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