The gods are not smiling on Canada's legal profession. Just two weeks after it announced on the front page of the Globe and Mail a campaign to dispel the public perception it is a hotbed of greed, arrogance and venality, Alan Eagleson— the very embodiment of those vices—pleaded guilty to fraud and theft. Even worse, Canada's highest-profile lawyer was convicted in an American court—Canadian authorities had ignored his crimes for year—after other prominent Canadian lawyers, including a former prime minister and a former Supreme Court justice, had testified on his behalf.

Bob Matheson's appraisal of Eagleson's fall is blunt: "Alan Eagleson destroyed the whole fabric of the profession each time he abandoned his one obligation to the people for whom he was acting." Mr. Matheson, senior partner of Edmonton's Matheson and Company, a lawyer for almost 40 years, director of the Canadian Taxpayers' Association and former city alderman, can only think back sadly to those days, decades ago, when attorneys were universally acknowledged as the standard-bearers of civic duty and community service.

How low has the public esteem of lawyers fallen? An Angus Reid poll reveals they are less respected than doctors, clergymen, accountants, even journalists; the only professionals ranking lower are politicians. This lack of status is reflected powerfully in popular culture: On television, Perry Mason's tenacious pursuit of justice for all has given way to the shameless ambulance-chasing of The Simpsons' Lionel Hutz. And no cocktail party, three-martini lunch, or barroom banter is complete without an exchange of the latest lawyer joke (see story, following page).

In the face of this widespread social scorn, lawyers are beginning to pout just a little, protesting that theirs is a lamentable lot, that times are tough, and that brutal spin doctors are woefully rough. Some insiders, however, are not so sure.

Although some attorneys delight in humorously denigrating their profession, others find they can no longer force a smile. Lawyer Brad Daisley, Vancouver bureau chief of Lawyers Weekly, argues that it is unreasonable to expect the profession to tolerate what amounts to character assassination at the hands of an ignorant and ungrateful public. "The reason lawyers don't have a sense of humour," he explains, "is that they are sick and tired of going to parties and being told lawyer jokes. They all know that the vast majority of lawyers do a good job and don't deserve the abuse."

Canadians, Mr. Daisley contends, need to face up to the consequences of this country's adversarial justice system. For every winner, there must be a loser, and the complaints of embittered litigants are hardly disinterested. And the public must be reminded that whenever a contract is consummated, a commercial dispute successfully resolved, a will bequeathed, or a home conveyance completed, they can thank a diligent and honest attorney. To judge an entire profession by the malfeasance of a few is grossly unfair.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay, president of the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Bar Association, goes even further. "Lawyers are unsung heroes with a tremendous track record in their communities for contributing countless hours of volunteer community service and pro bono [no fee] work," she declares. In her president's address in BarTalk, the newsletter of the CBA (B.C.), Ms. Findlay bemoaned "that lawyer and judge bashing has reached the status of a spectator sport—entertaining for the armchair observer; extremely damaging for the real-life players."

Still, Ms. Findlay is prepared to look kindly on a lawyer-baiting public. She wrote of lawyer jokes, "Once we lose our sense of humour, we lose ourselves." She sees the enemy in another much-maligned profession, referring to "the seemingly constant media barrage of criticism against us, the judiciary, and the justice system." The media, she adds, irresponsibly sensationalize instances of purported professional misconduct but seldom discuss the things which lawyers do which are honourable, helpful and integral to society. In her speech she warned that "The media is spurring on the public to embrace vigilantism, forgetting that an independent judiciary ensures the kind of freedoms that our veterans fought wars for."

In defence of her profession Ms. Findlay argues that lawyers are facing steadily increasing professional stresses which the public fails to understand. She contends that technological advances and globalization are overwhelming the legal profession. Whereas law was once a careful craft undertaken by solemn solicitors poring over leather-bound tomes, today's information society demands and receives expert opinions on intricate matters within seconds of receipt of faxes or e-mail. Under these conditions, Ms. Findlay maintains, it would be surprising if client dissatisfaction had not increased.

However, Fiona Hunter, chairwoman of the B.C. CBA's communications committee, explains that professional practice can be improved to meet the changing nature of the profession. In Kelowna in 1996 the CBA (B.C.) and the Law Society of B.C. conducted a study to "test the impact of a proactive public awareness campaign on public attitudes" toward the legal profession, and to provide the public with information regarding the profession. The Kelowna Project consisted of an advertising campaign in all the local media, the distribution of "client care kits" outlining available legal fees and services, and educational workshops for the Kelowna Bar. A follow-up study concluded that short-term advertising was not effective in satisfying the project's objectives. It found the best way for lawyers to improve their public image is to communicate more effectively with their clients about what to expect from the legal process and the sorts of services lawyers best provide.

For example, "in order to be better business people," Ms. Hunter suggests, "lawyers must be more upfront regarding their fees and services." She argues that due to the common practice of billing clients for hundreds of dollars an hour, there is a widespread misconception that the law profession is a licence to print money. She adds that much of a lawyer's hourly wage is spent on overhead. Ms. Findlay suggests that the docketing billing method—where each service, from courtroom advocacy to copying charges is billed separately—be replaced with a "value-for-product billing system." Under this method lawyers would be paid per outcome or per kind of work performed.

It could be argued, however, that the legal profession has exacerbated the litigious society by its own proliferation. In 1965 there were 12,800 practising attorneys in Canada. In 1996 there were 47,000. Thus their numbers almost quadrupled during a period when the country's population grew by little more than half. And advocacy is lucrative, even after overhead. Human Resources Canada reports that senior Canadian lawyers earn a minimum of $100,000 a year. Senior carpenters, teachers, nurses, computer operators and secretaries average $62,000, $60,000, $36,000, $33,500 and $29,000 respectively.

While the profession seeks to proselytize its virtues, Mr. Matheson worries that "The legal profession has sadly declined in its sense of commitment and professionalism and especially in its desire to be a public benefactor. A lawyer's priority used to be to do a top notch job. Money, power and prestige did not matter. Now, there is a growing sense that business is more important than the best interest of the client."

An Angus Reid poll commissioned by the CBA last year tends to confirm Mr. Matheson's suspicions. When respondents were asked to state, unprompted, what they believed to be the major issues facing lawyers in Canada today, the four leading responses were: the excessive number of lawyers practising (16%), public perception/credibility (14%), economics/reasonable income (9%), and finding a job (8%). The poll found that only 4% of respondents believed that contributing to justice reform was a professional priority.

Mr. Reid says, "This is a tough time for a lot of lawyers who went into law school thinking they were embarking on a great career and a comfortable life but who are now realizing that in fact the professional opportunities are slimmer pickings." Competition among lawyers, Mr Reid argues, helps generate the public perception of lawyers as vultures preying on others' misfortunes.

Mr. Reid, however, suspects that the most significant reason for public dissatisfaction with lawyers is a widespread cynicism regarding the nation's justice system—and the belief that lawyers are largely responsible for this problem. Karen Selick, a partner in the Ottawa-area law firm Reynolds O'Brien Kline & Selick and a frequent contributor to Canadian Lawyer magazine, argues, "A major contributing factor to the poor public image of lawyers has to be that lawyers are the primary and most visible interface by which the public can access and evaluate the justice system." As dissatisfaction with the justice system grows, so does scorn for lawyers. Hence, if lawyers want to be better liked, they had better commit themselves to improving the system in which they making their living.

Ms. Selick also cites an overburdened court system as a cause of public dissatisfaction. But she adds that the justice system has become so arbitrary and unpredictable that lawyers are hard pressed to offer their clients sound advice. She suggests that the reason for this uncertainty is the law-making power that the profession has seized from elected bodies and arrogated to itself. The courts, she says, are in the grip of a "deeply rooted statist and collectivist mentality which is characterized by the beliefs that individuals are not and need not be held responsible, that 'society' is to be blamed for everything, and that redistribution of wealth will solve all problems."

Vancouver lawyer Paul Formby says the root of the legal profession's crisis is embedded in the nature of Anglo-American justice—the adversarial system, once regarded as a tool for determining reality, has become a mere process, even a game. "I heard one senior lawyer, now retired, say, 'A trial is technique for determining the truth.' When you have an adversarial system, this can be very expensive." Mr. Formby believes that "the modern legal system often leaves truth behind—and the public knows it. The system encourages exaggeration, in civil suits, for example. You have people who get up on the stand and lie. And seldom do you hear of any perjury charges. And even if the truth is known, then you have the system advocating leniency."

From his perspective of four decades in the profession, Mr. Matheson sees the lawyer crisis in more personal terms. He concludes, "To a certain extent the profession has not maintained its dedication to providing for the client and nothing else. To the extent to which lawyers are failing to provide that calibre of service, they are and ought to expect to be criticized."

—Kenn Crossley

BC Report is available at your favorite newsstand,
or save up to 43% with a subscription