law society of bc assignment of articles

• Complaints and Discipline
• Support and Resources For Lawyers
• Becoming a Lawyer in BC
• Custodianships & Unauthorized Practice
• Working With Lawyers
• Act Rules and Code
• Practice Advice
• Practice Resources
• Registration and Licensee Services
• Trust Assurance Program
• Professional Development
• Discipline Advisories
• Lawyer Well-Being Hub
• Law Society Rules
• Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia
• Members Manual
• Highlights of Amendments to the Law Society Rules
• Definitions
• Part 1 – Organization
• Part 2 – Membership and Authority to Practise Law
• Part 3 – Protection of the Public
• Part 4 – Discipline
• Part 5 – Tribunal Hearings and Appeals
• Part 6 – Custodianships
• Part 8 – Lawyers’ Fees
• Part 9 – Incorporation and Limited Liability Partnerships
• Part 10 – General
• Schedule 1 – Law Society Fees and Assessments
• Schedule 2 – Prorated Fees and Assessments for Practising Lawyers
• Schedule 3 – Prorated Fees for Non-Practising and Retired Members
• Schedule 4 – Tariff for Hearing and Review Costs
• Schedule 5 – Form of Summons

Law Society Rules 2015

Effective July 1, 2015; updated March 2024

Highlights of Amendments

Rule 1  Definitions

Part 1 – Organization

Division 1 – Law Society

Benchers 1-1  Term of office 1-2  Term limits 1-3  Oath of office 1-4  Life Benchers 1-5  President and Vice-Presidents 1-6  Removal of the President or a Vice-President 1-7  Bencher ceasing to hold office

Meetings 1-8   Annual general meeting 1-9  Telephone and internet connections 1-9.1   Annual general meeting by internet connection 1-10   Auditors 1-11  Special general meeting 1-12  Quorum 1-13  Procedure at general meeting 1-13.1  Voting in advance of general meeting 1-13.2  Voting at general meeting 1-14  Bencher meetings 1-15  Notice of Bencher meeting 1-16  Procedure at Bencher meeting 1-17  Quorum for committee meetings 1-18  Procedure for committee meetings

Elections 1-19   Second Vice-President-elect 1-20  Bencher elections 1-21  Regional election of Benchers 1-22  Qualifications of candidate 1-23  Nomination 1-24  Acclamation 1-25  Eligibility and entitlement to vote 1-26  Voter list 1-27  Voting procedure 1-27.1  Electronic voting 1-28  Order of names on ballot 1-29  Rejection of ballot papers 1-30  Alternative vote ballot 1-31  Scrutineers 1-32  Counting of votes 1-33  Attendance of candidate 1-34  Declaration of candidates elected 1-35  Election record and disclosure of votes received 1-36  Review by Executive Committee 1-37  Retention of documents 1-38  Bencher by-election 1-39  Appointment of Bencher to represent a district 1-40  Referendum ballots 1-41  Election of Executive Committee 1-42  Date falling on Saturday, Sunday or holiday 1-43  Interruption of postal service 1-44  Extension of dates

General 1-44.1  Executive Director's delegate 1-45   Seal 1-46  Laying of information 1-47  Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 1-48  Appointment of Law Society counsel

Division 2 – Committees

1-49   Committees of the Benchers 1-50  Executive Committee 1-51  Powers and duties

Division 3 – Law Society Rules

1-52  Act, Rules and Code

Part 2 – Membership and Authority to Practise Law

Division 1 – Practice of Law

Members 2-1   Categories of membership 2-2  Member in good standing 2-3  Non-practising members 2-4  Retired members 2-5  Release from undertaking 2-6  Legal services by non-practising and retired members 2-7  Certificates and permits

Member information 2-8   Annual practice declaration 2-9  Definition 2-10   Business address 2-11  Residential address 2-12  Practice history

Law firms 2-12.1  Definitions and application 2-12.2  Registration 2-12.3  Self-assessment report 2-12.4  Late delivery 2-12.5  Designated representative

Paralegals 2-13  Supervision of limited number of designated paralegals

Unauthorized practice 2-14   Unauthorized practice of law

Inter-jurisdictional practice 2-15  Definitions 2-16   Inter-jurisdictional practice without a permit 2-17  Disqualifications 2-18  Federal jurisdiction 2-19   Inter-jurisdictional practice permit 2-20  Application for inter-jurisdictional practice permit 2-21  Non-practising and retired members 2-22  Expiry and renewal of inter-jurisdictional practice permit 2-23  Responsibilities of visiting lawyer 2-24  Enforcement 2-25  Trust funds 2-26   Dispute resolution 2-27  National Registry of Practising Lawyers

Information sharing 2-27.1   Sharing information with a governing body

Practitioners of foreign law 2-28  Definitions 2-29  Practitioners of foreign law 2-30  Conditions and limitations 2-31  Providing foreign legal services without a permit 2-32  Dual qualification 2-33  Marketing of legal services by practitioners of foreign law 2-34  Renewal of permit

Canadian legal advisors 2-35   Scope of practice 2-36  Requirements

Non-resident partners 2-37  Inter-jurisdictional law firms

Multi-disciplinary practice 2-38   Definition and application 2-39  Conditions for MDP 2-40  Application to practise law in MDP 2-41  Consideration of MDP application 2-42  Changes in MDP 2-43  Cancellation of MDP permit 2-44  Lawyer’s professional duties 2-45  Privilege and confidentiality 2-46  Conflicts of interest 2-47  Liability indemnification 2-48  Trust funds 2-49  Notifying the Society

Division 2 – Admission and Reinstatement

Credentials Committee 2-50   Credentials Committee 2-51  Referral to Credentials Committee 2-52  Powers of Credentials Committee

Application for enrolment, admission or reinstatement 2-53  Disclosure of information

Admission program 2-54   Enrolment in the admission program 2-55  Re-enrolment 2-56  Consideration of application for enrolment 2-57  Principals 2-58  Hiring articled students 2-59  Articling term 2-60  Legal services by articled students 2-61  Mid-term report 2-62  Part-time articles 2-63  Law clerks 2-64  Articles in another Canadian jurisdiction 2-65  Practice experience in a common law jurisdiction outside Canada 2-66  Secondment of articles 2-67  Assignment of articles 2-68  Other employment 2-69  Leave during articles 2-70  Temporary articles 2-71  Court and tribunal appearances by temporary articled students 2-72  Training course 2-73  Tutorial program 2-74  Review of failed standing 2-75  Termination of enrolment

Call and admission 2-76   Call and admission 2-77  First call and admission 2-78  Law school faculty 2-79  Transfer from another Canadian jurisdiction 2-80   In-house counsel 2-81  Transfer under National Mobility Agreement and Territorial Mobility Agreement 2-82  Transfer as Canadian legal advisor 2-83  Consideration of application for call and admission 2-84  Barristers and solicitors’ oath and presentation in court

Reinstatement 2-85   Reinstatement of former lawyer 2-86  Subsequent application for reinstatement

Former judge or master 2-87  Former judge or master

Returning to practice 2-88   Definition and application 2-89  Returning to practice after an absence 2-90  Conditions on returning to practice

Credentials hearings 2-91   Notice to applicant 2-92  Security for costs 2-93  Law Society counsel 2-102   Inactive applications 2-103  Publication of credentials decision 2-104  Anonymous publication

Division 3 – Fees and Assessments

2-105   Annual practising and indemnity fee instalments 2-105.1  Annual non-practising and retired member fees 2-106  Assessments 2-107  Application fees 2-108  Late payment 2-108.1  Failure to pay fees 2-109  Definition and application 2-110  Trust administration fee 2-111  Late payment of trust administration fee 2-112  Executive Director’s discretion 2-113  Referral to Executive Committee 2-114  Taxes payable 2-115  Refund when lawyer does not practise law 2-116  Refund on exemption during practice year 2-117  Money owed to the Society 2-118  No refund on suspension

Part 3 – Protection of the Public

Division 1 – Complaints

3-1   Application 3-2  Complaints 3-3  Confidentiality of complaints 3-4  Consideration of complaints and other information 3-5  Investigation of complaints 3-6  Failure to produce records on complaint investigation 3-7  Resolution by informal means 3-7.1  Resolution by consent agreement 3-7.2  Breach of consent agreement 3-7.3  Amending consent agreement 3-7.4  Publication of consent agreement 3-8  Action on a complaint 3-9  Notice

Division 1.01 – Health issues

3-9.1  Proceeding on health issue 3-9.2  Risk mitigation 3-9.3  Health information 3-9.4  Consent agreement 3-9.5  Practice conditions and limitations 3-9.6  Amending consent agreement 3-9.7  Breach of consent agreement 3-9.8  Records and confidentiality 3-9.9  Referral to complaint investigation process 3-9.10  Dispute resolution

Division 1.1 – Extraordinary action to protect public

3-10   Interim suspension or practice conditions 3-11  Medical examination 3-12  Public protection proceeding 3-12.1  Notice to lawyer or articled student 3-12.2  Non-disclosure 3-12.3  Review of interim suspension or practice conditions

Division 1.2 – Complainants' Review Committee

3-13  Appointment of Complainants’ Review Committee 3-14  Review by Complainants’ Review Committee

Division 2 – Practice Standards

3-15   Practice Standards Committee 3-16  Objectives 3-17  Consideration of complaints 3-18  Practice review 3-19  Action by Practice Standards Committee 3-20  Conditions or limitations on practice 3-21  Referral to Discipline Committee 3-22  Remedial program 3-23  Confidentiality of Practice Standards Committee deliberations 3-24  Report to complainant 3-25  Costs

Division 3 – Education

3-26  Definitions 3-27  Application 3-28  Practice management course 3-28.1   Indigenous intercultural course 3-28.11   Late completion of Indigenous intercultural course 3-28.2   Failure to complete Indigenous intercultural course 3-29  Professional development 3-30  Mentoring 3-31  Late completion of professional development 3-32  Failure to complete professional development

Division 4 – Specialization and Restricted Practice

3-33   Definitions 3-34  Advertising 3-35  Family law mediators 3-36  Family law arbitrators 3-37  Parenting coordinators 3-38  Professional development for family law neutrals

Division 5 – Indemnification

3-39  Compulsory professional liability indemnification 3-39.1   Compulsory trust protection indemnification 3-40  Annual indemnity fee 3-42  Indemnity fee credit 3-43  Exemption from professional liability indemnification 3-44  Deductible, surcharge and reimbursement 3-45  Application for indemnity coverage 3-46  Confidentiality of indemnity claims

Division 6 – Financial Responsibility

3-47   Definitions 3-48  Application 3-49  Standards of financial responsibility 3-50  Failure to satisfy judgment 3-51  Insolvent lawyer 3-52  Consideration by Discipline Committee

Division 7 – Trust Accounts and Other Client Property

3-53   Definitions 3-54  Personal responsibility 3-55  Fiduciary property 3-56  Designated savings institutions 3-57  Removal of designation 3-58  Deposit of trust funds 3-58.1   Trust account only for legal services 3-59  Cash transactions 3-60  Pooled trust account 3-61  Separate trust account 3-62  Cheque endorsed over 3-63  Trust account balance 3-64  Withdrawal from trust 3-64.1  Electronic transfers from trust 3.64.2  Electronic deposits into trust 3.64.3   Withdrawal from trust by bank draft 3-65  Payment of fees from trust 3-66  Withdrawal from separate trust account 3-67  Accounting records 3-68  Trust account records 3-69  General account records 3-70  Records of cash transactions 3-71  Billing records 3-72  Recording transactions 3-73  Monthly trust reconciliation 3-74  Trust shortage 3-75  Retention of records 3-76  Executive Director’s modification 3-77  Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation 3-78  Lawyer’s right to claim funds 3-79  Trust report 3-80  Late filing of trust report 3-81  Failure to file trust report 3-82  Accountant’s report 3-83  Exceptions and qualifications 3-84  Former lawyers 3-85  Compliance audit of books, records and accounts 3-86  Failure to produce records on compliance audit 3-87  Disposition of files, trust money and other documents and valuables

Division 8 – Unclaimed Trust Money

3-88   Definition 3-89  Payment of unclaimed trust funds to the Society 3-90   Investigation of claims 3-91  Adjudication of claims 3-92  Calculation of interest 3-93  Efforts to locate the owner of funds 3-94  Payment to the Law Foundation

Division 9 – Real Estate Practice

3-95  Definitions 3-96  Report of failure to cancel mortgage 3-96.1  Electronic submission of documents

Division 10 – Criminal Charges

3-97  Reporting criminal charges

Division 11 – Client Identification and Verification

3-98  Definitions 3-99  Application 3-100   Requirement to identify client 3-101  Exemptions 3-102  Requirement to verify client identity 3-103  Requirement to identify directors, shareholders and owners 3-104  Use of an agent for client verification 3-105  Timing of verification for individuals 3-106  Timing of verification for organizations 3-107  Record keeping and retention 3-108  Existing matters 3-109  Criminal activity, duty to withdraw 3-110  Monitoring

Part 4 – Discipline

4-1   Interpretation and application

Division 1 – Discipline Committee

4-2  Discipline Committee 4-3  Consideration of complaints by Committee 4-4  Action on complaints 4-5  Consideration of complaints by chair 4-6  Continuation of membership during investigation or disciplinary proceedings 4-7  Notification 4-8  Confidentiality of Discipline Committee deliberations 4-9  Conduct letter from the chair 4-10   Conduct meeting 4-11  Conduct Review Subcommittee 4-12  Conduct review 4-13  Conduct Review Subcommittee report 4-14  Privilege and confidentiality 4-15  Publication and disclosure 4-16  Evidence of conduct review at the hearing of a citation 4-17  Direction to issue, expand or rescind citation 4-18  Contents of citation 4-19  Notice of citation 4-20  Publication of citation 4-20.1   Anonymous publication of citation 4-27  Appointment of Law Society counsel 4-29  Conditional admission 4-45  Discipline proceedings involving members of other governing bodies 4-46  Discipline involving lawyers practising in other jurisdictions

Division 2 – Disclosure and publication

4-47  Public notice of suspension or disbarment 4-48  Publication of discipline decisions 4-49  Anonymous publication 4-50  Disclosure of practice restrictions 4-51  Disbarment

Division 3 – Criminal conviction

4-52  Conviction 4-53  Notice 4-54  Summary procedure

Division 4 – Investigation

4-55  Investigation of books and accounts

Division 5 – Enforcement

4-56  Failure to pay fine, costs or administrative penalty or fulfill practice condition 4-57  Recovery of money owed to the Society

Division 6 – Administrative penalty

4-58  Application 4-59  Administrative penalty 4-60  Review and order

Part 5 – Tribunal, Hearings and Appeals

5-1  Application

The Tribunal 5-1.1  Tribunal 5-1.2  Service, filing and communication 5-1.3  Tribunal Chair 5-1.4  Practice directions

Hearing panels 5-2  Appointment of hearing panel 5-3  Panel member unable to continue 5-4  Disqualification

Practice and procedure before a hearing panel 5-4.1  Hearing date and notice 5-4.2   Amending an allegation in a citation 5-4.3  Preliminary questions 5-4.4   Severance and joinder 5-4.5   Summary hearing 5-4.6   Demand for disclosure of evidence 5-4.7   Application for details of the circumstances 5-4.8   Notice to admit 5-5  Compelling witnesses and production of documents 5-5.1  Pre-hearing conference 5-5.2  Adjournment 5-5.3  Application moot 5-6  Procedure 5-6.1  Preliminary matters 5-6.2  Burden of proof 5-6.3  Submissions and determination 5-6.4   Disciplinary action 5-6.5   Admission and consent to disciplinary action 5-6.6   Rejection of admission 5-8  Public hearing 5-9  Transcript and exhibits 5-10   Decision 5-11  Costs of hearings 5-12  Application to vary order

The review board 5-15  Review by review board 5-16  Review boards 5-17  Disqualification 5-18  Review board member unable to continue

Practice and procedure before a review board 5-19  Initiating a review 5-19.1   Extension of time to initiate a review 5-20  Stay of order pending review 5-21  Notice of review 5-22  Record of credentials hearing 5-23  Record of discipline hearing 5-24  Record of an order for costs by the Practice Standards Committee 5-24.1  Preparation and delivery of record 5-24.2  Notice of review hearing 5-25  Pre-review conference 5-26  Adjournment 5-27  Decision on review 5-28  Inactive reviews

Corrections 5-28.1  Slip rule

Appeals 5.29  Appeal to Court of Appeal

Part 6 – Custodianships

6-1   Co-operation in conduct of custodianship 6-2  Report of possible claim 6-3  Acting for lawyer’s clients 6-4  Acquiring lawyer’s practice 6-5  Notice of custodianship order

Part 7 – Law Foundation

Part 8 – lawyers’ fees.

8-1  Reasonable remuneration 8-2  Maximum remuneration in personal injury actions 8-3  Form and content of contingent fee agreements 8-4  Statement of rules in contingent fee agreements

Part 9 – Incorporation and Limited Liability Partnerships

Division 1 – Law Corporations

9-1   Corporate name 9-2  Corporate name certificate 9-3  Review of Executive Director’s decision 9-4  Law corporation permit 9-5  Issuance of permit 9-6  Change of corporate name 9-7  Public disclosure of corporate status 9-8  Corporate information 9-9  Disclosure of corporate information 9-10   Notice of change in corporate information 9-11  Revocation of permits

Division 2 – Limited Liability Partnerships

9-12   Definition 9-13  Practice through a limited liability partnership 9-14  LLP name 9-15  Notice of application for registration 9-16  Review of Executive Director’s decision 9-17  Disclosure of LLP status 9-18  Change in LLP information and annual reports 9-19  Disclosure of LLP information 9-20  Notification of non-compliance

Part 10 – General

10-1  Service and notice 10-2  Duty not to disclose 10-2.1   Communication with Equity Advisor confidential 10-3  Records 10-4  Security of records

Schedule 1 – Law Society Fees and Assessments

Schedule 2 – Prorated Fees and Assessments for Practising Lawyers

Schedule 3 – Prorated Fees for Non-Practising and Retired Members

Schedule 4 – Tariff for Hearing and Review Costs

Schedule 5 – Form of Summons

About the Rules

The Law Society Rules 2015 replaced the previous Law Society Rules on July 1, 2015.

Download the concordance between the new and old rules or the Law Society Rules as of June 2015 .

Member's Manual

Need to print some or all pages of the Act, Rules or Code? Go to Member's Manual .

Hearing Files and Decisions

Matters that come before the lsbc tribunal are decided by a motions adjudicator, hearing panel or review board..

Below you will find case documents which the LSBC Tribunal has posted to the website. The documents correspond to hearings which were active as of January 1, 2022. Older decisions are located on CanLII . Information about a lawyer's past discipline history or practice restrictions is also set out in the Lawyer Directory on the Law Society website.

• --> Notices/Citations
• --> Decisions

Notices and citations initiate a proceeding before the LSBC Tribunal, and in most cases, lay out what the Law Society, licensee applicant or lawyer is seeking or alleging. There are a variety of different notices, including notices of review, notices of motion to vary interim conditions or suspension and notices of referral for a hearing.

Orders or directions are made by the LSBC Tribunal at various stages of the proceeding and may relate to such things as disclosure of evidence, privacy concerns, deadlines for filing documents, start dates of suspensions or costs.

Decisions are issued by the LSBC Tribunal after a hearing on the merits or in some cases, after a preliminary application. They set out the hearing panel or review board's reasoning in making a decision. In licensing matters, they will explain why an applicant has been permitted to practice law or why their application has been refused. In conduct hearings, they will explain why the panel has dismissed the case or, alternatively, has made an adverse determination and imposed a specific sanction.

Set out below is a list of most recent documents filed with or issued by the Tribunal Office. To access the lawyer's or applicant's complete hearing file, click on the lawyer's or licensee applicant's name. 

• CLEBC Precedent Collection

Browse by Practice Area

The CLEBC Precedent Collection covers the following practice areas. Click on the links below to view the available forms, precedents and templates.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

• Provincial Court
• Search Judgments
• Site Search

Judicial Law Clerk Program - Frequently Asked Questions

How many law clerks are hired?

Are there any positions available for 2024 - 2025?

Are there any summer clerkship or internship positions available with the courts?

I'm in my third year of law school and did not apply for a clerkship last year. Can I apply this year?

• I'm in my third year of law school and I was interviewed by a panel of judges from one of the courts last year, but was not hired. Can I re-apply?
• Do I need to submit all parts of my application by the application deadline of January 17, 2023 at 11:00 am PST?

Should I include a writing sample in my application?

My marks from my first term of second year law school may not be available by the deadline. What should I do?

When and where do interviews take place?

What types of questions are asked at the interviews?

Will both courts consider my application?

• What do the courts look for in their law clerks?
• How do typical clerking experiences at Supreme Court and Court of Appeal differ?

Is there a difference between clerking at the Supreme Court in Victoria, New Westminster, Kamloops, or Kelowna as opposed to in Vancouver?

What are the benefits of clerking with the Courts?

How are clerks assigned to judges?

Do clerkships satisfy the articling requirement for call and admission to the BC bar?

Can I be called to the bar while I am continuing to clerk?

If I intend to article before or after my clerkship, how does clerking affect the timing of my articles?

Are there specific law school courses I should take or activities I should participate in to prepare for a clerkship?

I am enrolled in a law school outside of Canada and am applying to the program. Is there anything in particular that I must consider?

Do I have to be a Canadian citizen to work as a judicial law clerk?

• What is the Salary for a Law Clerk?

Are there other terms and conditions of employment?

Whom can I contact for more information?

What does it mean that an alternate list will be established?

What happens if I apply to other courts for clerkships?

POSITIONS AVAILABLE

The Court of Appeal hires 12 law clerks, and they are all assigned to Vancouver. All Court of Appeal law clerks are hired for 12 month clerkship terms. There are no law clerks assigned to the Court of Appeal of Yukon, and there is no travel to Yukon.

The Supreme Court hires 21 law clerks. Two are assigned to Victoria, three are assigned to New Westminster. Of the remaining 16, there is the opportunity to assign one clerk to Kelowna or Kamloops. Otherwise, clerks will be assigned to Vancouver. The term for all Supreme Court clerkships is 12 months.

All clerkship positions for 2024 - 2025 have been filled.

The courts do not offer summer clerkship or internship positions.

T HIRD-YEAR APPLICANTS

A third year law student may apply for a clerkship position, provided they will not have been called or admitted to the bar in any jurisdiction prior to their application.

I am in my third year of law school, and I was interviewed by a panel of judges from one of the courts last year, but was not hired. Can I re-apply?

Yes, third year law students who were interviewed but not hired in their second year may reapply in their third year. Third year students are eligible to re-apply at the court they interviewed with, the other court, or both.

APPLICATION PACKAGES AND PROCESS

Do I need to submit all parts of my application by the application deadline?

Yes. Clerking applications consist of three parts: (1) a short online questionnaire about your credentials accessed through the BC Public Service website; (2) your cover letter, resume, and transcripts submitted via a single email; and (3) two letters of references submitted directly by referees via email. We cannot accept any late applications.

The steps you need to follow in preparing and submitting your application package are reviewed in detail in this overview of the application process.

Do not submit a writing sample. It will not be reviewed. If you are selected for a first interview with legal counsel you may be required to complete a writing assignment before or after your interview.

If you do not have an official transcript of your most recent term, you must submit a copy of the unofficial transcript of your most recent grades as part of your transcript PDF document. Please submit your grades as soon as they are available.

If you are selected for an interview, we ask that you provide an official copy of your most recent transcript at that time.

Legal Counsel Interviews

The first interviews are conducted by the courts’ legal counsel and will take place by video conference in early February. Dates of the first interview week will be posted in November . Each interview lasts about 30 minutes. Applicants selected for a first interview may be required to complete a short writing assignment before or after the interview.

Judges' Interviews

Applicants shortlisted for a second interview are interviewed by a panel of judges who are members of either the Court of Appeal Law Clerk Committee or the Supreme Court Law Clerk Committee. These interviews last approximately 20 to 30 minutes and will take place by video conference. The Court of Appeal will complete its interviews in late February or early March. The Supreme Court will complete its interviews the week after the Court of Appeal interviews are complete. Dates of the interview weeks with judges will be posted in November.

The first interview with legal counsel is quite structured. The questions are designed to allow legal counsel to assess your general suitability for the role of law clerk and the work it entails. Judges’ interviews are less structured and may cover some substantive legal issues.

In selecting candidates for first round interviews, all applications are considered jointly by both courts. To assist with the selection process for final interviews, applicants are encouraged to state in their cover letter and on their questionnaire if they prefer to clerk for the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (including preferred location for the Supreme Court) or if they have no preference.

Applicants selected for a final interview will typically meet with a panel of judges from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. In some limited cases an applicant may be invited to interview with judges of the Supreme Court after offers have been made by the Court of Appeal.

CLERKING AT THE BC SUPREME COURT OR BC COURT OF APPEAL

What do Courts look for in their law clerks?

The Courts look for candidates with:

• a strong academic record
• excellent research, writing and editing skills, preferably demonstrated in an employment setting
• maturity, good judgment, and the self-confidence to engage with judges in discussions of law
• the ability to work well with a variety of people
• good time management skills and ability to adapt to changing deadlines and work flows

The Courts encourage people from diverse backgrounds and with varied life experiences that reflect the diversity of our society to apply and to self-identify in their cover letters.

The Supreme Court seeks to hire one or two clerks with the ability to work on French trials and may give preference to candidates who can work in both English and French.

How do typical clerking experiences at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal differ?

Overall, the two clerkship experiences are very similar: all law clerks attend much of the same orientation training; all clerks work closely with judges by providing research, drafting and editing support; law clerks participate together in most of the educational activities offered during the course of the year (e.g. training, seminars, etc.); and all law clerks attend hearings to observe proceedings, in addition to working independently on assignments. The Supreme Court is a trial court , and therefore its clerks have more exposure to the fact-finding process. Clerks not only work on reasons for judgment in final dispositions, but also provide support to their judges on interlocutory applications, sometimes with a relatively fast turnaround. Clerks may be asked to sit in court to observe submissions and giving of evidence in court. Clerks may work closely with judges throughout the process of producing reasons for judgment, but most work is done after submissions have been made by the parties. Each Supreme Court clerk works with a group of 4-7 judges. The Court of Appeal hears appeals from trial court proceedings. Court of Appeal clerks perform a variety of dedicated research, writing and editing tasks to assist judges in advance of hearings and with the preparation of reasons for judgment after hearings. They can expect to participate closely in the judgment preparation process. They also assist judges in preparing to hear chambers applications, which requires a high degree of organization and relatively fast turn around. They may be asked to sit in court or in appeal chambers to observe submissions. Each year, Court of Appeal clerks contribute to the work of the Court generally, including updating internal legal reference manuals. Court of Appeal clerks typically work with two judges.

The courthouses in Victoria, New Westminster, Kamloops and Kelowna are smaller and have fewer clerks than the Vancouver Law Courts (only one clerk at a time would be placed in Kelowna or Kamloops). Clerks outside Vancouver therefore have a much smaller clerk peer group and do not have the same opportunities to engage in social and educational events as Vancouver clerks. They also work in a tighter knit environment and may have more opportunities to interact with judges and other staff. COVID-19 has changed workplace dynamics somewhat, as more interaction is now possible through video conferencing. While all courts hear a variety of cases, New Westminster tends to get more criminal files and Victoria more Aboriginal law files. Vancouver sees more corporate and complex multi-party litigation files. The Kelowna and Kamloops court sees a range of files, but less corporate litigation.

As well as being a highly respected path to becoming a lawyer, clerking provides a unique vantage point from which to observe and learn about litigation. Clerking is an excellent way to further develop legal research and writing skills and to become well versed in court procedures. Clerks work in an environment where they can interact regularly with judges and get to know them. They have the opportunity to engage in discussion of legal principles with some of the most respected legal minds in the province.

In the Supreme Court, each clerk works for five judges. When selecting judges for each grouping, efforts are made to balance workloads and to ensure that each clerk has a chance to work with judges of different genders, backgrounds, working styles, and seniority. One judge is designated as the clerk’s principal judge. When possible, attempts are made to match clerks with principals who have similar practice interests or backgrounds. In the Court of Appeal, each clerk generally works for two judges, often one full-time judge and one supernumerary (part-time) judge. One judge is designated as the clerk’s principal judge. In creating the clerk-judge pairings, the Court aims to ensure a balanced workload and, where possible, a complementary matching of interests and backgrounds. Over the summer clerks have the opportunity to work with a number of judges with whom they were not originally paired.

LAW SCHOOL COURSE SELECTION

There are no required courses, though clerkship candidates are selected for an interview based in part on the courses taken and the grades received.

Given the nature of the work that law clerks do, it is expected that they have a good grounding in “black letter” courses including evidence, civil and criminal procedure, administrative law, trusts, family law, and remedies. Applicants for the Supreme Court are strongly encouraged to take family law. Applicants should seek to take these courses in third year, if they have not already completed them in second year.

Advanced legal research courses or other courses and activities that will hone an applicant’s research and writing skills are also highly recommended.

FOREIGN-TRAINED LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES

To work as a law clerk, you must hold a Juris Doctor or Bachelor of Laws from a recognized Canadian university or its equivalent. You are responsible for demonstrating that your degree is equivalent to a Juris Doctor or Bachelor of Laws from a recognized Canadian university (e.g., by demonstrating that you have received training in Canadian law such as may be acquired through an exchange program). Note that you are not required to hold the degree when you apply for the position, but you must have obtained your degree prior to starting at the Courts. Applicants should not be called to the bar at the time of their application.

It is not necessary for judicial law clerks to be Canadian citizens. The only requirement is that the candidate be authorized to work in Canada for the duration of the clerkship.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

What is the salary of a Law Clerk?

Law clerks with the British Columbia courts are regular time-limited employees of the provincial Ministry of Attorney General. Law clerks receive the same salary as articling students with the Ministry and qualify for full medical and dental benefits. In 2023-2024 law clerks’ biweekly pay is approximately $2,489 or $64,946 per year.

Once offered a position as a law clerk, candidates will sign a conditional offer of employment. In the period between hiring and commencement of the clerkship, candidates are expected to maintain law school grades comparable to those achieved when hired. As final grades become available at the end of each term, candidates are required to submit unofficial copies of transcripts to show their continued academic standing. A formal official transcript is required at the completion of third year and prior commencement of the clerkship.

Before the commencement of the clerkship, clerks must undergo security screening clearance. Additionally, clerks are required to accept the terms and conditions of employment with the public service of the Province of British Columbia. The first week of their employment, clerks must swear or affirm the standard form public service employment oath. Clerks are also required to abide by the courts’ “Conflicts and Confidentiality Policy” and Standards of Conduct for BC Public Service Employees.

During the clerkship term, clerks are required to devote their time to their work for the courts. Outside engagement, whether remunerated or not, is not permitted. Papers submitted for publication before the commencement of clerkship are usually permissible, but clerks are advised to speak with the legal counsel of their court about them.

There are also some other restrictions on participation in volunteer activities or affiliations during the clerkship term. These restrictions reflect the need for law clerks to act in a manner consistent with the impartiality of the judiciary and the need to uphold public confidence in the courts. They are best discussed as needed on a case-by-case basis with the legal counsel of the Superior Courts Judiciary.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

If you have any other questions, please contact the Judicial Law Clerk Program at [email protected] .

We ask that candidates do not call or email to check the status of their application.

Both courts will keep an “alternate list” of applicants who are not hired.

Applicants who achieve a place on the alternate list may be offered a clerkship position if one of the hired clerks is unable to fulfill their clerkship duties when the clerkship term commences (e.g., because of an unanticipated illness or family obligation).

Applicants on the alternate list are not automatically considered for a clerkship in the next hiring cycle; they need to re-apply.

Many candidates for clerkships at the BC courts also apply to other courts. The BC Courts make offers of employment after the Supreme Court of Canada has completed its hiring. The interview and hiring cycles of the other courts with clerkship programs do not always coincide, though the BC courts make best efforts to coordinate the offer acceptance deadline. It is generally expected that if a candidate accepts a position with the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in British Columbia, the candidate will stand by the acceptance if subsequently offered a position with a different court.

The Law Society, Bar Associations, and the Law Foundation

Several organizations play roles overseeing and supporting the legal profession in British Columbia. Learn how between them, they regulate lawyers, promote the interests of lawyers, and support access to justice.

What you should know

The law society of bc regulates lawyers.

The Law Society of BC is the governing body for the legal profession in British Columbia. Under the Legal Profession Act , its duty is to protect the public interest in the administration of justice. A board of directors, called benchers , governs the Law Society. The board consists of 25 elected lawyers and six appointed non-lawyers (called lay benchers). The lawyer benchers are elected to represent districts across BC.

Protecting the public

The Law Society works to ensure that lawyers do their work properly and that the public is well served by lawyers who are honourable, competent and independent. It sets and enforces standards for licensing, competence, education, ethics, and professional conduct. The Law Society also sets the qualifications to become a lawyer and to practise law in BC.

The Law Society requires lawyers to carry liability insurance to protect clients who suffer financial loss because of their lawyer's negligence. It also has a fund to pay clients who lose money because their lawyer steals trust money.

Dealing with complaints

The Law Society deals with complaints from the public about lawyers' conduct. In some cases, the Law Society holds a hearing into a lawyer's conduct. All Law Society hearings are open to the public. If the hearing finds the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct or a breach of the rules or laws governing lawyers, the Law Society may reprimand, fine or suspend the lawyer. It can also put conditions on the lawyer. And for serious misconduct, the Law Society can disbar a lawyer, meaning that the lawyer can’t practise law.

To contact the Law Society, visit lawsociety.bc.ca , or call 604-669-2533 in the Lower Mainland or 1-800-903-5300 elsewhere in BC.

The Canadian Bar Association promotes the interests of lawyers

The Canadian Bar Association , or CBA, is a voluntary national organization that promotes the interests of the legal profession and promotes law reform. The British Columbia Branch of the CBA helps its lawyer members in BC stay current in their areas of practice. Lawyers with similar professional interests meet regularly and exchange information and ideas. Unlike the Law Society, the CBA does not license or regulate lawyers. To contact the BC Branch of the CBA, visit cbabc.org , or call 604-687-3404 in the Lower Mainland or 1-888-687-3404 elsewhere in BC.

Local bar associations

There are also local bar associations in most cities and towns in British Columbia. They are voluntary organizations concerned with local matters affecting their lawyer members.

The Law Foundation of BC advances access to justice

The Law Foundation of BC is a non-profit organization, created by law in 1969. It receives and distributes the interest on clients' funds held in lawyers' pooled trust accounts. The Foundation uses this money to fund programs and projects throughout BC that benefit the public in the areas of legal education, legal research, legal aid, law reform, and law libraries. These initiatives advance a just society and the public’s access to justice. Dial-A-Law is one of the legal education programs that the Foundation funds.

To contact the Law Foundation of BC, visit lawfoundationbc.org or call 604-688-2337.

• This information applies to British Columbia, Canada
• Reviewed for legal accuracy in March 2018
• Time to read: 3 minutes

Reviewed for legal accuracy by

People's team , People's Law School

Share this page

This information from People’s Law School explains in a general way the law that applies in British Columbia, Canada. The information is not intended as legal advice. See our disclaimer .

On Dial-A-Law

Dial-A-Law has more information on Legal help & lawyers in the section on Courts + Crime .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Accessibility Statement

More topics

• Adult Guardianship Act, Part 3
• Builders Lien Act (prompt payment)
• Family Law Act
• Money Judgment Enforcement Act

Legal Professions Regulatory Modernization

Ministry of attorney general intentions paper, september 2022, on this page, notaries public (notaries), efforts to establish a single regulator, efforts to improve access to legal services.

• ​ Rationale for Reforms

The Importance of Independence

Reconciliation, 1. single statute, single regulator, 2. clear mandate, 3. modernized governance framework, licensed paralegals, individualized licensing, other future categories, a caution against over-regulation, future review, 5. efficient discipline framework, 6. enhanced focus on public interest, introduction.

In March 2022, the Ministry of Attorney General (Ministry) announced a project to modernize the regulatory framework for legal service providers in British Columbia to help make it easier for the public to access legal services and advice. Specifically, the Ministry announced it would develop a legislative proposal for further consideration by government that involves:

• regulating all legal service providers under a single statute and by a single regulator;
• establishing a mandate for the regulator that clarifies its duty to protect the public, including the public’s interest in accessing legal services and advice;
• establishing a modernized regulatory framework that is consistent with best practices in professional regulatory governance; and
• establishing clearly defined scopes of practice for each regulated profession with procedures to allow for expanded scopes as needed.

Between March and June 2022, the Ministry held several meetings with staff representatives of the Law Society of British Columbia (Law Society), the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia (Notaries Society) and a representative of the BC Paralegal Association. The information provided in these meetings assisted the Ministry in refining several potential reforms. [Footnote 1]   The purpose of this paper is to set out a summary of the Ministry’s intentions so that input can be obtained from the public and key partners, including the Law Society, the Notaries Society, the BC Paralegal Association, and Indigenous partners, before a legislative proposal is finalized for government and the Legislature’s consideration.

B.C.’s Legal Services Landscape

In B.C., the legal services landscape currently involves at least three types of legal service providers, two main statutes, and two separate regulators.

• Lawyers are regulated by the Law Society pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (LPA). Many of the functions of the Law Society are performed through its governors, known as the benchers. There are 32 benchers in total, including the Attorney General, six members of the public appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and 25 lawyers elected by the Law Society’s membership (i.e., lawyers) in nine regions.
• Under the LPA, subject to certain exemptions, only a practising lawyer may engage in the practice of law as defined in the LPA. The Law Society has the authority to take action against persons suspected of providing unregulated legal services. [Footnote 2]
• B.C.’s notaries are unique in Canada in that they must complete a master’s degree program and have a broader practice authority than notaries in other jurisdictions. [Footnote 3]
• Although their current scope of practice includes matters that are otherwise typically limited to lawyers (including drafting of some wills and real estate conveyancing), notaries are regulated under a separate statute from lawyers (the Notaries Act ) and by a separate regulator (the Notaries Society).
• Some notaries have been seeking an expanded scope of practice for many years.
• The Notaries Society currently has a board of 12, two of whom are not notaries.
• Paralegals are not directly regulated in B.C.
• Under the Law Society’s rules, a paralegal may provide some legal services but they must work under the supervision of a lawyer who is responsible for their conduct. The Law Society also allows a lawyer to supervise up to two “designated paralegals” who can perform additional duties, but who remain subject to the oversight of the supervising lawyer.
• In 2018, the Legislature amended the LPA, at the request of the Law Society, to create a new category of legal service provider called licensed paralegals. Once in force, the amendments would give the Law Society the authority to make rules establishing the scope of practice (within the practice of law) of licensed paralegals or a class of licensed paralegals. However, for reasons discussed below, these amendments are not yet in force.
• The BC Paralegal Association has created a category of “voting membership” which is only open to paralegals who have graduated from certain recognized education programs or who have worked as a paralegal for a minimum period of time. Voting members are allowed by the BC Paralegal Association to use the title “BCPA Registered Paralegal” which is registered under the Trademarks Act but is not otherwise a legally protected designation.

Previous Reform Efforts

Over the last decade, many efforts have been made to implement changes aimed at improving legal regulation and increasing access to legal services for British Columbians. These efforts include attempts to amalgamate the two current regulators and other initiatives.

In 2012, the then-Attorney General asked the Law Society and the Notaries Society to work together to develop a proposal for government’s consideration regarding “direction for regulatory reform of legal and notary services in the province” that would:

• ensure, and preferably enhance, the protection of the public interest in the provision of legal services;
• increase both affordability and access to legal services and/or access to justice; and
• create efficiencies in the regulation of legal services.

In response, the two regulators advised they were jointly of the view that a single, unified regulatory body that oversees the regulation of all legal service providers was the optimum model. However, despite that consensus, no final agreement was achieved.

Over the past several years, the Law Society has pursued several initiatives aimed at increasing access to legal services and responding to unmet need. Those initiatives include rule amendments to allow for the provision of limited scope retainer or “unbundled” legal services in 2008, expanding the scope of services provided by articled students in 2011, and the establishment of “designated paralegals” in 2012.

As noted above, the LPA was amended in 2018 to allow the Law Society to regulate a new category of legal service provider called licensed paralegals, and to give the benchers the authority to make rules establishing their scope of practice. Before those amendments were brought into force, at the Law Society’s 2018 AGM, a member’s resolution was passed by those members in attendance which directed the benchers to request that the government not bring the amendments into force until more consultation was completed, and which directed the benchers to not authorize licensed paralegals to practice in the area of family law. Following that AGM, the Law Society elected to advance the licensed paralegal initiative by creating a limited, controlled environment within the scope of its regulatory authority to permit several experimental service delivery models in an “innovation sandbox”.

The innovation sandbox is intended to facilitate innovation in the delivery of legal services by allowing individuals and organizations to propose a new technology, structure or legal service that they want to provide to the public. If a proposal is accepted, the proponent is issued a “no action” letter which means that the Law Society will not prosecute the proponent or seek an injunction against them for the unauthorized practice of law. As of August 2022, 27 proponents have been approved, all generally falling within one of the following categories:

• regulated paralegals from Ontario;
• individuals with legal training and/or experience in B.C. proposing to provide a limited range of legal services independently;
• joint proposals from law firms and paralegals and others (e.g. a Human Resources Specialist) to expand services provided by paralegals without direct supervision by a lawyer; or
• legal technology innovations.

The Law Society hopes that as proposals continue to be evaluated on an individual basis, criteria will begin to coalesce, allowing the Law Society to establish clear guidelines and expectations for required training and experience in providing legal services.

Rationale for Reforms

The rationale for change is simple. Far too many people in B.C. cannot afford the cost of a lawyer. A survey conducted for the Law Society by Ipsos in 2020 found that as many as 60% of those in B.C. with a legal problem get no legal advice about their situation, and of those that do get advice, more than half get it from someone other than a lawyer. [Footnote 4]   Although government has made significant investments in legal aid over the last number of years, adding approximately $40 million to the annual budget of the Legal Services Society and funding eight new legal clinics in the province, we cannot rely solely on legal aid and pro bono work done by lawyers as the complete solution to the gap in access to legal services.

Access to legal services is at least in part a regulatory issue because rules around who is allowed to provide what services have an impact on the availability (and cost) of those services to the public. Access to legal services is also at least in part a governance issue because it requires a governance framework that prioritizes the public interest over the interests of the professionals it regulates.

Unfortunately, previous reform efforts have either been unsuccessful or have been approached on a smaller-scale or piecemeal basis. Although the innovation sandbox has had some limited uptake, there are limits to a “no action” regulatory model for both proponents and the public. From a proponent’s perspective, licensing can help establish credibility with the public, and from the public’s perspective, licensing helps assure them that the services are provided by competent and insured providers. It also provides a regulator with a more extensive set of regulatory tools when the services provided are unsatisfactory.

That no past initiative has been as impactful as might be hoped signals an opportunity for a broader, more holistic approach to reform. The Ministry has identified several potential areas for reform, each informed by one or more of the following guiding principles:

• improving access to legal services;
• enhanced focus on public interest protection; and
• improving efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility of the regulatory framework.

Taken together, the intentions outlined below are aimed at two key complementary objectives. The first is facilitating better access to legal services for the public. The second is modernizing the governance framework for all legal service providers, ensuring they can continue to regulate themselves both independently from government and in a manner that ensures the public interest is paramount.

The importance of an independent bar to the functioning of a free and democratic society cannot be overstated. The Ministry is not proposing, and has no intention of implementing, changes that would interfere with the ability of a lawyer (or other legal service provider) to fearlessly advocate for their client and provide independent legal advice to their client, even, and especially, when their client is at odds with government.

The Ministry has no intention of implementing changes that would see a shift away from what is commonly referred to as “self-regulation”. Self-regulation does not mean no oversight or involvement by government. It means that the Legislature has made a policy decision to assign a professional regulator the primary responsibility for the development of structures, processes, and policies for regulation.

As set out in greater detail below, the reforms contemplated by the Ministry would:

establish a board of directors on which the government-appointed members constitute a minority;

• give the regulator the power to make rules for the regulation of legal service providers that would not need to be approved by, or filed with, government;
• maintain the regulator’s jurisdiction to adjudicate discipline matters involving lawyers and other regulated legal service providers;
• establish a regulator that continues to be self-funded; and
• remove the Attorney General as a member of the board.

Many other common law jurisdictions have moved away from self-regulation in favour of alternative regulatory models featuring enhanced government oversight (often referred to as “co-regulation”). For example, in 2007, England and Wales created a state-appointed Legal Services Board to oversee the regulators of the legal professions in that jurisdiction. Similar models are also in place in most Australian states. However, the Ministry is not proposing this kind of change. The reforms contemplated in this paper would ensure that legal professions in B.C. remain (or become, in the case of licensed paralegals) self-regulating.

Pursuant to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure that B.C.’s laws are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration). The Ministry acknowledges the particular importance of this obligation with respect to laws impacting the justice system, given the system’s colonial history and the harm it has caused, and continues to cause, to Indigenous peoples. All the proposals set out in this report must be interpreted and implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Declaration and that seeks to dismantle institutional and systemic racism.

As a starting point and as discussed further in this paper, the Ministry contemplates that:

• the future legal regulator’s statutory mandate would include an express obligation to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples;
• consideration should be given to a statutory minimum requirement for Indigenous participation on the regulator’s board; and
• consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action, and building on the work of the Law Society in this respect, an obligation for cultural competency training for all regulated legal service providers would be embedded in statute. 

In a preliminary, high-level review of an earlier draft of this paper, the BC First Nations Justice Council noted that this legislative project, as with all justice system reform efforts, must be undertaken in a manner consistent with, and guided by, the BC First Nations Justice Strategy. [Footnote 5]

Proposed Reforms

In recent years, the professional regulation landscape in B.C. and elsewhere has evolved and modernized across other many other sectors including health, finance, and the built and natural environment. Many of these shifts have involved the consolidation of multiple professions under a single statute and/or oversight body.

The Law Society and the Notaries Society have in the past agreed that a harmonized, single regulator is the optimum model to protect the public, increase access to legal services, and create efficiencies in regulation. They have also in the past agreed that reform should be viewed not only from the broad perspective of the provision of all legal services (i.e., not just lawyers and notaries), but also other potential future providers of legal services.

Legal regulators across Canada and elsewhere are broadening their oversight to include the regulation of paralegals and/or other legal service providers. B.C. already has the benefit of two well-established categories of legal service providers in lawyers and notaries; consolidating their regulation will ensure a centralized and efficient approach to meaningfully working towards enhanced and affordable legal services for people in B.C.

Benefits of a single statute and single regulator model include:

• A single statute will ensure there is a consistent expectation of professional accountability regardless of the specific professional. Consistent standards are important, particularly when different kinds of providers offer similar (or overlapping) services.
• A single regulator for lawyers, notaries, and licensed paralegals, particularly if that regulator has a clear mandate to facilitate access to legal services, will be well positioned to identify gaps in underserved areas and to regulate in a manner that addresses those gaps.
• It will avoid the need for coordination between regulators, which at best can be administratively challenging and at worst can lead to competition or turf wars.
• It will make it easier for the public to know what kind of legal help is available when faced with a problem and who to contact with their concerns about services they received.
• A single regulator for all legal professions may be better positioned to maintain the public’s confidence that it is regulating in the public’s interest and not in the interest of any one particular profession.

Finally, on a separate but related note, a shift towards a single regulator and a single statute raises a question as to whether the Law Foundation of British Columbia (Law Foundation) and the Notary Foundation of British Columbia (Notary Foundation) should also combine their operations. [Footnote 6]   Subject to further engagement with the two foundations and other stakeholders, it is anticipated that the optimal future model may also involve an amalgamation of those two entities.

Ministry Intentions

1.1 A single statute should regulate all current and future regulated legal service providers. 1.2 The statute should establish a single regulator, responsible for the regulation of all current and future regulated legal service providers. 1.3 The Law Foundation, the Notary Foundation and the Ministry should explore the possibility of a single foundation model for all legal service providers.

A regulator’s mandate provisions reflect the powers and responsibilities delegated to it by the Legislature. They must clearly communicate the regulator’s purpose to the regulator, its licensees, and the public. The optimal mandate for the new regulator would include several components.

First, it would assign the regulator the broad authority to regulate the competence and integrity of legal service providers in B.C. and to promote the rule of law.

Second, it would outline the regulator’s core responsibilities, including:

• establishing conditions or requirements of licensee registration, reinstatement and renewal;
• establishing, monitoring and enforcing standards of practice and professional responsibility of licensees;
• establishing, monitoring and enforcing continuing competency requirements for licensees including Indigenous cultural competence; and
• maintaining a register of licensees that shares key information with the public about each licensee.

Finally, the regulator’s mandate would also include guidance to the regulator on how it should carry out its duties. Both England and Wales and Ontario’s relevant statutes include key principles to guide how their legal regulators must discharge their mandate. This initiative presents an opportunity to adopt a similar approach in B.C. A modernized statute could advance principles such as:

• promoting and protecting the public interest;
• facilitating access to legal services;
• supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples;
• protecting the ability of all legal professionals to provide committed representation to all clients;
• encouraging diverse and effective legal professions; and
• regulating proportionately to risk.

2.1 The statute should assign the regulator the broad authority to regulate the competence and integrity of legal service providers in B.C. and to promote the rule of law. 2.2 The statute should set out the regulator’s core responsibilities. 2.3 The statute should set out guiding principles to assist the regulator in its decision making.

The current (separate) governance frameworks for notaries and lawyers are both in need of revitalization.

The Notaries Act has not been substantively revised in over 40 years, and the regulatory framework under which notaries operate requires modernization. For example, the current statute does not include a mandate provision for the Notaries Society and reflects an era when professional associations were responsible for disciplining members for professional misconduct as opposed to professional regulators. The Notaries Act also designates the Notaries Society as a society under the Societies Act, which has a member focus and is ill-suited to the task of professional regulation. Further, the only committee named in the Notaries Act is the discipline committee, and the statute does not clearly grant the authority to establish other committees consistent with those often established by professional regulatory bodies.

Regarding the governance framework for lawyers, in the summer of 2021, the Law Society, to its credit, commissioned independent governance expert Harry Cayton to undertake a governance review of the Law Society. Cayton’s report to the Law Society (Cayton Report) was presented to the benchers in December 2021. [Footnote 7]   The Cayton Report made numerous recommendations, many of which were accepted and adopted by the benchers at their meeting of March 4, 2022.

Cayton’s core recommendations included proposals for the reduction of elected benchers, an increase in the proportion of publicly appointed benchers and reform of the Electoral College model in a manner that would facilitate not only geographic diversity but also an optimum level of skill sets on the regulator’s board. He also observed that some of the reforms he thought necessary would require amendments to, or replacement of, the LPA.

In considering how best to structure the new regulator’s governing body, the Ministry’s intention is to assure a competent, nimble, and skills-based board, composed of a diverse group of legal service providers and others who individually and collectively have a deep understanding of the regulator’s public interest mandate. Diversity has a variety of meanings in this context; it includes diversity of skills, regions, backgrounds, professional designations, and genders. Both the Notaries Society and Law Society have in recent years achieved gender parity among governors, and in 2021, five Indigenous benchers were elected to the Law Society’s bencher table, a result described by the Law Society as “unprecedented”.   [Footnote 8]

A modernized governance framework would build on these recent improvements by establishing a structure and election/appointment processes that will ensure the regulator’s board is reflective of all British Columbians because of, and not in spite of, the framework in place.

The Ministry believes that the public would be best served by a board composed of:

• “licensee” directors who are elected by licensees;
• directors who are appointed by the other members of the board in accordance with a fair, transparent, accountable and independent nomination process; and
• directors who are appointed by the government in accordance with a fair, transparent, accountable and independent nomination process.

The directors appointed by government should constitute a minority on the board. In addition, although it is important that communication channels be maintained between government and the regulator, that relationship need not and should not be based on the Attorney General’s membership on the regulator’s board.

One of the benefits of at least some director appointments, responsive to identified, or anticipated, skill gaps, is that it enables a more intentional approach to the overall board composition. Boards often establish a composition matrix that identifies the skills, experience, and backgrounds that the board as a whole should reflect. Appointments can then be made with a view to filling any identified gaps. Ensuring that a number of seats on the regulator’s board are filled by appointments will help ensure the board has the right mix of skills and diversity needed to fulfil its mandate. However, given the particular importance of Indigenous representation in legal professions regulation, and the gains that have recently been made in this respect at the Law Society, consideration should also be given to embedding an explicit requirement in the statute regarding Indigenous representation on the regulator’s board. A guaranteed Indigenous appointee (or appointees) would not and could not account for all the diverse perspectives of Indigenous peoples in the province, and any statutory minimum requirement would need to be supplemented by purposeful, merit-based election and appointment processes that promote additional Indigenous voices at the board table.

The size of the board would be balanced to address the dual objectives of diversity and functionality. On the one hand, the board would be large enough to ensure that all regulated legal service providers and the public are reflected in its composition, and to ensure a diversity of skills, perspectives, regions, and backgrounds are represented in its deliberations. On the other hand, the board would be small enough to be nimble and cohesive. As observed by Cayton and others, the current size of the bencher table at the Law Society is too large for effective discussion, deliberation or decision-making. In its submissions to Cayton as part of his Law Society governance review, the Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch recommended that the number of benchers be reduced to 15. [Footnote 9]

Finally, the Ministry notes that the Cayton Report contains several recommendations aimed at ensuring the benchers can focus their attention on their key responsibilities and better avoid potential conflicts of interest. Both the Law Society and the Notaries Society have implemented measures to separate adjudicative and investigative functions; the Ministry would like to see the new regulator build on these initiatives in accordance with professional regulation best practices. This would include ensuring that as a principle, directors focus on strategic oversight as opposed to regulatory or operational matters. This would allow additional participation in those processes by other licensees (and members of the public).

3.1 The regulator should be governed by a board composed of a statutory maximum number of directors, some of whom are elected by licensees, some of whom are appointed by the other members of the board, and some of whom are appointed by government. 3.2 The directors appointed by government should constitute a minority of the board, and the Attorney General should not sit as a member of the board. 3.3 Consideration should be given to a statutory requirement for Indigenous representation on the board. 3.4 The board and government should be required to follow nomination procedures that are fair, transparent, accountable and independent. 3.5 Director elections and appointments should be staggered, so that gaps on the board (with respect to, for example, diversity, skills, type of legal service provider) can be identified and filled. 3.6 The board’s role should be focused on strategic oversight.

4. Flexible Licensing Framework

A flexible licensing framework is one that ensures the public has the ability to find the kind of legal services that meets their needs, whether through a lawyer, notary, licensed paralegal, or otherwise. It is also one that is adaptable, giving the regulator the tools and discretion it needs to be responsive to the changing legal landscape and marketplace.

The LPA defines the “practice of law” which constitutes a practising lawyer’s scope of practice. The Ministry envisions a revised statute that maintains a statutory definition of the practice of law (which may be clarified but not changed in substance), and which will continue to constitute the scope of practice for practising lawyers.

The Notaries Act sets out notaries’ scope of practice. The Ministry intends to maintain this core scope of practice for notaries in statute, but also build in mechanisms to enable that scope to be expanded without the need for legislative change. This change would allow, for example, scope to be expanded by both rule and regulation.

An ideal future state will likely enable one or more classes of licensed paralegals with a common scope or scopes of practice in specific areas, such as family and/or corporate law, and/or certain litigation matters. The Ministry is exploring establishing a minimum scope (or scopes) of practice for licensed paralegals in a revised statute, along with granting the regulator the authority to expand those scopes and create new ones. Another potential option is to require the regulator to establish a minimum scope (or scopes) of practice for licensed paralegals within a specified period of time.

In addition to the potential of a minimum defined scope(s) for licensed paralegals, the Ministry is also exploring whether the statute should enable the regulator to license licensed paralegals and notaries on a case-by-case basis. This would allow the regulator to customize an individual licensee’s license based on their specific training and expertise, who could then provide those customized legal services directly to the public. As it relates to licensed paralegals specifically, granting individual licenses in discrete areas could help establish a common scope or scopes. Enabling a case-by-case approach to licensing would build on the sandbox initiative and would allow for the prospect of licensure for many of its participants immediately and outside of a defined scope of practice. It is also consistent with the approach taken in Saskatchewan, where a case-by-case limited licensing pilot is underway.

The statute should also enable the creation (and regulation) of additional future categories of legal service providers, to capture, for example, the potential future regulation of Commissioners for Taking Affidavits and/or technological legal services. With respect to the latter, several of the proponents in the Law Society’s innovation sandbox fall within this category, and other jurisdictions in Canada (specifically, Alberta and Ontario) are exploring how access to legal services can be enhanced by developments in technology.

As noted above, it is contemplated that the statute would include some guidance to the regulator on how its mandate should be discharged, including a reference to regulating proportionately to risk. This will require a commitment to avoiding over-regulation. If the provision of legal information and law-related assistance by certain individuals does not require regulation to protect the public, those individuals should not be regulated, or if some level of oversight is required, only regulated in a manner that is proportionate to the risk. Current examples falling within the category of no regulation include Native Courtworkers, non-lawyer mediators, and community advocates; it is possible that this list could be expanded in the future and the regulator should have the flexibility to do so.

Finally, the Ministry is optimistic that a unified legal regulator, with a revitalized governance framework and clarified mandate, will ensure meaningful progress towards more access to, and more choice among, different kinds of legal service providers. However, in light of both the status of the 2018 amendments and the initiatives in progress across many other jurisdictions with respect to alternative legal service providers, the statute should require an independent progress review of B.C.’s regulation of legal service providers (and specifically, its impact on access to legal services) after a set period of time.

4.1 The statute should continue to include a definition of the practice of law, which will also constitute the scope of practice for lawyer licensees. 4.2 Notaries should have a core scope of practice set out in statute. Mechanisms should be established to allow that scope to be expanded without the need for legislative change. 4.3 The statute should authorize the delivery of legal services through licensed paralegals by setting a minimum scope or scopes of practice or requiring the regulator to do so within a prescribed period of time. 4.4 The statute should enable the regulator to grant licensed paralegals and notaries a license on a case-by-case basis. 4.5 The statute should enable the creation of additional future categories of legal service providers that can be authorized to deliver specific legal services. 4.6 The statute should include a requirement for a future independent review of legal service provider regulation and its impact on access to legal services.

A key function of any regulator is to ensure that those it regulates are competent and to have processes in place to address concerns about a professional’s practice or conduct. Over the past several years, a body of best practices has emerged with respect to the manner in which concerns are addressed and resolved. Those best practices include, among other things:

• ensuring the public understands the types of complaints a regulator can address, and can easily access complaint processes;
• ensuring complaints processes are culturally safe;
• utilizing multiple pathways to resolve concerns fairly and in a timely manner (recognizing that not every concern should require a discipline hearing);
• ensuring that there is no conflict or overlap between a regulator’s adjudicative and investigative functions;
• ensuring investigation and discipline outcomes are transparent to the public;
• ensuring that appropriate information can be shared with other organizations or bodies, in the public interest;
• ensuring a regulator in one jurisdiction can rely on findings of discipline processes conducted in another jurisdiction;
• ensuring the regulator can take extraordinary action to suspend a professional’s license pending the outcome of an investigation if it is in the public’s interest to do so; and
• ensuring there is a clear “duty to report” on licensees to report other licensees when the public may be at risk.

Many of these practices are already in place at the Notaries Society and Law Society through statute, rule, bylaw or policy. The intention is to establish a framework that maintains these practices while expanding and adapting them to keep pace with best practices as they continue to evolve. This approach will likely require some matters to be spelled out in statute, with the regulator being granted the authority to address others by rule.

Finally, the Ministry notes that the Law Society is presently undergoing a review of its regulatory processes to ensure that these processes accommodate the full participation of Indigenous complainants and witnesses who may be experiencing marginalization and vulnerability.  The future regulator’s complaints and discipline processes should incorporate the recommendations that flow from this review, to ensure and support participation in these processes by historically underrepresented groups and vulnerable individuals.

Ministry’s Intention

5.1 The regulator’s discipline framework should reflect modern regulatory best practices, and should be flexible enough to accommodate changes in process as regulatory trends evolve.

One of the key shifts in the professional regulatory environment has been an increased expectation of a separation between regulation and advocacy. For example, the BC Notaries Association was formed in recent years as the advocacy body for notaries, to ensure the Notaries Society could properly focus exclusively on regulation. As another example, the LPA was amended in 2012 to remove a reference in the Law Society’s mandate to “uphold and protect the interests of its members”. Although it is important that all legal service providers have an unconstrained ability to advocate, it is important that regulatory bodies only act in an advocacy role in accordance with the public interest and their overarching legislation.

One of the observations of the Cayton report is that although the Law Society is a regulatory authority, it remains fundamentally a membership-run association. This dynamic manifests through nomenclature (i.e., society vs. regulator, member vs. licensee or registrant) and through the powers granted to members, including the authority to bring forward resolutions at AGMs and to require the Law Society to hold referendums. Although these observations were directed at the Law Society, the Notaries Society shares many of these traits. These discrepancies can cause confusion for the public (and for those regulated) as to whose interests are being pursued (i.e., members’ interests or the public’s).

6.1 The statute should refer to regulated individuals as licensees and not members. 6.2 The statute should include public accountability mechanisms suitable to that of a regulator that regulates in the public interest and not that of a membership-driven association. 6.3 Licensees should not have the authority to bring forward resolutions that purport to direct the actions of the regulator’s board. 6.4 Licensees should not have the authority to approve or reject the regulator’s rules as determined by the board mandate to address the public interest.

The Ministry welcomes feedback on the proposals contained in this paper:

• An online survey is available at https://engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc/consultation/legal-professions-reform/ until November 18, 2022. 
• Written submissions may also be emailed to [email protected] until November 18, 2022.

Please note that submissions may be subject to disclosure under freedom of information legislation.

The Ministry will take all responses into consideration before finalizing a legislative proposal for government’s further consideration.

The B.C. Public Service acknowledges the territories of First Nations around B.C. and is grateful to carry out our work on these lands. We acknowledge the rights, interests, priorities, and concerns of all Indigenous Peoples - First Nations, Métis, and Inuit - respecting and acknowledging their distinct cultures, histories, rights, laws, and governments.

• Sections and News
• Advertise With Us

Guest Column | December 2022

Can lawyers afford to ignore the law society, dimple kainth.

What should a lawyer do when they receive notification from the Law Society that someone has made a complaint about them, or that they are otherwise the subject of an investigation? First, they should not panic. Second, they should take the matter seriously, even if they think the matter is minor, frivolous, or unwarranted. Third, they should respond to the Law Society. Why? Because if they do not respond, the Law Society has the power to act on their failure to do so.

The Legal Profession Act (“ LPA ”) makes it clear that the Law Society’s primary objective is to protect the public interest. To do this effectively, the Law Society must rely on lawyers to respond to its inquiries. This is accomplished through Rules 3-5(7) and 3-5(11) of the Law Society Rules and Section 7.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct , which place a positive duty on lawyers to cooperate with investigations, respond promptly to the Law Society’s inquiries, and to provide it with any documents and information it requests.

When lawyers fail to respond, or fail to respond adequately , the Law Society can take disciplinary action. The Law Society may issue a citation against the lawyer for their failure to respond and eventually there will be a hearing of the citation. This will likely result a finding of professional misconduct and a penalty.

Alternatively, the Law Society can take administrative action and issue an administrative suspension under Rule 3-6 of the Law Society Rules. Under this rule, the Law Society must give a lawyer at least seven days of notice of the suspension, and if the lawyer fails to respond by the deadline, they will be suspended.

An administrative suspension is a quicker and more effective way for the Law Society to ensure compliance with the rules. A suspended lawyer is not entitled to do anything that is considered the “practice of law” (which is defined in Section 1 of the LPA ). Some examples of prohibited conduct include:

• Speaking or meeting with clients about client matters;
• Working on client matters;
• Signing correspondence or any other communication (e.g., emails) under designation of “Barrister & Solicitor”;
• Supervising staff; and
• Indicating or implying they are qualified or entitled to practice law in any public communications, such as firm websites, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc .

Suspended lawyers must also comply with Rule 4-47(3) and, among other things, inform all clients with active matters about the suspension and the steps they have taken to protect the clients’ interests during the suspension period.

An administrative suspension is inconvenient, results in lost income, and can be very embarrassing for lawyers. Since there are very few tasks suspended lawyers are permitted to do, they must be careful because if they do anything that is considered the “practice of law,” they may also face potential disciplinary action for practising while suspended.

If you are involved in a Law Society complaint or investigation, you cannot afford to ignore the Law Society. Do not exacerbate things by failing to respond. Investigations are not limited to the issues arising from the original complaint or concerns, and the tone, content, and substance of your responses matter. Consider retaining or getting advice from counsel experienced in Law Society matters before responding, especially because your livelihood may be at risk. Having objective advice can make responding to the Law Society easier and less stressful, help you stay focused on the issues, and make the process more efficient

Related Articles

Embracing equity, diversity and inclusion: the need to transform,   dimple kainth  .

CBABC is located on the traditional and unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam First Nations.

Welcome to Law Society of British Columbia

Assignment of lease

How it relates to the law in british columbia canada.

In British Columbia, an assignment of lease is a legal document that transfers the rights and obligations of a lease from one party to another. The assignment must be in writing and signed by both the assignor (the original tenant) and the assignee (the new tenant). The landlord must also give their consent to the assignment. Under the British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord cannot unreasonably withhold their consent to an assignment of lease. However, the landlord may require the new tenant to meet certain criteria, such as having a good credit score or a stable income. If the landlord unreasonably withholds their consent to an assignment, the original tenant may apply to the Residential Tenancy Branch for dispute resolution. The Branch may order the landlord to consent to the assignment or may terminate the tenancy agreement altogether. Overall, an assignment of lease is an important legal document in British Columbia that protects the rights of both tenants and landlords.

Impact on Business Owners in British Columbia

The assignment of lease impacts small businesses in British Columbia by allowing them to transfer their lease obligations to another party with the landlord's consent. This can be beneficial for small businesses that need to relocate or transfer their lease to another party. However, the landlord may require the new tenant to meet certain criteria, which could be a challenge for small businesses with limited resources. Additionally, if the landlord unreasonably withholds their consent to an assignment, small businesses may need to seek dispute resolution through the Residential Tenancy Branch, which could be time-consuming and costly. Overall, small businesses in British Columbia need to carefully review and negotiate the terms of an assignment of lease agreement to ensure that their rights and obligations are protected.

Potential Legal Risks, Legal Challenges, or Legal Pitfalls for Businesses in British Columbia

As a small business owner in British Columbia, it is important to be aware of the potential legal risks and challenges associated with the assignment of lease. This refers to the transfer of a lease from one tenant to another, and can occur when a business is sold or when a tenant wishes to sublet their space. One potential legal risk is that the landlord may not approve the assignment of lease. This can occur if the new tenant does not meet the landlord's requirements or if the landlord wishes to terminate the lease altogether. To avoid this, it is important to carefully review the lease agreement and any requirements for assignment before entering into any agreements. Another potential legal challenge is that the new tenant may not be able to fulfill the obligations of the lease, such as paying rent or maintaining the property. This can result in legal action being taken against both the new and old tenants. To mitigate this risk, it is important to thoroughly vet any potential new tenants and ensure that they have the financial resources and experience necessary to fulfill the lease obligations. Finally, it is important to ensure that all necessary legal documentation is in place when assigning a lease. This includes a written agreement between the old and new tenants, as well as approval from the landlord. Failure to properly document the assignment of lease can result in legal disputes and financial penalties. In summary, small business owners in British Columbia should be aware of the potential legal risks and challenges associated with the assignment of lease. To avoid or mitigate these issues, it is important to carefully review the lease agreement, vet potential new tenants, and ensure that all necessary legal documentation is in place. Seeking the advice of a legal professional can also be helpful in navigating this process.

BC Commercial Tenancy Act

What’s a Rich Text element?

The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.

Static and dynamic content editing

A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!

How to customize formatting for each rich text

Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system → .

UBC Law Review

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CAELUM

Currently accepting submissions until 7 April 2024

Slated for publication in 2024

Special Issue:

AI & the Legal Profession

Now available on open access platforms

Open Access

Welcome to our 35 new members

Meet the Team

2024 Patrons

UBC Law Review Society

Peter A. Allard School of Law

1822 East Mall, Room 370

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V6T 1Z1

For submissions matters:

[email protected]

For non-submissions matters:

[email protected]

404 Not found