Paul Lepsoe Letter To Bar December 5, 2017

Further Open Letter to members of the Bar of Ontario from Paul Lepsoe
Concerning the Law Societys requirement for a written

Statement of Principles
December 5, 2017
Dear friends and colleagues:
This follows my earlier letter of November 15 to my fellow members of the Bar of Ontario
concerning the Law Society of Upper Canadas 1 new requirement for each member to
prepare a written personal, individual Statement of Principles (SOP).
In that letter, I called for this requirement to be at least suspended before year end at the
last meeting of the Benchers (Convocation) on December 1. I explained,
the Law Societys requirement opens the door to a significant undermining of the independence of
the Bar. It puts at risk something that is fundamental for the profession. I sincerely do hope that
my profession will continue to remove barriers to equality, diversity and inclusion. The concerns
that I raise are not with these objectives, but with the new requirement as a means to achieve them.
This new letter set out what has occurred since November 15, particularly what happened
at Convocation on December 1 which I attended and where most of the membership may
not be aware. My concerns remain.
Law Society Email of November 21
On November 21, the Law Society sent out another email to the membership on this topic.
It is called additional clarification for the mandated SOP, consisting of a new Guide
for what had originally been sent out by the Law Society by email on September 13. In
their email of November 21, the Law Society states, We have heard from many of you.
(although none of these submissions were made public by the Law Society).
In the November 21 email, there appear to be very significant watering down of the
September 13 material. However, Professor Cockfield, who had written an article in
October referring to the Law Societys Orwellian dictate2, has indicated that his position
has not changed. The law professor Ryan Alford and his supporters indicated that, despite
the email of November 21, they are continuing his constitutional challenge in the court
application. Benchers Joe Groia and Anne Vespry had presented a motion in October to
be voted on in the December 1 meeting, to provide for conscientious objection exemption
1 The Law Society is still Law Society of Upper Canada. The Law Society staff report that they will change
the name to Law Society of Ontario as of January 1, 2018. However, their material does not acknowledge
that a change of name requires an Act of the provincial legislature, which has not yet even been
introduced.
2 Contributed to The Globe and Mail, October 17, 2017. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-
im-ignoring-the-law-societys-orwellian-dictate/article36599997/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com.
1
from the otherwise mandatory SOP. They indicated their intention to proceed on
December 1, despite the November 21 email. (What happened to their motion on
December 1 is set out below.)
There was certainly no change that an SOP is required for retired members, including
those who may be now quite elderly but who have remained members of the Bar.
Benchers Barbara Murchie and Andrew Spurgeon had given notice on November 9 that
they would present a motion on December 1. It would have set aside the mandatory SOP,
to be replaced by one for members essentially to recognize existing legal obligations. After
the email of November 21, Ms. Murchie and Mr. Spurgeon indicated that they would not
pursue their motion. Ms. Murchie explained in an email, Andrew and I brought the
motion because there was misunderstanding about the Statement of Principles. We felt
that clarification was required. We thought our motion to amend was one way to provide
that clarification. Once the Guide was published, we felt our motion was no longer
necessary.
Material for Convocation on December 1
Prior to the Convocation of December 1, the LSUC committee that is behind the
mandatory SOP distributed a report to the Benchers and posted it publicly. The report
consists essentially of the new Guide, attaching copies of letters received from
organizations supporting the SOP.
There were apparently extensive and numerous individual submissions to the Law Society
raising concerns in relation to the mandatory SOP. However, these submissions were not
made public by the Law Society.
Through various sources, I have seen several such individual submissions. They are all
respectful and thoughtful.
Therefore, the written submission of the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), dated
November 24, stands out. According to the OBA, anyone (such as, presumably, Prof
Cockfield, Joe Groia and me) who raises concerns in relation to the mandatory SOP does
violence to the hard work and intention of those advocating for the SOP, and all of us
engage in misinterpretation and misinformation [emphasis added]. The OBA staffer
assigned to attend the Convocation on December 1 assured me that the OBA submission,
over the signature of OBA president Quinn Ross, had gone through the extensive OBA
internal approval process before it was issued. Violence ?
Convocation on December 1
As mentioned, the Murchie/Spurgeon motion had been pulled prior to Convocation on

December 1. That left debate on the Groia/Vespra motion alone. Joe Groia spoke only
briefly. Given he had represented an unpopular client and paid for it with a penalty of
suspension from practice, I think his experience spoke for itself.
2
Anne Vespra is less known. Her comments were very moving, and one of the very few of
the Benchers along with Joe Groia who seemed to understand an independent Bar. She
descripted herself as brown and butch. She referred to her experiences in the 1980s
where, in her view, a few courageous lawyers asserted their independence about
unpopular or non-majoritarian positions concerning AIDS and the forbidden importation
of lesbian literature then considered pornography.
Nonetheless the motion went down 16 for, 38 against.
Thus the SOP requirement remains. Many members who still know little or nothing of all
this may be surprised in January to discover they were already to have done their SOP as
of December 31, as part of the Annual Report process due to be submitted the next quarter.
It appears this debate will now continue for a divisive and long time, including expensive
litigation for the Law Society.
Paul Lepsoe
Barrister & Solicitor
Ottawa, Ontario

Paul Lepsoe Letter To Bar December 5, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Lepsoe Letter To Bar December 5, 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Lepsoe Letter To Bar December 5, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Further Open Letter to members of the Bar of Ontario from Paul Lepsoe

Concerning the Law Societys requirement for a written

Dear friends and colleagues:

Law Society Email of November 21

Material for Convocation on December 1

As mentioned, the Murchie/Spurgeon motion had been pulled prior to Convocation on

Nonetheless the motion went down 16 for, 38 against.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.