O Canada! Hail Ontario!

I may have mentioned my admiration for the transparency of bar discipline in Canada.

Our northern neighbors (or neighbours if you prefer) – the various provinces – uniformly provide easy access to current information about dispositions on their web pages.

But the undisputed champion of bar transparency is the Ontario Law Society, which makes accessible vitually everything about every pending matter on its web page.

Among the many visitor-friendly features, the Society has a weekly update that gives an excellent snapshot of the ongoing work of the regulatory process.

The updates feature notices of charges (example linked here), hearing notices (here) and summaries of orders such as

Ms. Stokes engaged in professional misconduct by mishandling about $20,000, failing to serve her client to the standard of a competent paralegal, acting outside the scope of her licence, failing to obtain and maintain adequate errors and omissions insurance, and failing to discharge her professional responsibilities honourably and with integrity. Her licence is suspended for 12 months, and then until she has purged the July 23, 2019 contempt order, and she is ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the Law Society.

And reasons

The parties filed agreed statements of fact and an admitted document book. The panel found misconduct involving very substantial advertising and marketing that intentionally misrepresented Mr. Diamond’s practice and expertise. The panel concluded this was long-term, wide-spread, intentional misrepresentation for financial advantage. It did not accept that the primary issue was marketplace confusion, instead finding that the principal issue was public confidence in the legal profession; the panel decided that public confidence and general deterrence required more than a mere slap on the wrist.

The panel reasoned that other cases were distinguished as transitional cases where the licensees had not had the benefit of regulatory attention. Further, Mr. Diamond’s misconduct was of greater extent and duration, and he received significant financial gain as a result. The panel concluded that a reprimand was so unhinged from the circumstances that it would bring self-regulation of the legal professions into disrepute and was otherwise contrary to the public interest and so did not accept the joint submission.

All with embedded links to the underlying documents.

One can infer two things about the Ontario Law Society. 

First, it takes its obligation to inform the public seriously.

Second, they keep busy enough to put a boatload of American State Bars to shame. 

I encourage more U.S. jurisdictions to emulate this model. 

Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, Maine and a few others are already doing so.

Vermont is the emerging champion with a page that provides a link to every pleading in every matter.

My own Bar treats transparency as a treatable disease. (Mike Frisch)