A Few Modest Proposals to the LSUC on Lawyer Directories

I blogged about CanLaw recently in a post entitled “CanLaw Lawyer Directory: Some People Never Learn“.

I received the following reply letter this morning from Arwen Tillman, Counsel, Legal Affairs on behalf of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC):

View this document on Scribd

Ms. Tillman is right. As I said in my earlier post: ” These types of lawyer directories are ungovernable by any law society.” While I did not formally lodge a complaint, the LSUC’s hands are tied. In my reply email to Ms. Tillman, I wrote:

Ms. Tillman:

Thank you for your reply letter. Unfortunately, it appears that the LSUC misapprehended the intent of my email. It was not a complaint, formal or informal. Rather, it was to alert the LSUC to CanLaw’s activities in order to protect the public.

What Is To Be Done? asked Lenin.

Here’s a few proposals:

1. An updated Notice to the Profession would be a good start. The LSUC’s mandate is protection of the public. Delegating the responsibility of filing complaints to others is inadequate and is anathema to public accountability. A self-governing profession must be accountable; not only to its members, but also the public. At a minimum, the LSUC should forward any formal complaints from Licensees or individuals to the Ontario Ministry of Consumer Services.

2. The LSUC should consider amending the Rules of Professional Conduct to address the issue of Licensees utilizing lawyer marketing firms and lawyer directories that engage in unscrupulous advertising practices.

3. The LSUC should consider instituting some form of accreditation, certification or approval of lawyer directories. A vetting process or an ISO International Standard relating to the provision of lawyer advertising services is advisable.

When it comes to online advertising and social media law marketing, a new approach is needed. We, as lawyers, cannot leave it to the marketers to decide what is in the legal profession’s and the public’s best interest.

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “A Few Modest Proposals to the LSUC on Lawyer Directories”

  1. leeakazaki Says:

    LSUC governs the lawyers who use any directory. The way to view the problem, from a regulatory perspective, is similar to “Anti-John” legislation. That approach governs consumers, not providers. Seen this way, subrule 3.02(2) of the Rules of Prof. Conduct may apply to the use of any directory which is not “in the best interests of the public and is consistent with a high standard of professionalism”.

  2. Antonin I. Pribetic Says:

    Thanks for your helpful comment, Lee.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,825 other followers

%d bloggers like this: