Some lawyers said the move would stop a conflict of interest since the LSBC has sued to halt the law
By Jessica Mach for Canadian Lawyer Magazine
British Columbia lawyers passed a resolution Tuesday afternoon to bar the Law Society of BC from appointing benchers to a “transitional board” meant to help the provincial government implement the Legal Professions Act. This controversial 2024 law looks to replace the law society with a new regulatory body.
One of the lawyers who submitted the resolution said allowing benchers to participate in the transitional board is “a blatant and obvious conflict of interest” because the LSBC has sued the provincial government to stop the new law from going into effect.
“If the benchers feel they need to appoint members to the transitional board, surely they could draw from the nearly 17,000 lawyers in the province without having to choose a sitting bencher who has a role in directing the litigation trying to prevent the implementation of Bill 21,” otherwise known as the Legal Professions Act, argued former LSBC bencher Gregory Petrisor at the legal regulator’s annual general meeting.
Petrisor noted that the Legal Professions Act requires the LSBC to appoint four transitional board members. Since the board’s establishment, the legal regulator has appointed multiple sitting benchers and so-called life benchers – benchers who have served four terms, or who were previously elected second vice-president-elect of the LSBC – as members.
The transitional board’s work, “by the law society’s own pleadings, will operate to erode independence of the bar, limit the scope of the bar’s self regulation in the public interest, and enable the government to control the practice of law in British Columbia contrary to the public interest, contrary to the stated objectives of the law society, and contrary to the benchers’ oaths of office,” Petrisor argued.
In support of Petrisor’s resolution, Kamloops lawyer Cameron Johnson told those watching the annual general meeting, “There are numerous other individuals that the benchers can appoint to represent the interests of the regulator… that represent their interests, that guide and provide a voice if in fact we fail to challenge [the Legal Professions Act] legislation.”
Johnson argued that life benchers should serve on the transitional board instead of sitting benchers.
“It just seems to be very clear to me that the benchers who have launched this challenge to the act have, as a collective body, indicated their opposition,” said Prince George lawyer Jon Duncan, who submitted the resolution with Petrisor. “I want them to push hard on that.”
He added, “I have a hard time seeing how benchers who are being pushed by the membership to oppose the government can also sit on a transitional board.”
The resolution passed 913-893, with 628 lawyers abstaining from voting.
At Tuesday’s meeting, lawyers also voted 1,439-525 in favour of a resolution to have the benchers call for a profession-wide referendum on any proposed changes to the Legal Professions Act or substantive changes related to lawyers’ independence and self-regulation in BC.
Johnson, who submitted the resolution, told Canadian Lawyer that he intends to “have the benchers not just say, ‘We, as the benchers, want this to happen,’ but to say, ‘We, as the benchers, backed up by a vote of all of the lawyers in this province, state: This is our position.’”
Referendum results in favour of opposing the new Legal Professions Act would carry “a different degree of heft,” he adds.
While resolutions passed at the LSBC’s annual general meetings are not binding on benchers, the current Legal Profession Act – which is distinct from the Legal Professions Act passed last year – stipulates that the LSBC must conduct a profession-wide referendum on a resolution if benchers have not implemented it within a year and at least five percent of the profession signs a petition requesting a referendum.
The Legal Professions Act, or Bill 21, received Royal Assent in May 2024. Introduced by the BC NDP, the legislation proposed replacing the LSBC, which regulates lawyers, with a single regulatory body overseeing lawyers, paralegals, and notaries across the province.
The legislation calls for a 17-person board, nine seats of which lawyers would fill. The board would appoint four of those lawyers. In contrast, the LSBC is currently overseen by a board of 25 lawyers and up to six non-lawyers. Other lawyers elect those lawyers, and non-lawyers are appointed.
The legislation also created a transitional board to implement the new regulatory body. The board must include four LSBC-appointed members, one of whom must be Indigenous, as well as members appointed by the Society of Notaries Public, BC Paralegal Association, and Lieutenant Governor in Council directors.
The LSBC and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC filed separate legal challenges to the Legal Professions Act, arguing it undermines the independence of the bar.
In July 2024, the BC Supreme Court rejected injunction requests by both organizations to stop the BC government from implementing the law, effectively forcing LSBC benchers to appoint four members to the transitional board. Two of those appointees were sitting benchers, while one is a life bencher.
The LSBC case is set to go to trial on Oct. 14.
Asked for comment on the results of the annual general meeting resolutions, a spokesperson for the Attorney General of British Columbia declined to comment due to the pending litigation on the Legal Professions Act.