March 25, 1999
BENCHER ELECTIONS
The criminal bar needs a greater voice at the Law Society. The election of Benchers who will represent the interest of criminal lawyers is extremely important. We are urging every member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association to cast their vote. There are several members of the Association running for the position of Bencher.
Thomas Carey,
Paul Copeland,
Todd Ducharme
Irwin Koziebrocki
Frank Marrocco
Ross Murray
Tom Carey, Paul Copeland, Todd Ducharme and Irwin Koziebrocki all advocate the position of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, which is solid opposition to mandatory membership in the proposed lawyers’ union.
Frank Marrocco and Ross Murray answered that they would only support it if it was approved by the profession in a referendum.
PROPOSED LAWYERS’ UNION
An important issue in this election is the proposed mandatory membership in the merged CBAO, MTLA and CDPLA. We are strongly opposed to mandatory membership as against the interests of criminal lawyers. The following are two pieces of correspondence which clearly set out the CLA position:
The Honourable Charles Harnick July 2, 1997
Attorney General for Ontario
Our Association has recently learned through law publications that the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario, the County and District Law Presidents and the Metropolitan Toronto Lawyers’ Association are proposing to merge. The issue was discussed at our last meeting of Executive and Directors and while we have no concerns regarding a merger, we are most concerned about the possibility of there being mandatory membership in the new organizations which would require Provincial Legislation, as well as the transfer of some of the activities of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
The Criminal Lawyers’ Association is adamantly opposed to any new organization having mandatory membership as a precondition to practising law in Ontario. We have no such requirement now and no further burden should be placed on the practising bar, many of whom are experiencing difficult times. At present lawyers are free to choose which, if any, group best serves their needs. This must remain.
The argument that one voice is required for the profession presupposes that all members would agree on issues. This is unrealistic. While lawyers now have the right to leave an organization which does not reflect their views or needs, the proposal would force members to remain. From past experience, we have seen how one organization cannot represent the Crown, judges and defence on criminal law matters and how one organization cannot take into account the interests of defence counsel in agreements reached with government.
We have similar concerns regarding the transfer of Law Society activities (as yet to be determined) to a group which may not be representative of the members of the profession.
We have decided to communicate our position at this point in time before any formal agreement so that our position is clearly known as is our resolve to oppose any mandatory membership in every possible manner.
Dear Bencher: March 16, 1998
We understand that the Law Society of Upper Canada will be considering in the very near future, the proposed merger between the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario, the Count and District Law Presidents and the Metropolitan Toronto Lawyers’ Association.
I am writing to express, on behalf of our Executive and membership, in the strongest terms, our opposition to any requirement of mandatory membership in this proposed organization.
We are, of course, indifferent to the question of merger, but we object strongly to any mandatory membership as a precondition to practising law in Ontario. We have no such requirement now and no further burden should be placed on the practising bar, many of whom are experiencing difficult times. At present, lawyers are free to choose which, if any, group best serves their needs. This must remain.
The argument that one voice is required for the profession presupposes that all members would agree on issues. This is unrealistic. While lawyers now have the right to leave an organization which does not reflect their views or needs, the proposal would force members to remain. From past experience, we have seen how one organization cannot represent the Crown, judges and defence on criminal law matters and how one organization cannot take into account the interests of defence counsel in agreements reached with government.
We understand that the Advocates’ Society and the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association share our views completely and will be writing to express their positions. The fact that such disparate organizations can agree absolutely on this one issue should make it clear the soundness of our position.
According to a survey conducted on behalf of the merged organizations and reported in Law Times, the following candidates indicated support for mandatory membership:
Bob Aaron
Nancy Backhouse
Larry Banack
Gordon Bobosich
Thomas Cole
Carole Curtis
Abe Finestein
Ross Murray
Helene Puccini
Gerald Swaye
Richmond Wilson
*(Although it was reported in the article that Tom Carey supported mandatory membership, Tom Carey has assured us that the question was ambiguous and that he most definitely does not support it.)
We strongly urge our members to keep in mind our CLA position on mandatory membership in the merged organization when casting their votes in the Bencher election.
Yours very truly,
ALAN D. GOLD
President