The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) has officially filed court challenge against the Legal Professions Act, citing concerns over its implications and the independence of lawyers in the province.The notice was filed May 21, in what the TLABC calls "a pivotal step in the association’s ongoing efforts to protect the integrity and independence of the legal profession."Michael Elliott, President of TLABC, expressed deep concerns about the new legislation. "The Legal Professions Act (2024) presents a direct threat to the autonomy and self-regulation of lawyers in British Columbia," said Elliott. "This act effectively ends self-regulation for lawyers, eroding the fundamental independence of the legal profession from government control."Elliott highlighted the broader national concern, noting that "Lawyers and legal organizations across Canada are joining us in calling on the B.C. Government to halt the implementation of this Act. The implications of this legislation are profound, and it is critical that the legal profession remains independent to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law."The passage of the Legal Professions Act (2024) was expedited through the legislature by the NDP government, which enacted closure on the bill while it was still in the early stages of debate."The NDP ended the public debate and discussion on this bill when they were only on clause 7 of 317, which is egregious given the magnitude of the bill," Elliott stated."This move stifled meaningful consultation with legal organizations, stakeholders, and the public, which is a disservice to the democratic process and the people of British Columbia."Elliott expressed disappointment that the matter had to be settled in court."We have reached this point because the NDP government refused to engage in meaningful consultation. Their actions have left us no choice but to challenge this in court. We are resolute in our commitment to this cause, as it underscores the critical role of an independent legal profession in holding the government accountable," he said."This waste of time and taxpayer money to fight an unconstitutional bill is unnecessary and due exclusively to the NDP’s actions. This challenge highlights the importance of an independent legal profession that can act as a check on governmental overreach."The TLABC said it remains "steadfast in its mission to protect the rights of individuals and uphold the highest standards in legal practice. The Association will continue to advocate for an independent and self-regulated legal profession and challenge any legislation that threatens these principles."The Law Society of British Columbia filed its own legal challenge to the legislation May 16, the same day the bill received Royal assent. The bill creates a single legal regulator for lawyers, notaries and licensed paralegals.This regulator now has more power to dictate a lawyer's ability to practice based on medical issues. Section 68 says a lawyer is conducting themselves "incompetently" if they have "a health condition that prevents a licensee from practising law with reasonable skill and competence."Section 88 of the bill allows the regulator to “require the licensee or trainee to receive counselling or medical treatment" and allows the licensee’s practice to be limited or suspended.After the Bill was tabled on April 10, the Law Society, Canadian Bar Association – BC Branch and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC strongly urged the government to reconsider proceeding with the passage of the Bill in order to consult more widely with the public and the legal professions.In Canadian Lawyer Magazine last month, Law Society of BC president Jeevyn Dhaliwal said the legislation represents a “seismic change” in the regulation of legal professions in B.C. Following Royal Assent, Dhaliwal said in a statement, “Not only did government fail to permit full and transparent consultation, they also closed debate on Bill 21 in a manner that suggests they never intended to permit a full and open discussion on the implications of seismic changes that we view as contrary to the public interest."
The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) has officially filed court challenge against the Legal Professions Act, citing concerns over its implications and the independence of lawyers in the province.The notice was filed May 21, in what the TLABC calls "a pivotal step in the association’s ongoing efforts to protect the integrity and independence of the legal profession."Michael Elliott, President of TLABC, expressed deep concerns about the new legislation. "The Legal Professions Act (2024) presents a direct threat to the autonomy and self-regulation of lawyers in British Columbia," said Elliott. "This act effectively ends self-regulation for lawyers, eroding the fundamental independence of the legal profession from government control."Elliott highlighted the broader national concern, noting that "Lawyers and legal organizations across Canada are joining us in calling on the B.C. Government to halt the implementation of this Act. The implications of this legislation are profound, and it is critical that the legal profession remains independent to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law."The passage of the Legal Professions Act (2024) was expedited through the legislature by the NDP government, which enacted closure on the bill while it was still in the early stages of debate."The NDP ended the public debate and discussion on this bill when they were only on clause 7 of 317, which is egregious given the magnitude of the bill," Elliott stated."This move stifled meaningful consultation with legal organizations, stakeholders, and the public, which is a disservice to the democratic process and the people of British Columbia."Elliott expressed disappointment that the matter had to be settled in court."We have reached this point because the NDP government refused to engage in meaningful consultation. Their actions have left us no choice but to challenge this in court. We are resolute in our commitment to this cause, as it underscores the critical role of an independent legal profession in holding the government accountable," he said."This waste of time and taxpayer money to fight an unconstitutional bill is unnecessary and due exclusively to the NDP’s actions. This challenge highlights the importance of an independent legal profession that can act as a check on governmental overreach."The TLABC said it remains "steadfast in its mission to protect the rights of individuals and uphold the highest standards in legal practice. The Association will continue to advocate for an independent and self-regulated legal profession and challenge any legislation that threatens these principles."The Law Society of British Columbia filed its own legal challenge to the legislation May 16, the same day the bill received Royal assent. The bill creates a single legal regulator for lawyers, notaries and licensed paralegals.This regulator now has more power to dictate a lawyer's ability to practice based on medical issues. Section 68 says a lawyer is conducting themselves "incompetently" if they have "a health condition that prevents a licensee from practising law with reasonable skill and competence."Section 88 of the bill allows the regulator to “require the licensee or trainee to receive counselling or medical treatment" and allows the licensee’s practice to be limited or suspended.After the Bill was tabled on April 10, the Law Society, Canadian Bar Association – BC Branch and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC strongly urged the government to reconsider proceeding with the passage of the Bill in order to consult more widely with the public and the legal professions.In Canadian Lawyer Magazine last month, Law Society of BC president Jeevyn Dhaliwal said the legislation represents a “seismic change” in the regulation of legal professions in B.C. Following Royal Assent, Dhaliwal said in a statement, “Not only did government fail to permit full and transparent consultation, they also closed debate on Bill 21 in a manner that suggests they never intended to permit a full and open discussion on the implications of seismic changes that we view as contrary to the public interest."
