Others, including myself and fellow Slaw columnist Alice Woolley, have questioned whether the potential downsides of formal
civility regulation outweigh its possible benefits.
First, the best thing about
civility regulation is it sometimes identifies practitioners with chaotic practices where lots of things are going on.
Second,
civility regulation is often used by courts or regulators when there is real bad conduct going on, but instead of talking about that bad conduct, they just talk about the incivility.
Joe Groia and
civility regulation
Critiquing Five More Years of
Civility Regulation in Canada» (2013) Dalhousie Law Journal 240 [«Uncivil by Too Much Civility»].
Not exact matches
Second, as a law professor, and in particular as a law professor interested in
regulation of things like lawyer
civility, I have thought a lot about how the profession ought to respond to its oft - referenced «poor public image».
Professor Woolley's academic articles have discussed lawyer billing, the good character requirement for law society admission, the
regulation of extra-professional misconduct, legal ethics teaching, access to justice, the
regulation of
civility, independence of the bar, the lawyer's duties as fiduciary and as an advisor, criminal lawyer ethics and the theoretical foundations of the lawyer's role.
Professor Woolley's academic articles have discussed lawyer billing, the good character requirement for law society admission, the
regulation of extra-professional misconduct, legal ethics teaching, access to justice, the
regulation of
civility, lawyer self -
regulation and the theoretical foundations of the lawyer's role.
In terms of the
regulation of the profession, however, perhaps the most interesting controversy was with respect to the degree to which law societies are enforcing standards of
civility among their members.
I think, however, it is crucial to separate the arguments about the virtues, probability or desirability of
civility from questions about formal law society
regulation of
civility.
I was an expert witness in the Groia case (for Groia) and continue to be critical of the law societies»
regulation of
civility, and most especially of its decision on Groia.
However,
regulation of
civility has some downside effects that are unaddressed by any of the foregoing, or by anything you say here.
The Groia matter has led to a healthy debate about the merits of formal law society
regulation of lawyer
civility that will no doubt continue as this case proceeds.
During his short time at the law society, he led the efforts that resulted in the
civility protocols for judges and chaired the professional
regulation committee.