¹ The regulation of their members' behaviour is only one aspect of this bargain. SROs are also given the power to limit entry into their professional organizations (which they exercise through exclusionary strategies) and the tools to protect the services they offer from other competitors (through demarcationary strategies); see Broekman, Joan, “‘Fortunate Enough to Obtain and Keep the Title of Profession:’ Self-Regulating Organizations and the Enforcement of Professional Monopolies” (1998) 41(4) Canadian Public Administration 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar According to Freidson, Eliot, Professionalism: The Third Logic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001) at 12 Google Scholar “professionalism may be said to exist when an organized occupation gains the power to determine who is qualified to perform a defined set of tasks, to prevent all others from performing that work, and to control the criteria by which to evaluate performance.” Freidson is of the opinion that “monopoly is essential to professionalism.” Ibid. at 3.

² The crime funnel includes: actual crimes, crimes detected, crimes reported, crimes recorded, arrests, trials, convictions, and sentencing.

³ Broekman, Joan & McEwen, Colin, “Self-Regulation in the Legal Profession: Funnel In, Funnel Out or Funnel Away” (1990) 5 C.J.L.S. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see Arnold, Bruce L. & Kay, Fiona M., “Social Capital, Violations of Trust, and the Vulnerability of Isolates: The Social Organization of Law Practice and Professional Self-Regulation” (1995) 23 Int.'l J. Soc. L. 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Shapiro, Susan P., “The Road Not Taken: The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders” (1985) 19:2 Law & Soc'y Rev. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Broekman & McEwen, ibid. at 9.

⁵ Parker, Christine, Just Lawyers: Regulation and Access to Justice (Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) at 13.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. at 14–15.

⁷ Ibid. at 20–28.

⁸ Parker, Ibid. at 13. Recently, retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Charles Gonthier told the Canadian Bar Association that “billable hours may be partially to blame” for lawyers' increasing focus on the “bottom line” and the “depersonalization” of law firms. He noted, “the practice of measuring one's output in terms of billable hours leads one to emphasize time spent at work to the detriment of other socially worthy activities which cannot be added to the times billed;” Tibbetts, Janice, “Huge Fees Hurt ‘Image’ of Lawyers: Former Supreme Court Justice Wants End to Billing by the Hour” The Ottawa Citizen (19 August 2003) A3.Google Scholar A study in 2000 by the Canadian Bar Association found that 97% of lawyers bill by the hour. “The report noted that charging a fixed fee has its problems because it can encourage lawyers to cut corners. But the pitfalls of hourly billing are larger, (…) because the system creates incentive for inefficiency and encourages lawyers to over-research a file;” ibid.

⁹ Rhode, Deborah L., In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) at 169.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See, for example, Coleman, James William, The Criminal Elite: Sociology of White Collar Crime 4th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998) at 124–26.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Murdoch, Caroline and Broekman, Joan, “Who's On First? Disciplinary Proceedings by Self-Regulating Professions and other Agencies for ‘Criminal’ Behaviour” (2001) 64:1 Sask. L. Rev. 29.Google Scholar

¹² The issue of funneling away from the criminal justice system is dealt with in another study that examines in greater detail the cases that resulted in a hearing before a Law Society of British Columbia hearing panel; Joan Broekman and Caroline Murdoch, “Disciplining Wayward Lawyers in British Columbia, 1989–2000” (in preparation).

¹³ For example, in turf wars with notaries between 1930 and the 1950s, the Law Society of British Columbia engaged in a number of “educational” efforts to encourage the public to take their legal work to lawyers, not notaries; Broekman, Joan, “Better to Enlist Their Support Than to Suffer Their Antagonism: The Game of Monopoly Between Lawyers and notaries in British Columbia, 1930–1981” (1997) 4(3) International Journal of the Legal Profession 197 at 200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ An advertising campaign “to inform the public of the benefits of engaging lawyers for legal services and of the dangers inherent in failing to consult lawyers on legal matters” was rejected by a membership vote of the Law Society in 1992; “Advertising Proposal Dropped” (June-July, 1992) 4 Benchers' Bulletin 7 at 7. For a discussion of the expense and difficulties of self-promotion campaigns, see “Communications” in The Law Society of British Columbia 1992 Annual Report (Vancouver, British Columbia: Law Society, 1992) 6 at 7.

¹⁵ “Lawyer, Lawyer?” (December, 1988) 11 Benchers' Bulletin 4 at 4. Legal Wise (a series of current affairs episodes) was seen as a better means “to get [the Law Society's] message out to the public” rather than “a self-promotional institutional advertising program;” Beckmann, R. Paul, “Prime Time TV” (June, 1989) 5 Benchers' Bulletin at 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The first goal of the Committee was “to inform the public about the law, the role of the Law Society and of lawyers;” Oliver, H.A.D., “Public Relations Committee” in The Law Society of British Columbia 1988 Annual Report (Vancouver, British Columbia: Law Society, 1988) at 24.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Michael Bolton, “Public Relations Committee,” ibid. In 1990, the Public Relations Committee changed its name to the Communications Committee to better reflect that it deals with communications with Law Society members, the public, and government; Michael Bolton, Ibid. at 8. While the Committee continued to operate, it was no longer featured in the Law Society's Annual Report after 1993.

¹⁸ “Penticton Reporter Wins Law Society Award” (June, 1989) 5 Benchers' Bulletin 6.

¹⁹ Online: The Jack Webster Foundation. http://www.jackwebster.com/foundation/index.shtml (accessed June 29, 2003)

²⁰ Broekman, Joan, Gender in the Legal Profession: Fitting or Breaking the Mould (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001) at 12–13.Google Scholar

²¹ Young, Katharine P. (Chair), Smith, Dean Lynn, Watters, Fran, Nordlinger, Karen, Wilson, Warren & O'Brien, Martha (staff), Women in the Legal Profession: A Report of the Women in the Legal Profession Subcommittee (Vancouver: The Law Society of British Columbia, September, 1991) at 31, 37.Google Scholar

²² Hughes, E.N. (Ted) (Chair), MacLennan, Alison, McAlpine, John, Kelleher, Stephen F.D., Jackson, Marguerite & Baker, Wendy, Gender Equality in the Justice System (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1992) at 3–30.Google Scholar

²³ Broekman, Joan, “The Use of Self-Regulation to Curb Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in the Legal Profession” (1997) 35(2) Osgoode Hall L.J. 209.Google Scholar

²⁴ “Ombudsperson to Help in Firm Discrimination Complaints” 4 (May-June, 1994) Benchers' Bulletin 1 at 1. The position was filled by Gail H. Forsythe on January 1, 1995; “What Services will the Ombudsperson Offer Law Firms? (December, 1994) Benchers' Bulletin 3.

²⁵ Forsythe, Gail H., “After the First Year: Are Services in Demand? What are the Results?” (January-February, 1996) Benchers' Bulletin 7.Google Scholar

²⁶ Forsythe, Gail H., “Gender Bias and Harassment–Is there Reason to be Concerned” (January-February, 1997) 1 Benchers' Bulletin 10.Google Scholar

²⁷ “Review of Discrimination Ombudsperson Program Brings Changes” (August-September, 1999) 4 Benchers' Bulletin 6. These changes occurred despite the fact that an earlier report had considered such a model and recommended that “all services be offered by one neutral, independent Ombudsperson;” “Discrimination Ombudsperson Program to Stay” (January-February, 1996) 1 Benchers' Bulletin 4 at 4.

²⁸ “Discrimination Ombudsperson”, ibid.

²⁹ There are 25 lawyers elected as benchers, so the potential proportion of lay benchers (now at 19%) still falls short of the one-third required by the British Columbia government in the early 1990s for many health professional SROs. The Law Society was opposed to increasing the number of lay benchers to one third because it would bring their independence from government into question, they did not monitor the spending of public funds like health professionals, the substantial cost would be funded by lawyers, and the board would be ineffective if it became too large; “Benchers to Ask Government for More Lay Benchers” (November, 1993) 6 Benchers' Bulletin 6.

³⁰ “Lay Benchers' Report” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Repon, 1989 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1989) 28 at 29.

³¹ The Law Society finally added this requirement effective July 1, 2003. Lawyers and articled students must now report to the Law Society the particulars of any charges they face under a federal or provincial statute, except if it is processed by way of a ticket. This rule was probably in response to the widespread publicity surrounding charges of impaired driving against the President of the Law Society, five days after he assumed the position on January 1, 2003. The charges related to an incident on October 2, 2002, and he informed the Law Society after the Kelowna Daily Courier reported the story on January 16; “B.C. Law Society Prez Charged” (July 2003) Canadian Lawyer 7.

³² “Lay Benchers' Report” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1990 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1990) 26 at 27.

³³ “Lay Benchers' Report” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1991 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1991) 25 at 25.

³⁴ “Entre Nous: The Lay Benchers Affair” (1980) 38 Advocate 461 at 467.

³⁵ “Lay Benchers' Report” supra note 30 at 29.

³⁶ “Professional Conduct and Discipline” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1998 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1998) 10 at 10.

³⁷ I use the word “somewhat” because of the difficulties that some of my students in my Crimes and Misconduct in the Professions class have in observing “open” disciplinary hearings at the Law Society. They describe an atmosphere of being treated like intruders who should not be there.

³⁸ Online: Law Society of Alberta http://www.lawsocietyalberta.com/media/Hearings.asp; accessed June 20, 2003.

³⁹ “Lay Benchers' Report” supra note 30 at 28.

⁴⁰ The Law Society of Upper Canada now publishes detailed summarizes of its decisions on its website. Online: The Law Society of Upper Canada http://www.lsuc.on.ca/lawyer/discipline_releases.jsp. Today, the Law Society of British Columbia's press releases state that the following documents are available to the media: the citation, hearing report, penalty report, Discipline Digest, and Discipline Case Digest; “Law Society Disciplines B.C. Lawyers” Canada News-Wire (16 June 2003).

⁴¹ “Disclosure and Privacy Task Force: Discipline Rule Changes–Greater Transparency Over Process, Greater Protection for Privilege” (May-June, 2003) 3 Benchers' Bulletin 6 at 6.

⁴² In addition, the full case reports of the cases found in the Discipline Case Digests summarizes, as of April, 1991, are available on Quicklaw, and the cases released after September 1, 2003 are now on the Law Society's website.

⁴³ In February of 2003, the Benchers amended the Rules so that the citation is now disposed of, not rescinded. When lawyers undertake to leave the profession under the new rules, they are treated as if they were disbarred or suspended and may not practise law, even without accepting a fee; “Rule changes on conditional discipline admissions” (2003) 1 Benchers' Bulletin at 4. The change provides greater transparency and avoids the suggestion that the Law Society is settling cases “in private;” Wilhelmson, Michael, “LSBC Moves to Toughen Rules on Misconduct ‘Guilty Pleas’” (21 March 2003) Lawyers Weekly 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ There has been no modernization of this section. For example, the Health Professions Act, R.S.C.B. 1996 c. 183, states that

16 (1) It is the duty of a college at all times

(a) to serve and protect the public, and

(b) to exercise its powers and discharge its responsibilities under all enactments in the public interest. The ten objects of a college listed in subsection 2 of the Health Professions Act are concerned with enforcing the legislation and bylaws, establishing and enforcing standards, maintaining competency, etc. There is no reference to upholding “the interests of its members.”

⁴⁵ The benchers include the Attorney General of the province, 25 benchers elected by the members of the Society, and up to six lay benchers (appointed by the provincial cabinet).

⁴⁶ For further discussion of this concept see Mackenzie, Gavin, Lawyers and Ethics: Professional Responsibility and Discipline, 3d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2001)Google Scholar Chapter 26 at 19 and 25 and Casey, James T., The Regulation of Professions in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1994) at c. 13.Google Scholar The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that lawyers themselves (through their self-governing body) are in the best position to determine what is misconduct on the part of a lawyer; Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869 at 880.

⁴⁷ “Conduct unbecoming a lawyer” is defined in section 1 of the Act and section 1 of the Rules to include “a matter, conduct or thing that is considered, in the judgment of the benchers or a panel, (a) to be contrary to the best interest of the public or of the legal profession, or (b) to harm the standing of the legal profession.” For further discussion of this concept see, Mackenzie, Ibid. at 26–25 to 26–29; and Casey, ibid. c. 13.

⁴⁸ Online: Law Society of British Columbia http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/; accessed June, 21, 2003; and various Annual Reports. Also see Law Society Rules, Rules 3–2 to 3–7 for more details on this process.

⁴⁹ Law Society Rules, Rule 3–12(e) and Rule 3–14(6).

⁵⁰ This committee was created a year prior to the time framework for this study; “New Complainant's Review Committee” (June, 1988) 6 Benchers' Bulletin 7. The Law Society made it clear that the Committee reviews complaints where staff have decided that no further action is to be taken; it does not review the Law Society's decision not to investigate; “Complaints and Discipline” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1997 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1997) 10 at 11.

⁵¹ Law Society Rules, Rule 3–9(4) to 3–9(6).

⁵² The Complainants' Review Committee was established in 1988, but systematic details of its activities were not reported in the Law Society's Annual Reports until 1994.

⁵³ “Complaints and Discipline” supra note 50 at 11.

⁵⁴ Law Society Rules, Rule 4–5.

⁵⁵ Ibid. Rule 4–6(5).

⁵⁶ Ibid. Rule 4–9.

⁵⁷ Ibid. Rule 4–22(4).

⁵⁸ Ibid. Rule 4–23.

⁵⁹ The maximum fine was raised from $10,000 to $20,000 in 1998.

⁶⁰ Bognar, and Associates/Social Research, The Law Society's Complaint Service: Report on a Survey (August 1994) [unpublished, archived at the Law Society of British Columbia] at 14.Google Scholar

⁶¹ I say astonishing because the complainants were not asked this specific question. Rather they were asked “Do you believe there is any element of discrimination (for example, on the basis of gender or race) in the way the Law Society handled your complaint(s)?” There was no question that specifically asked, or hinted at, whether the Law Society was biased. Questions which draw respondents attention to a form of discrimination are more likely to elicit a higher response than questions that remain more open ended; Broekman, Joan, “‘A Wild Feminist at Her Raving Best:’ Reflections on Studying Gender Bias in the Legal Profession” (2000) 28:1&2 Resources for Feminist Research 61 at 66–67.Google Scholar Further afield, a survey of client satisfaction with the General Council of the Bar in England, found that the majority of complainants thought that “the complaints-handling system lacked transparency and was overly legalistic, that it was dominated by lawyers, that the complainants were not given sufficient weight in the process, and that the legal profession acted to protect its own members;” Legal Services Ombudsman, Annual Report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 2002/2003: Taking Up The Challenge at 12 Google Scholar; online: Legal Services Ombudsman http://www.olso.org/default2.asp; accessed August 7, 2003.

⁶² Guile, Robert H. “Discipline Committee” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1989 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1989) 10 at 10.Google Scholar

⁶³ Newell, David, “Complaints Statistics” Appendix to Thompson, Don, Fitzgerald, Maureen F., and Newell, David, The Disciplinary Process: Part I, Complaints (Vancouver, British Columbia: Law Society of British Columbia, 1995) 16 at 18–19.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ “Managing your Client Relations: A Key to Successful Practice” (January-February, 1999) 1 Benchers' Bulletin 10 at 10.

⁶⁵ Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct (effective November 1, 2000)Google ScholarPubMed Commentary to Rule 6.01(3); available at the Law Society of Upper Canada's website. Online: Law Society of Upper Canada http://www.lsuc.on.ca/services/RulesProfCondpage_en.jsp; accessed July 5, 2003.

⁶⁶ See, for example, Gendry, Cynthia L., “Ethics: An Attorney's Duty To Report The Professional Misconduct Of Co-Workers” (1994) 18 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 603 Google Scholar; Rabinowitz, Archie J. and Gillespie, Eric K. “Case Comment: ‘Blowing the Whistle’ and the Lawyer's Duty to Report: Wieder v. Skala ” (1994) 7(2) Can. J.L. Jur. 349.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ “Robert H. Guile, supra note 63 at 12.

⁶⁸ “Discipline” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1992 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1992) 10 at 11.

⁶⁹ There are, however, things from which a whistleblower cannot be protected. The whistleblower at the law firm of Lang Michener in Toronto, whose complaint led to the disbarment of Martin Pilzmaker, “lost his professional place–his niche in the legal establishment, his daily routine, ‘the best secretary in Ontario,’ and, of course, some of the good friends he had made over a life in the profession. They do not forgive him;” Cannon, Margaret, “The Whistle-Blower” (October, 1990) Saturday Night 36 at 45.Google Scholar The debates surrounding whistleblowing are beyond the scope of this paper. See, for example, Redden, Jim, Snitch Culture: How Citizens are Turned into the Eyes and Ears of the State (Venice, CA: Feral House, 2001).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ This requirement followed an alleged fraud where a lawyer failed to discharge mortgages resulting in claims against the Law Society's compensation fund, “expected to exceed $50 million;” Chow, Wyng, “Law Society Tightens Rules Over Real Estate Activities” Vancouver Sun (8 August 2003) G5.Google Scholar The new rules are discussed in “A Look at Current Conveyancing Issues” (May-June, 2003) 3 Benchers' Bulletin 16.

⁷¹ Rhode, supra note 9 at 159 and 162–3.

⁷² “You and Your Lawyer,” online: Law Society of British Columbia http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca; accessed June 19, 2003.

⁷³ Law Society Rules, Rule 3–5(5).

⁷⁴ “You and Your Lawyer” supra note 73.

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ Calculated from numbers of complaints from Broekman & McEwen, supra note 3 at 14 and members of the Law Society in good standing from the Law Society.

⁷⁷ Guile, David H., Q.C. “Discipline Committee” in The Law Society of British Columbia Annual Report, 1988 (Vancouver: Law Society of British Columbia, 1988) 10 at 12.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ For example, the figures prior to 1995 include all members in good standing. When the Law Society introduced a non-practising category in 1994, an increasing percentage of the Law Society's members became non-practising (from 6.5 % in 1994 to 11.4 % in 2000). Prior to 1994, some lawyers who were not practising would still pay their practice fee in order to remain a member of the Law Society. It is therefore difficult to determine a consistent denominator for comparisons before and after 1994.

⁷⁹ Figures are calculated from the Law Society's Annual Reports; however, there are some difficulties with comparing some of the specific categories from one time period to the next because the method of classifying complaints has changed over the years.

⁸⁰ “Managing your Client Relations: A Key to Successful Practice” (January-February, 1999) 1 Benchers' Bulletin 10 at 10. This is consistent with the statistics from 1989–2000; 40 % of the complaints fell into the categories listed is this article.

⁸¹ Broekman & McEwen, supra note 3 at 14–15.

⁸² Ibid. at 14–15.

⁸³ Guile, Robert H., “Let's Reduce Disputes About Fees” (March, 1990) 2 Benchers' Bulletin 2 at 2.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ “Fee Mediation Program” (November, 1983) Benchers' Bulletin 5.

⁸⁵ “Call for Fee Mediators” (July, 1989) 6 Benchers' Bulletin 6. In 1999, the Deputy Executive Director noted that the fee mediation programme “was carried out in the 1980s;” “Discipline Committee Proposes Reviving Fee Mediation” (May-June, 1999) 3 Benchers' Bulletin 6 at 6.

⁸⁶ “Clarifying Fees With Clients” (April-May, 1989) 4 Benchers' Bulletin 4.

⁸⁷ Guile, supra note 84 at 2–3.

⁸⁸ “Law Society puts Priority on Improving Complaints Practices” (May-June, 2000) Benchers' Bulletin 8.

⁸⁹ Online: Law Society of British Columbia http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/ accessed June 9, 2003.

⁹⁰ From 1981 to 1988 it had ranged from 10–18%; Broekman & McEwen supra note 3 at 14.

⁹¹ “Telephone Complaint Resolution” (January-February, 1990) 1 Benchers' Bulletin 7 at 7.

⁹² “Law Society puts Priority on Improving Complaints Practices” (May-June, 2000) 3 Benchers' Bulletin 8 at 8.

⁹³ In reintroducing the fee mediation programme, the law Society stated, “While many complaints do not ultimately merit a regulatory response from the Law Society, it is necessary for the Law Society to review each one in fulfilling its regulatory responsibility;” “Law Society puts priority,” Ibid. at 8.

⁹⁴ Unfounded means they do not require intervention because they do not involve professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming or incompetence and are “not serious enough to be considered by the Discipline or Competency Committee;” Thompson, Don, Fitzgerald, Maureen F., & Newell, David, Disciplinary Process: Part I, Complaints (Vancouver, British Columbia: Law Society of British Columbia, 1995) at 6.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ A study of complaints between 1991 and 1994 reported that complaints outside the Law Society's jurisdiction are primarily fees (complainants are told to appeal to the registrar) or lawyers' negligence (complainants are told to retain another lawyer); Thompson et al. ibid. at 7.

⁹⁶ These figures are similar to the ones in a study conducted by the Law Society for the years 1991–1994: 8 % of comp laints were referred to the Discipline Committee and 2 % to the Competency Committee; Thompson et al. ibid. at 6.

⁹⁷ Johnston, Robert, “Treasurer's Notes: How Should We Give Public Issues a Public Response” (May-June, 1994) 4 Benchers' Bulletin 2 at 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ A study in England found that “typically less than 2% of all complaints against solicitors will reach the Tribunal;” Davies, Mark R., “Solicitors, Dishonesty and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal” (1999) 6(2) International Journal of the Legal Profession 141 at 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁹ The imposition of penalties and the factors the tribunal considers are examined in greater detail in Broekman and Murdoch, supra note 12.

¹⁰⁰ Legal services are now provided by barristers and solicitors, each with their own self-governing body, as well as legal executives, licensed conveyancers and patent agents; online: Legal Services Ombudsman: http://www.olso.org Annual Report of the Legal Services Ombudsman, 2001/02 The Regulatory Maze; accessed June 8, 2004.

¹⁰¹ Seneviratne, Mary, “Consumer Complaints and the Legal Profession'. Making Self-Regulation Work?” (2000) 7:1 International Journal of the Legal Profession 39 at 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also see Paterson, Alan A., “Professionalism and the Legal Services Market” (1996) 3:1&2 International Journal of the Legal Profession 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moorhead, Richard, “Third Way Regulation? Community Legal Services Partnership” (2001) 64:4 Mod. L. Rev. 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰² Online: Legal Services Ombudsman, supra note 101 at 2.

¹⁰³ Online: Legal Services Ombudsman, supra note 101 at 7.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. at 4, 7 and 28.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. at 21–22.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. at 11.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. at 24–26.

¹⁰⁸ Legal Services Ombudsman, Annual Report of the Legal Services Ombudsman 2002/2003: Taking Up The Challenge at 7, online: Legal Services Ombudsman http://www.olso.org accessed August 7, 2003.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. at 11.

¹¹⁰ Ibid. at 13.

¹¹¹ The OLSC was created by statute in 1994, independent from the legal professions, and reports to Parliament through the Attorney General; online: Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/olscl.nsf/pages/olscwhatwedoindex; accessed August 10, 2003. It is funded by interest from lawyers' trust accounts; online: Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/olscl.nsf/pages/faq; accessed August 10, 2003.

¹¹² Some of these complaints are between solicitors; Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, Annual Report 2001–2002 at 2 and 5; online: Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/olscl.nsf/pages/paper_index; accessed Au gust 10, 2003.

¹¹³ Office of the Legal Services Ombudsman, Annual Report 2001–2002, ibid. at 11. For a study of the professions reception to these changes and other issues see Parker, Christine, “Converting the Lawyers: The Dynamics of Competition and Accountability Reform” (1997) 33:1 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parker, Christine, “Competing Images of the Legal Profession: Competing Regulatory Strategies” (1997) 25(4) Int. J. Soc. L. 385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parker, Christine, “Justifying the New South Wales Legal Profession: 1976–1997” (1997) 2:2 Newcastle L. Rev. 1 Google Scholar; Parker, supra note 5 at 122–139.

¹¹⁴ Blumenthal, Allen, “Attorney Self-Regulation, Consumer Protection, and the Future of the Legal Profession” (1993) 3:2 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ American Bar Association, California Report on the Lawyer Regulation System (June 2001) at 20 Google Scholar; online: American Bar Association http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/abareport01.pdf; accessed August 15, 2003.

¹¹⁶ Ibid.

¹¹⁷ See Levin, Leslie C., “The Emperor's Clothes and Other Tales About the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline Sanctions” (1998) 48:1 Am. U. L. Rev. 1 at 3–4Google Scholar for a discussion of the changes following the Clark Commission in 1970.

¹¹⁸ Rhode supra note 9 at 143–44.

¹¹⁹ Ibid. at 208.

¹²⁰ Ibid. at 211–12.

¹²¹ Ibid. at 212.

¹²² Freidson, supra note 1 at 179.

¹²³ Ibid. at 190.

¹²⁴ Ibid. at 181.

¹²⁵ Freidson prefers the concept “social closure” to monopoly because the former is broader than a monopoly (privileged economic position). “Social closure of professionalism is based upon competence attested to by the special educational credentials without which one is excluded from membership;” Freidson, Ibid. at 199.

¹²⁶ Ibid. at 198.

¹²⁷ Ibid. at 203.

¹²⁸ Ibid. at 216.

¹²⁹ Ibid. at 217–18. It should be noted that for the most part Freidson draws on his knowledge of the medical profession.

¹³⁰ Thompson et al., supra note 95 at 3. Although law societies have also been criticized for not doing as much to protect the public from incompetent lawyers as it does to protect the public from dishonest lawyers.; MacKenzie, supra note 46 at 24–3.

¹³¹ Thompson et al., supra note 95 at 5 and 17. This is consistent with data from the United States where approximately 90% of complaints are dismissed “because they lack probable cause or fall outside agency jurisdiction;” Rhode, supra note 9 at 159.

¹³² Kritzer, Herbert M., “The Professions are Dead, Long Live the Professions: Legal Practice in a Postprofessional World” (1999) 33:3 Law Soc'y Rev. 713 at 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³³ Law Society of British Columbia v. Siegel, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1123 (B.C.S.C).

¹³⁴ Law Society of British Columbia v. Gravelle, [2001] B.C.J. No. 1110 (B.C.C.A.); application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs (without reasons) January 10, 2002; [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 419.

¹³⁵ Law Society of British Columbia v. Lawrie, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2653 (B.C.C.A.). For an exception to this success, see Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 113.

¹³⁶ W.H. Arthurs writes, “this parrot of self-regulation is definitely deceased; it is pushing up daisies; it has joined the choir invisible; it is bereft of life; it has met its maker; it is no more; it is bleeding demised.” Arthurs, W.H., “The Dead Parrot: Does Professional Self-Regulation Exhibit Vital Signs?” (1995) 33:4 Alta L.Rev. 800 at 809.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Numbers are from the Annual Reports of the Law Society of British Columbia, 1994–2000.

¹³⁸ Numbers are from the Law Society of British Columbia's Annual Reports, 1995–2000. Although the Law Society reported disposition of complaints prior to 1995, the categories they used varied.

¹³⁹ The name of this Committee changed from Competency to Practice Standards in the 1999 Annual Report.

¹⁴⁰ Numbers are from the Law Society of British Columbia's Annual Reports, 1992–2000.

¹⁴¹ Numbers are from the Law Society of British Columbia's Annual Reports, 1989–2000.

¹⁴² Numbers are from the Annual Reports of the Law Society of British Columbia, 1989–2000.

¹⁴³ The Annual Report indicates that some of these may be matters referred for conduct review.

¹⁴⁴ This term was not used after 1992.

¹⁴⁵ These numbers were selected from tables of “Dispositions of Citations” from the Annual Reports of the Law Society of British Columbia, 1989–2000.