◦ Developing mission statement and core values◦ Logo and stationery to visually separate the
tribunal from the policy and prosecutorial arms of the Law Society
◦ Website (including guides for self-represented licensees)
◦ Enhance the view of the Tribunal as a unified team consisting of staff, appointed and bencher adjudicators
Defining an Independent Identity
Who We AreThe Law Society Tribunal is an independent adjudicative tribunal within the Law Society of Upper Canada, consisting of staff and appointed adjudicators. Adjudicators include benchers and other lawyer, paralegal and lay appointees.
Mission StatementThe Law Society Tribunal processes, hears and decides regulatory cases about Ontario lawyers and paralegals in a manner that is fair, just and in the public interest.
Mission and Core Values
Core ValuesFairness:
We will be fair and impartial in our processes and proceedings, treating all with respect, courtesy and dignity.
Quality:We strive for excellence, acting with dedication and professionalism. We aim for continuous improvement, valuing diverse perspectives. We commit to an atmosphere that enables all to perform at their best.
Transparency:We will act in a manner that bears the closest scrutiny. Our decisions, rules, processes and policies will be available to licensees and the public, accessible and easily understandable.
Timeliness:We are guided by the importance of timely resolution of all matters. We will schedule hearing and continuation dates expeditiously and complete written reasons promptly.
Mission and Core Values
Established description setting out competencies and duties in various parts of the work:◦ Fairness and Collegiality◦ Quality and Continuous Improvement◦ Transparency◦ Timeliness◦ Responsibilities of panel chair, author of reasons
and in case management
Position Description
Self-evaluation in relation to the competencies established in the job description followed by meeting with the chair
To be conducted six months before the end of the adjudicator’s term
Further follow-up and performance management if the chair has concerns about the adjudicator’s performance
Evaluation System Proposal
Revamping the scheduling system◦ Moved away from a “list” model◦ New model provides more certainty for parties,
adjudicators◦ Tailor expertise to cases
Stakeholder outreach◦ Established Chair’s Practice Roundtable, made up
of counsel who regularly represent the Law Society, counsel who regularly represent licensees, and duty counsel
Other Early Priorities
Building Collegiality, Consistency and Expertise◦ Colleague review of and comment on draft
reasons (common practice in Canadian administrative tribunals)
Stakeholder outreach◦ Established Chair’s Practice Roundtable, made up
of counsel who regularly represent the Law Society, counsel who regularly represent licensees, and duty counsel
Other Early Priorities
Greater focus on case management to reduce costs for the parties, hearing time and adjournments
Possible involvement of duty counsel during pre-hearing conferences
Recruitment of additional adjudicators
Upcoming Priorities Include
For more information, see our website at:
www.lawsocietytribunal.ca
www.tribunaldubarreau.ca