The first thing we do.. let's kill all the lawyers.

Seems like a good plan, no?

This line, from Henry VI, Part II by William Shakespeare, is widely misused and misunderstood. The true intent of Dick, the Butcher, in making that statement is to assist in creating anarchy by removing those who can understand and enforce the law that they are trying to undo.

So - why am I taking a break today from beating up poor Michael Ignatieff to talk about "killing" lawyers? Well, because last month I had a particularly irritating time assisting a client with a particularly offensive act on the part of the Maintenance Enforcement Department of Alberta.

You see, my client had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment, during a time that he had 1/2 time care of his daughter. After being re-hired, and after re-setting the new support payment he would owe his wife, he owed her $900.00. His wife agreed, in writing, to collect that at a rate of $50.00 per month. His wife's lawyer wrote a letter directly to Maintenance Enforcement confirming this arrangement.

And then, keeping in mind that this client had 1/2 time care of his daughter, Maintenance Enforcement garnished him (seized his bank account and the whole of his monthly pay cheque) for $4,000.00. They also garnished his tax refund on top of that. All for $900.00 which they knew she agreed to collect at $50.00 per month.

So - where does the "kill all the lawyers" comment come in? Well, the cornerstone of democracy and freedom is the "rule of law". The rule of law posits that everyone, including government, is subject to the law.

Problem is, the government and their bureaucracy doesn't like that. They want to do what they want, free of interference from those who challenge them to do "the right thing".

The Maintenance Enforcement Act prevents any action against the Department, no matter how offensive or arbitrary their acts are. My client has no right of action against them for this callous and arbitrary act.

In a separate case, an Immigration lawyer I work with was assisting a client having a problem being denied entry into Canada (she's Canadian) because she was driving her sister's car (who is American). When the lawyer tried to explain to the Customs Officer that he was not applying the law, the lawyer was summarily dismissed, and in fact, his client was told that if the lawyer attended the office, he would be arrested.

There is no action which can be brought against a Canadian Customs Officer for refusing to apply the law or for wrongfully threatening detention. There is not even a formal board of inquiry to investigate wrongful acts of Customs Officers - though there is a "review" process regarding actual decisions - but no conduct review process.

Another lawyer I spoke to, practicing immigration, has her clients regularly advised not to have a lawyer while they are applying for immigration.

The Family Law Act in Alberta has had major amendments recently to assist in parties coming to Court without lawyers - and, most lawyers will attest, Judges are regularly friendlier and more tolerant to these "pro se" litigants than to clients with lawyers.

Amendments to the Rules of Court are in the offing permitting legal representation by non-lawyers.

Our Law Society - meanwhile - like Nero, fiddles while Rome burns. They are so guilt-ridden from actually charging for their services (unlike Dentists and Doctors) that they actually roll their sleeves up and help - under the notion of improving "access to justice". Problem is - where "justice" is capricious, uncertain and unpredictable because rules of law are no longer applied - well that isn't justice at all.

We can make dispute resolution simpler, certainly. We can simply flip a coin - "Plaintiff or Defendant"? That would be easy, it would remove the expense of litigation, it would allow the Government to impose their will unchallenged, and it would "kill all the lawyers" and kill justice in the bargain.

Under a primarily (but not exclusively) liberal notion that government can cure all ills, there is an annoyance with anyone getting in the way of government authority. There is this notion that all government programs are perfect and that lawyers only gum up the works (go talk to a Worker's Compensation claimant about the perfection of government).

As a lawyer, in my 24 years of practice, I have noticed a troubling tide of government regulation, which, more and more, excludes review by the Courts of their acts and more and more, seeks to remove lawyers from the process.

Maybe you think that's a good thing.

Maybe until your bank accounts and pay cheques are taken away from you without reason and without recourse.