An Alberta lawyer who says mandatory Law Society training threatens the political and ideological independence of the legal profession is asking the province’s top court to give his constitutional challenge a new hearing.Roger Song, represented by lawyers funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, has filed written arguments with the Court of Appeal of Alberta challenging the dismissal of his case against the Law Society of Alberta.Song is asking the appeal court to order a new hearing before a different judge, arguing the lower court failed to adequately consider his constitutional arguments and much of the evidence he submitted.Song was called to the Alberta bar in 2014 after previously working as a law professor in Beijing. According to the Justice Centre, Song’s experiences with political indoctrination and government coercion in Maoist China contributed to his concerns about mandatory “cultural competence” training imposed by the Law Society.His challenge is broader than the training program itself and questions whether the professional regulator can promote political objectives through competency requirements and ethical obligations contained in its Code of Conduct.Song argues a regulator should not require lawyers to conform to political or ideological positions as a condition of practising law. He maintains such requirements raise constitutional questions about lawyers’ independence and their obligations to clients.His appeal alleges the lower court committed errors that effectively prevented his case from being heard on its merits..According to the Justice Centre, the lower court concluded it could not consider whether the Law Society was improperly interfering with the independence of the bar and therefore did not examine evidence Song submitted on that issue.Song's original case included approximately 1,400 pages of affidavit evidence, an expert report and 285 pages of written arguments.The Justice Centre said much of the material was excluded or not considered and that the judgment contained little analysis of Song’s main arguments.Song also unsuccessfully sought permission from the Court of Appeal to file the written arguments he had submitted in the lower court proceeding.Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett, who represents Song, said the appeal is intended to challenge the lower court's approach to the constitutional questions raised in the case.“The lower court determined that, even if my client was right that the Law Society was turning the legal profession against the Constitution, freedom, and democracy, there was nothing it could or would do about it,” said Blackett.“We are asking the Court of Appeal to reject that conclusion.”
