From the Ivory Tower of the Supreme Court of Canada - Lawyers Charge Too Much

Well.

So I read this morning, yet again, another criticism of the practice of law by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Madame Justice Beverly MacLachlin

According to the article in the Globe and Mail - The Chief Justice’s voice rose as she discussed a monopoly lawyers have on legal services. “If you’re the only one who can provide a fundamental social need from which you benefit, I think it follows that you have to provide it,” she said. “And I don’t think it’s enough to say we are providing it for the rich and the corporations. You have to find a way to provide it for everybody.”


That's pretty rich, Madame Justice.

I mean, coming from someone who has never had to struggle to pay a mortgage and feed a family while working many more hours and making much less money than classmates who were teachers with two years less education and student debt.

Just for some background, Madame Justice McLachlin graduated from the University of Alberta and was called to the Alberta bar  in 1969.  After moving to British Columbia and being called to the B.C. bar in 1971, she practiced law for 4 more years until she entered academia in 1975 at my former Alma mater, the University of British Columbia, and then began her career as a Judge in 1981, rising up the judicial ladder until being appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000.

While giving her credit for choosing a school of impeccable reputation to teach at, it is apparent that the career path of her ladyship betrays a virtual absence of "real world" experience in the practice of law.

She was a lawyer for 6 years.  That's it.  She practiced law long enough to basically figure out where to find the court house and how to fill out a small claims summons.

And yet, after a total of perhaps six years of experience as a lawyer - during which time, I would be shocked if she ever actually worked for a legal aid client - she is pontificating about the obligation of the profession to provide the "fundamental social need" of legal assistance.

Really?

So, if we have homeless and disadvantaged with not enough to eat, is there a demand for Superstore to provide free groceries.

For those of us fortunate enough to have our own homes, is there a demand that we all take in the homeless.

No.

Just lawyers.  The problems of the whole of society in having what they consider to be proper access to justice should lie at the feet of the lawyers and the lawyers alone.

Lovely.

Funny thing, is I'm thinking she's not offering to reduce her salary to help the needy litigants of this country now, is she?

Let me let you in on a little secret.  I'm a family lawyer.  I've been doing this for some 26 years, and there were times when I worked 16 to 18 hours, at less than my fellow classmates who were teachers - and my holidays until about 6 years ago, never exceeded two weeks in a year.

But I love what I do.  And I enjoy helping my clients, particularly in "Collaborative Law" which helps people avoid going to Court at all.

But here's the thing..

There was a time when a client could sign a marital contract - prenuptial agreement, settlement agreement - and if they had a lawyer explain the agreement to them, and advise them of their rights to obtain further information IF THEY WANTED that would be it.  All done.  Easy.

Agreements could often be drafted over a few hours, and once completed, they were pretty much a done deal.

No more.

Nope.

You see, our Supreme Court of Canada has decided that these agreements need to be more fully scrutinized, to make sure they are fair.  (There are no other forms of contracts at law requiring this).   The Supreme Court of Canada has basically ruled that even if you have an agreement, and even if your spouse has their own lawyer and has had independent advice, and even if they have signed an acknowledgement saying they are aware of their rights and even if their lawyer has signed an acknowledgment saying they have explained their rights to them - the agreement MIGHT be enforced by the Court.

This means that an "agreement" is no bar to lengthy and protracted litigation any longer.  No such thing in family law anymore as an "ironclad agreement".  Lovely.

What does this mean for the average person?

Well, it means that, when you draft an agreement, a lawyer is going to be obligated to much more work than you may want them to - because the Supreme Court of Canada says they must. 

So what once was an agreement drafted in an hour or two, and, with a review meeting, a cost of maybe $750.00 - has now turned into a major peace of legal work, and a significantly higher cost.  Not because the lawyer wants to, not because the client wants to, but because our Courts have said they must.  Because if they don't - the agreement may not be respected by the Court.

Beyond that - now, any agreement negotiated in the last 30 years could be attacked as not meeting the demands of the Supreme Court that not only did both parties respond honestly to any inquiry made by their spouse and their lawyer - but they were required to positively assure that they provided any documentation or information that MIGHT be considered pertinent to the issues in the agreement.

And the result.

Lots of legal fees.  Lots of litigation.

So.

Before Madame Ivory Tower gets too high and mighty, perhaps she might show just a modicum of humility considering her experience as a lawyer is almost non-existent, and considering that the decisions of her and her friends on the bench are driving up the cost of legal service as much as anything else.

Just sayin'

PS: from the Alberta Wage and Salary Survey -

Average Dentist Income $186,044;
Average Lawyer Income - $111,310;
Average Kindergarten and Elementry School Teacher Income - $67,652.00 ;
Average Registered Nurse Income - $72,290.00