I’d have trouble with this. The Law Society exists to first and foremost protect the legal profession–not the public–even though they may indicate otherwise.

For example with any other profession, you may first complain to their regulatory body and if you aren’t satisfied, you can take it up in court. Most regulatory bodies don’t want the issue to go to court (and be made public) so they deal with the issues.

Not so with the Law Society. Any complaint you make is considered privileged and you can’t bring it up in court or go public with your issue without the permission of the Law Society.

I don’t like how the Law Society protects lawyers from liability for bad advice.

I think if a lawyer is grossly negligent in their fiduciary duty to properly carry out the appropriate search from an appropriate data base, for example, and this type of negligence incurs a fine or penalty on a person that in good faith paid for legal advice or services… then the lawyer should be the one paying the penalties and incurring the cost.

Part of the problem is the Law Society does not have recognized standard practices for things as simple as conveyance law, the most basic of transactions, and as such it allows for an escape hatch for all sorts of shoddy practice where they win on the revenue side of the relationship, but have an out for responsibility to their fiduciary duty.

I fully support the division of regulatory bodies for lawyers from the paralegals and notaries public. A notaries public is not providing legal advice, and a paralegal is working under the supervision of a higher authority. A lawyer however is the one where the buck stops, and lawyers under a single regulatory body could be held to a higher standard, and dare I say be more accountable to a standard practice tailored to the expected capabilities of one that calls themselves a lawyer.

Of course the lawyers want to remain under a regulatory body that includes paralegals and notaries public, because then the standards of responsibility can be lowered to that of one without the education and authority of a fully trained lawyer.

I say don’t let the lawyers win and make them accountable too.

This is off topic but I just could not wait for Friday. Australia seeing sense,

http://thediplomad.blogspot.ca/2013/09/hope-from-land-of-tomorrow-aussies.html

Icicle,

Where do you get the idea that if you do not receive satisfaction from the Law Society you cannot file suit or make your complaint public? I’ve never heard of such provisions and don’t see them in the Legal Professions Act.