References in periodicals archive ?
terms of whether the LSUC reasonably balanced its public interest
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2015 decision in the TWU law school case concluded that the Law Society of Upper Canada was not unreasonable (94) in reaching its conclusion to deny accreditation to TWU law school and "engaged in a proportionate balancing of the Charter rights." (95) The unanimous Court concluded that the LSUC was "uniquely qualified to determine how the public interest, as it relates to the regulation of the legal profession in the Province, would be best advanced." (96) The Court commenced its reasoning by drawing distinctions between the case of the law school and the 2001 decision involving accreditation of TWU's teacher training program.
Before the hearing, demonstrators carried signs reading, "anti-racist lawyer harassed," "defend civil rights lawyers," and "fight racism." Inside, the LSUC's lawyer told the hearing that the pair had attempted to meet Talbot "without taking reasonable steps to ask whether Mr.
LSUC's rule on conflicts of interest, although more generally framed than ABA Model Rule 1.8, is applicable to equity billing transactions.
The LSUC, in determining whether to confer that public benefit, must consider whether doing so would meet its statutory mandate to act in the public interest.
Thus, the LSUC is permitted to discipline the dually licensed lawyer for her New York conduct, because the disciplinary proceeding only affects her Ontario licence.
Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct, Ottawa: FLSC, 2012, ch 4.2-1 [FLSC]; Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, Code of Professional Conduct, Halifax: NSBS, 2012, ch 4.2-1 [NSBS]; Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, Ottawa: LSUC, 2014, ch 3.02-1 [LSUC].
(62) One such rule is 6.3.1-1 of the LSUC RPC 2014, which states that
(60) The Canadian Bar Association, CBA Code of Professional Conduct, Ottawa: CBA, 2009, ch II, rules 1-2; Federation of Law Societies Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct, Ottawa: FLCA, 2009, ch 11, commentary 2.01(1); The Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct (Toronto: LSUC, 2000) rule 2.01(1); Code of ethics for advocates, RQ c B-1, r 1, ss 3.01.01, 3.03.01; The Law Society of Alberta, Code of Conduct (Calgary: LSA, 2011) ch II, rule 2.01(1); Law Society of New Brunswick, Code of Professional Conduct (Fredricton: LSNB, 2003) ch II, commentary 5; The Law Society of British Columbia, Professional Conduct Handbook (Vancouver: LSBC, 2011) ch III, rule 1.
(7) In Ontario, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) is responsible for the regulation of lawyers and paralegals.
(122) Bilingualism and the LSUC, supra note 25 a la p 175.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?