ARCTIC OBITER

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paul Wood, Executive Director at the Legal Education Society of Alberta, shares this view. He has studied similar systems in the commonwealth, and believes the core of competency is in the behavioural habits of the lawyer. “The critical challenge for regulators is to find ways to change behaviours that create risks for clients and the profession, and reinforce behaviours that create positive experiences for clients and enhance the profession.” This Law Society, like all societies, saw mandatory CPD as a challenge. How do you measure competency and tailor the data for use by a regulator that answers to the public? After a thorough comparison of existing programs within the profession, a detailed study of the requirements of other professions, and a review of the day-to-day realities of lawyers in the North, we had something. We broadened the expectations to ensure accessibility and self-direction. We asked for forethought from members so it wasn’t an afterthought or a mere obligation. And, we provided a form with two main questions: “did you complete the requirements for the past year?” and “what plans, goals and professional development interests do you have for CPD in the coming year?” The relative standard seen among participating jurisdictions is twelve hours of CPD per year, give or take an hour. Embedded within this is another expectation: that some of those hours be contributed to ethics, professional responsibility, practice management, et cetera. The minimum time requirement is fairly low compared to other professions. Medical doctors in Ontario, for instance, must fulfill 40 hours a year. As well, in the NWT, achieving that minimum requirement is fairly straightforward: complete any activity that provides some form of insight and enlightenment relevant to a law practice, and we’re happy. This can be as simple as reading 12 hours of case law and the Code of Conduct – so long as our members are learning or relearning something. 20 ■ MARCH/APRIL 2013 ARCTIC OBITER
And then there’s the plan. Again, the NWT followed Alberta with the idea that education must have intention and direction to be beneficial. So, we ask for an outline of the member’s areas of practice, interests in practice management, goals and objectives, and the learning tools they plan to utilize. Does it work? If national or international studies have returned inconclusive on the effectiveness of mandatory CPD, this small Law Society will certainly not have any conclusions either. However, the Law Society now has documentation on each active member that itemizes past educational activities and future plans for continuing education. It’s a record that the Law Society never had before, and one that comes in handy when assessing the competencies of each member. Tongue-in-cheek, at the very basic level, as seen in the past two years, the ability to correctly complete the required form is a measure of competency of its own – and often very useful in flagging concerning behaviours. Inspired by Jordan’s hypothetical conversation with a legislator, I imagined a simplified alternate in which mandatory CPD did not exist: Legislator: “What steps do you take to ensure successful applicants, once admitted to the Bar as lawyers and members under your governance, uphold the expected standards of competence?” Regulator: “None.” adapted to legislation, statutes, case law and the needs of the general public that have changed repeatedly during their tenure?” Regulator: “Nothing.” Here lies the true problem. It is not whether or not mandatory CPD works to accurately measure the competencies of its members. Rather, it is the necessity to have a system in place that proactively enforces the need for lawyers to continually learn, and in a way that leaves a heightened sense of public trust in our governance. The ultimate goal of any action by the Law Society is to secure public confidence and minimize avoidable damage to the public’s image of the profession. In this Law Society, the minimum CPD requirements are a means to prove we’ve asked for something from our members regarding continued competency. The onus has always been on the member to continually refresh their individual lawyering skills and knowledgebase, and this will not change because of mandatory CPD requirements. However, the standards put in place do provide the Law Society with the insight it needs to, for now, satisfy the expectations of the public. Jordan asks a very important question in his article, and his arguments are very valid and worth reviewing. But, the easy answer from this side of the regulation is that we’ve put something in place that, although it is not perfect, exists where nothing existed before. And, for now, it works for the purposes we intended. Legislator: “So what, if anything, can you provide to prove to the public that a lawyer, 30 years after their admittance to your Bar, has not only retained the levels of competence measured at their time of call, but has also ARCTIC OBITER MARCH/APRIL 2013 ■ 21
Page 1 and 2: ARCTIC OBITER MARCH/APRIL 2012 VOLU
Page 3 and 4: CBA-NT BAR NOTES ’d like to begin
Page 5 and 6: (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4) been subjec
Page 7 and 8: MAKING A SPLASH FOR CHARITY Yellowk
Page 9 and 10: WILLS SEMINAR DRAWS A CROWD Yellowk
Page 11 and 12: THANK YOU! The CBA-NT Young Lawyers
Page 13 and 14: CBA INTERVENES AT SCC IN SUMMARY JU
Page 15 and 16: ON TOPIC THE CBA ON THE FUTURE OF T
Page 17 and 18: PUBLIC INTEREST HOME BUYING AFTER A
Page 19: suggestions. However, the former wa
Page 23 and 24: community, it may not be possible t
Page 25 and 26: ordered - The objectives of a suppo
Page 27 and 28: order was appropriate. ~ CRIMINAL L
Page 29 and 30: causing bodily harm. The accused te
Page 31 and 32: S.C.C. UPDATE HERE IS A SUMMARY OF
Page 33 and 34: NWT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Kelly McLaug
Page 35 and 36: MEMBER RESOURCES PRACTICE ADVISORS

ARCTIC OBITER

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?