International legal regulation SUMMATION Photo provided by United Way Halifax Darrel I. Pink Executive Director The evolution of legal regulation over my 20-plus years at <strong>the</strong> <strong>Society</strong> has been profound. In <strong>the</strong> 1990s, we were preoccupied by local issues. The <strong>Society</strong> undertook two reviews of its operations as it worked to ensure that it was as effective an organization as possible. In <strong>the</strong> aftermath of <strong>the</strong> Marshall Inquiry, our focus was on addressing diversity in <strong>the</strong> profession. The first decade of this century saw greater focus on national issues. The National Mobility Agreement gave rise to <strong>the</strong> need to address a variety of matters that affect all Canadian law societies and lawyers across <strong>the</strong> country. In <strong>the</strong> current decade, we now have a greater emphasis on international issues and how lawyers are regulated in o<strong>the</strong>r countries. We have come a long way. What has led to this is <strong>the</strong> recognition that <strong>the</strong> challenges facing clients, governments, <strong>the</strong> courts, and <strong>the</strong> profession are now global. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> focus is on working to improve access to justice, <strong>the</strong> impact of technology, differing client expectations, or new legal services delivery models, we have realized that to regulate effectively we have to understand what is happening abroad. To that end a group of international legal regulators, from 19 countries representing about 30 regulators, held its inaugural conference in London last fall. Because so many of <strong>the</strong> changes we are seeing have happened in England, it was an ideal location to become immersed in <strong>the</strong> new forms of legal regulation <strong>the</strong>re and to compare <strong>the</strong>m to what is going on around <strong>the</strong> globe. In Canada, we have much to learn from <strong>the</strong> emergence of law practices that are not owned by lawyers. When government identified “consumer interest” as a paramount value in regulating legal service delivery, it forced regulators to devise models that would allow lawyers to practise in different structures ¾ in corporations owned by non-lawyers, in banks that deliver legal services along with a wide range of o<strong>the</strong>r products, and in law firms that are franchise operations delivering legal services in a form developed by o<strong>the</strong>rs. These are only a small slice of new structures that are now regulated in a new outcomes-focused regulation model that stresses <strong>the</strong> results of lawyer practice ra<strong>the</strong>r than specifying particular rules for what lawyers can and cannot do. International discussions allow o<strong>the</strong>rs to see <strong>the</strong> quality and integrity of Canada’s law societies as well. In particular our discipline work, which is likely <strong>the</strong> best in <strong>the</strong> world, in terms of both service to complainants and quality of disposition, are noted. Our colleagues want to better understand our processes so <strong>the</strong>y can emulate what is best among <strong>the</strong>m. Comparing what we do with American regulation raises difficult issues to be considered. While we fiercely defend ourselves in Canada from any form of government oversight, at <strong>the</strong> same time our U.S. counterparts proudly assert <strong>the</strong> value of <strong>the</strong>ir regulation by <strong>the</strong> judicial branch of government. As independent as judges are, <strong>the</strong> institutions of <strong>the</strong> judiciary are dependent upon legislators for funding. The indirect connection and impact this can have on lawyer regulation is not lost on most observers. Regardless of <strong>the</strong> model, international comparisons have allowed us to share and discuss core values such as integrity, lawyer-client privilege and independence ¾ one that is staunchly defended in every jurisdiction. We have looked at admission programs, legal education and continuing competence regimes. And we have only scratched <strong>the</strong> surface. By learning from o<strong>the</strong>r ways of regulation, we are better able to understand and articulate <strong>the</strong> reasons for much of what we do. More importantly we are able to question long-held assumptions and <strong>the</strong> biases that often come with doing things ‘as we have always done <strong>the</strong>m’. In <strong>Nova</strong> <strong>Scotia</strong>, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Society</strong> strives to be a regulator of world-class quality. The public and lawyers in <strong>Nova</strong> <strong>Scotia</strong> should expect nothing less. Achieving that goal becomes more likely when we invest <strong>the</strong> time to understand what is happening elsewhere, to learn from o<strong>the</strong>rs and to <strong>the</strong>n bring <strong>the</strong> best of what we see home with us. 38 The <strong>Society</strong> Record
Spring 2013 39