What happened in Canadian lawyers’ ethics and legal services regulation in 2024? This column looks back on three high-profile areas of development. It also flags several major court cases and disciplinary proceedings from 2024, as well as cases to watch for the year ahead.
Three High-Profile Areas of Development
1. Generative AI and the delivery of legal services
AI was one of the big stories in 2023 and continued to be big in 2024.
The year started with a cautionary note: there were headlines about a British Columbia lawyer who had included non-existent cases – provided to her by ChatGPT – in a court filing, resulting in costs being awarded against the lawyer personally and generating a law society investigation.
In 2024, six additional law societies followed British Columbia’s 2023 lead in publishing guidance on generative AI. We now have the following guidance in Canada:
- Law Society of British Columbia, Guidance on Professional Responsibility and Generative AI (November 2023)
- Law Society of Alberta, Generative AI Playbook (January 2024)
- Law Society of Saskatchewan, Guidelines for the Use of
Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (February 2024) - Law Society of Manitoba, Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for use in the Practice of Law (April 2024)
- Law Society of Ontario, Licensee use of generative artificial intelligence (April 2024) (also additional practice notes, checklists and tools)
- Le Barreau du Québec, L’intelligence artificielle générative – Guide pratique pour une utilisation responsible (October 2024)
- Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, Artificial Intelligence in Your Practice (short webpage statement, undated)
For its part, the Canadian Bar Association published a toolkit, Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Legal Practitioner, in November 2024.
Individual Canadian courts have seemed to have slowed down their publication of practice directions or notices about AI to litigants (see here for a 2023 round-up). There is still a split approach between the courts – with some requiring disclosure and with others only offering cautions about responsible use. It will be interesting to see if a more uniform approach eventually evolves. One new thing in this space for 2024 are practice directions on AI from Canadian tribunals (see, here, for one from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and, here, for one from Ontario’s Condominium Authority Tribunal).
2024 also brought a couple of big legal AI stories in the direct-to-public space. In February, People’s Law School – a non-profit legal education and information organization – released a generative AI chatbot called Beagle+ which aims to help the public with common legal problems and provide information about British Columbia law. In a recent presentation, representatives from People’s Law School stated that within nine months, 80% of users find Beagle+ to be helpful, and that usage of the chatbot is up by 60% (with the tool now reaching 600 British Columbians a month).
In the early fall, another legal AI tool launched in Canada, but with much greater controversy. Shortly after its release, the tool – called Caseway – was the subject of a lawsuit brought by CanLII alleging, among other things, that Caseway, and its owners and operators, “created a business by wrongfully taking for themselves the CanLII Works by way of a bulk and systematic download from the CanLII website” (see here for more details).
2. Governance and regulation of the legal profession
AI is sometimes framed as creating an existential question for lawyers: will we be replaced by robots? A different type of existential question is at issue in British Columbia following the Legal Professions Act (LPA) receiving Royal Assent in May 2024.
Under the LPA, the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) will no longer exist. Instead, there will be a new single umbrella regulator for all legal professions (lawyers, notaries public and paralegals) in the province. Other features of the LPA include the ability of the government to designate new classes of legal professionals, the creation of an Indigenous Council that will advise and work in collaboration with the regulator, and a new governing board structure.[1] The LSBC and the British Columbia Trial Lawyers Association (BCTLA) have both challenged the constitutionality of the LPA (see here and here for their Notices of Civil Claim), alleging, among other things, that the legislation is inconsistent with the independence of the bar. The LSBC and the BCTLA unsuccessfully sought an injunction to prevent the LPA from coming into force, pending the determinations of their constitutional challenges. As a result, provisions of the LPA that initiate a transitional planning process are now in force – the BC government has stated that it anticipates that this process will take 18 to 24 months, following which the substantive provisions of the legislation will be brought into force by regulation. It was recently reported that the constitutional challenges are expected to be heard in the fall. Multiple intervenors are expected.
In Ontario, governance issues also loomed large in 2024, albeit less dramatically. In October 2024, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) launched a consultation into a wide range of proposed governance and electoral reforms, including a reduction in the size of the governing board (from 54 voting members to approximately 30) and altering the composition of the board to include, in addition to elected members, members that are appointed by the Law Society. Voting reforms were also proposed, including reducing the number of votes for eligible licensees in board elections (currently, eligible licensees are able to cast up to 40 votes – the proposal is to reduce this either to one vote per voter or to allow voters to cast as many votes as there are positions in their region). Some have raised concerns about the proposal, including Ontario Bar Association President Kathryn Manning who noted the potential negative effects of the reforms on self-regulation insofar as “[t]he balance of power [of the board] would be held by appointees and other members outside the profession.” This consultation closed on January 31, 2025.
3. Political predicaments
Continuing on the themes of independence and governance, 2024 featured several high-profile stories featuring intersections between politicians and the legal profession.
In Manitoba, controversy arose last September after Premier Wab Kinew removed an MLA from the NDP caucus and justified the removal on the basis that the MLA worked at the same law firm as a criminal defence lawyer acting for Peter Nygard (a high-profile businessperson who had been convicted for multiple sexual assaults). “Kinew argued that the association of [the MLA’s] firm with Nygard’s defence called into question the MLA’s judgment and alignment with the values of the NDP caucus.” These comments quickly drew the ire of the legal profession. The Manitoba Bar Association and the Criminal Defence Lawyer Association of Manitoba issued statements criticizing the Premier for undermining the important role that criminal defence lawyers play in our justice system through his suggestion that criminal defence lawyers should be judged in relation to the clients that they (or their colleagues) represent. The Premier ultimately apologized for his remarks. The publicity over the Premier’s remarks did end up overshadowing an underlying legal ethics issue: can and should a political career and a legal practice overlap? Inspired by this situation, Andrew Martin and Brandon Trask have co-authored an article, “Role Call: Can a Backbench Legislator Practice as a Criminal Defence Lawyer? A Legal Ethics Analysis”
In Alberta, disciplinary proceedings came to a close for two lawyers in relation to conduct that occurred while they were cabinet ministers in the Alberta government. In July 2024, Tyler Shandro, KC was found not guilty of misconduct deserving of sanction in relation to three citations, which included an allegation that he used his position as Minister of Health to obtain personal cell phone numbers and contacted one or more members of the public outside of regular working hours using that information. In October 2024, Kelechi (Kaycee) Madu, KC was found guilty of misconduct deserving of sanction in relation to an allegation that he undermined respect for the administration of justice when he contacted the Edmonton Police Services Chief of Police regarding a traffic ticket he received in March 2021, while he was Alberta’s Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. In response to Madu’s discipline, criticisms have been made that the process and decision should have better taken into account the underlying context. For example, Gideon Christian observed that “Madu’s narrative about racial profiling in this incident was largely ignored in the media coverage of this controversy, and subsequent proceedings, reflecting a broader pattern of ignoring systemic racism in public discourse and institutional responses.” Madu is appealing the disciplinary decision.
Speaking of KCs, in 2023, the Ontario government was in the hot seat for reinstating King’s Counsel designations. The move was criticized as, among other things, involving “meaningless patronage” given the partisan political connections that many of the 91 designates had and for lacking transparency in terms of the process and criteria applied. Notwithstanding Premier Doug Ford’s commitment to “fix the process” and statements from Attorney General Doug Downey that there would be a public application process in the future, there were no additional King’s Counsel designations in 2024 and, to my knowledge, there has been no new process announced. This leaves a strange state of affairs with the 2023 group of 91 new KCs standing alone, under a cloud of criticism about the process that led to their designation. It is unclear if and how any future KCs will be designated in Ontario.
Cases Watched and to Watch Out For
Outside of the three themes listed above, there were several high-profile cases involving lawyers’ ethics in 2024. Several of these cases involved ongoing matters. In Ontario, questions of good character were front and centre in the media in the AA case, the history and current status of which was helpfully summarized in a December 2024 Toronto Star article:
“AA admitted to sexually abusing children over a three-month period in 2009 in a different country, where he was studying to become a spiritual leader. The abuse involved touching the children and being touched by them while clothed. He was never criminally charged, but a children’s aid agency became aware of the abuse when he returned to Canada and then recommended that he not be alone with children.
The legal regulator has been fighting for years to stop AA from becoming a lawyer. The independent Law Society Tribunal ruled last year that he was of “good character” and could practise as long as he wasn’t alone with children — a decision that was met with public outrage after being revealed by the Star.
The decision was upheld by an appeal panel of the tribunal this past March, and it was affirmed again by three judges of the Divisional Court in October.
The Law Society is now asking the Court of Appeal to hear its appeal of the case.”
Another law society case that has attracted appellate attention is the Wirring case. The issue in this case is the constitutionality of the oaths that must be taken for admission into the Law Society of Alberta. The claimant, Prabjot Singh Wirring, has argued that the oaths, insofar as they contain an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, violate his rights to religious freedom and equality. In 2023, the government was successful in having Wirring’s claim summarily dismissed. Wirring appealed and the matter was heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal in October 2024. A decision in the matter is still pending at the time of writing.
Alberta was also in the news in November 2024 when it was reported that a judge of the Alberta Court of Justice had a defence lawyer jailed after the lawyer did not answer a question from the judge to the judge’s satisfaction. At a subsequent hearing, observed by hundreds of defence lawyers across Canada, the judge offered what has been characterized as a “qualified apology”, stating, among other things, “to the extent I’m responsible for this matter getting out of hand, I apologize.” Earlier this year, it was reported that the November incident led to a subsequent and unrelated domestic violence case being “derailed” given that the lawyer had been scheduled to appear before the same judge.
In Manitoba, a former Dean of the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law—Jonathan Black-Branch—found himself both disbarred and sued this year in relation to serious financial improprieties. In ordering disbarment, the Law Society of Manitoba Tribunal found “numerous acts of fraud over an extended period of time based on a consistent dishonest scheme.” The civil suit, brought by the University of Manitoba and which has not yet been adjudicated, alleges that Black-Branch breached the terms of his employment agreement and “knowingly pursued a course of fraudulent, reckless, deliberate, and high-handed conduct.”
In addition to the outstanding matters in some of the cases discussed above, there is also a case relating to solicitor-client privilege that will be before the Supreme Court of Canada in March 2025. The underlying subject matter in His Majesty the King v. Sharon Fox are criminal charges against a defence lawyer alleging an attempt to obstruct justice based on comments she made during a phone call with her client that were intercepted pursuant to a judicially authorized wiretap. The lawyer was acquitted at trial and on appeal. Among other things, the rarely invoked “innocence at stake” exception to solicitor-client privilege is raised in the case. The Crown’s appeal before the Supreme Court engages two issues: (1) Did Fox’s position as a lawyer preclude her from applying to pierce solicitor-client privilege and give full answer and defence to the criminal allegation? and (2) Should the non-privileged portion of the intercepted communication be excluded as a result of the violation of Fox’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?
Concluding Thoughts
The above summary of what happened in Canadian lawyers’ ethics and legal services regulation in 2024 is far from exhaustive, yet still chock-full of important regulatory developments and high-profile cases. In 2025, we will see some of the stories above continue and, no doubt, we will also see entirely unexpected new stories emerge. It is always an exciting time to be an educator and researcher in this area!
____________
[1] The LSBC has operated with 25 lawyer benchers elected from regions across the province and up to six appointed benchers. The new board structure, comprised of 17 directors, is more complex and includes five elected lawyer directors, two elected notaries public, two paralegals, three directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council “of whom at least one must be an individual of a First Nation” and five directors appointed by the other directors (of which four must be lawyers, one must be a notary public and at least one must be an Indigenous person).
The post Canadian Legal Ethics: 2024 Unwrapped appeared first on Slaw.