I saw an article in today's Toronto Star regarding the regulation of paralegals by the Law Society.
Not sure how I feel about this one as I have been following this news story for the last couple of years. I have been troubled by how the paralegal industry has been presented as largely a liability risk for anyone needing to access legal services. That being said, our office in Calgary delivers paralegal services and I have been amused no end by the number of "messes" from practicing lawyers that we have had to clean up.
Access to justice is not a guaranteed right in Canada. I am certainly in favour of regulating paralegals, but frankly, having the Law Society conduct the regulation is a lot like the fox guarding the hen-house. I liken this issue to the nature of the relationship between physicians and nurses over 50 years ago and in the here and now, we don't have doctor's regulating the nursing profession.
Paralegals clearly dropped the ball on this as they should have sought to create a regulatory body a long time ago. (The neat thing about laws is that they can be changed of course and I hope that paralegals in Ontario challenge the legislation because in my view, it's clear cut protectionism for lawyers.)
I often discuss the unauthorized practice of law with lawyers in Alberta and I ask them - what precisely IS the practice of law? Is it drafting of documents? is it the legal advice component? Is it acting as an agent for a litigant? The responses are all over the place. Some say that helping a client draft an Affidavit is practicing law, some say it isn't. And if only lawyers are allowed to practice law, then why is there an epidemic of self-represented litigants in Canada these days?
It's definitely a quandry. Given that the divorce rate isn't exactly dropping and that the cost of accessing legal services is beyond the reach of many Canadians, I think that the law profession (lawyers specifically) can't have it both ways. Their not the villain in this, paralegals should have been acting to create a professional body a long time ago.
Not sure how I feel about this one as I have been following this news story for the last couple of years. I have been troubled by how the paralegal industry has been presented as largely a liability risk for anyone needing to access legal services. That being said, our office in Calgary delivers paralegal services and I have been amused no end by the number of "messes" from practicing lawyers that we have had to clean up.
Access to justice is not a guaranteed right in Canada. I am certainly in favour of regulating paralegals, but frankly, having the Law Society conduct the regulation is a lot like the fox guarding the hen-house. I liken this issue to the nature of the relationship between physicians and nurses over 50 years ago and in the here and now, we don't have doctor's regulating the nursing profession.
Paralegals clearly dropped the ball on this as they should have sought to create a regulatory body a long time ago. (The neat thing about laws is that they can be changed of course and I hope that paralegals in Ontario challenge the legislation because in my view, it's clear cut protectionism for lawyers.)
I often discuss the unauthorized practice of law with lawyers in Alberta and I ask them - what precisely IS the practice of law? Is it drafting of documents? is it the legal advice component? Is it acting as an agent for a litigant? The responses are all over the place. Some say that helping a client draft an Affidavit is practicing law, some say it isn't. And if only lawyers are allowed to practice law, then why is there an epidemic of self-represented litigants in Canada these days?
It's definitely a quandry. Given that the divorce rate isn't exactly dropping and that the cost of accessing legal services is beyond the reach of many Canadians, I think that the law profession (lawyers specifically) can't have it both ways. Their not the villain in this, paralegals should have been acting to create a professional body a long time ago.
Comment