At the Law Society’s November 2008 Convocation in Toronto last week, the revised draft of the Lawyer’s Oath of Office was presented, quibbled over, and ultimately referred back to the committee.
The redrafting is a result of a complaint filed in 2007 about the rhetoric of the new Barrister’s Oath and its similarity to the oath of paralegals, whose regulation had recently been pulled under the Law Society’s umbrella. These concerns were later followed up on and subsequently squabbled over at the Annual General Meeting in Toronto.
The Annual Meeting brought forth four main objections (these are lifted directly from the November 2008 Convocation materials, under “Background”): (1) that lawyers were being treated and referred to as a class of Licensee (instead of Member); (2) that the changes made to the Barrister’s Oath were unacceptable; (3) the changes did not address a lawyer’s duty to ensure access to justice and; (4) that the Oath of Office for lawyers should be distinct from the paralegal oath.
The following was proposed at Convocation as the new Lawyers’ Oath of Office:
Proposed new LAWYERS’ OATH OF OFFICE
In accepting the honour and responsibility of life in the
profession of law, I promise that I will, in good faith,
safeguard justice by recognizing and respecting the dignity of
the court and the importance of the client’s cause, however
unpopular. I will accord civility, fairness and candour to all.
At all times, and with my whole heart, I will champion the
rule of law through diligent effort, whether in court or not, on
behalf of all persons, whether powerful or frail, envied or
despised, through strict adherence to the rules that govern
members of our profession.
So help me God. (I do so affirm.)
[taken from the Professional Development & Competence Committee’s Report to Convocation, November 27, 2008]
As the benchers’ reactions flooded in, distinct camps launched varying attempts at wordsmithing the text.
First, a bencher requested that a friendly amendment be added to include the phrase, “promoting access to justice for all.” This would strike the third concern from the Annual General Meeting off the list.
Many took issue with the rhetoric of the new oath, saying that the symbolic language fuddles message. For example, the use of binaries like “powerful and frail” leaves out the mass in the middle.
Another bencher argued that committing to “candour” defies solicitor/client privilege. Lawyers can’t be promising candour to all if, at times, lawyers must be discreet about the information they are privy to, he argued.
Others found that the dropping of thousand year old words like barrister and solicitor is offensive, referring to their replacement – “life in the profession of law” – as too vague. A solicitor rose to declare he found the proposal “personally extremely offensive,” citing the lack of reference to the contractual work of solicitors.
On the point of paralegals, many once again raised the point that the oaths should be separate and distinct. A paralegal responded to this by saying that he would be proud to take this oath. Another added that it would send the wrong message if paralegals were asked to utter an entirely different oath. Theoretically, shouldn’t paralegals have the same commitments as a lawyer?
Finally, just before the room wrapped up for lunch, the question was posed: “The last oath which stood for 103 years wasn’t really so bad, eh?” Benchers will be mulling the question over the holidays until Convocation reconvenes in January.