David A. Wright Chair, Law Society Tribunal Adjunct 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

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

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 heard by the Hearing Division, may be appealed by either party to the Appeal Division  Appeal Division decisions may be appealed to Court

 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

 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)

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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

Who We Are The 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 Statement The 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.

Core Values Fairness: 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.

 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

 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

 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

 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

 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

For more information, see our website at: