1. See the articles by Philip Aylett, Paul Brand and W. Wesley Pue—together with the works mentioned on 1 and 135-136 of the Aylett and Pue articles respectively—in the Symposium on the History of the Legal Profession in the Spring 1987 issue of Law and History Review. See also the works of Duman, Daniel, The English and Colonial Bars in the Nineteenth Century (London: Croom Helm, 1983)Google Scholar and The Judicial Bench in England, 1727-1875: The Reshaping of the Professional Elite (London: Royal Historical Society, 1982)Google Scholar. This literature gives greater prominence to breaches of ‘etiquette’ by barristers than to ‘misconduct’ by attorneys and solicitors, although the opportunities for (and incidence of) misconduct must have been greater insofar as the lower branch of the profession was concerned.

2. Two of Baker's, G. Blaine writings best exemplify this sophistication: “Legal Education in Upper Canada 1785-1889: The Law Society as Educator,” in Flaherty, David H. (ed.), Essays in the History of Canadian Law (Volume II) (Toronto: Osgoode Society, 1983), 49Google Scholar; “The Reconstitution of Upper Canadian Legal Thought in the Late-Victorian Empire,” Law and History Review 3 (1985), 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For other recent publications dealing wholly or partly with the legal profession, see various volumes published by The Osgoode Society; Marquis, Greg, “‘A Hard Disciple of Blackstone’: David S. Kerr, 1809-1886,” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 35 (1986), 182Google Scholar; and Willis, John, A History of Dalhousie Law School (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980)Google Scholar. For recent theses, see Cole, Curtis, “‘A Learned and Honorable Body’: The Professionalization of the Ontario Bar, 1867-1929” (London: University of Western Ontario, Ph.D. Thesis, 1987)Google Scholar; and Sibenik, , “The Doorkeepers The Governance of Territorial and Alberta Lawyers 185-1928” (Calgary: The University of Calgary, M.A. Thesis, 1984)Google Scholar.

3. Louis Knafla notes that the central problem with the history of law in Canada is that “it lacks fundamental scholarship … at the centre—in the history of the courts, of the procedural and substantive law, and of the judiciary and the law profession.” Knafla, Louis A., “From Oral to Written Memory: The Common Law Tradition in Western Canada,” in Knafla, Louis A. (ed.), Law and Justice in a New Land: Essays in Western Canadian Legal History (Toronto: Carswell, 1986), 32Google Scholar.

4. See Cole, , “‘A Learned and Honorable Body,’” 227–65Google Scholar, and Orkin, Mark M., “Professional Autonomy and the Public Interest: A Study of the Law Society of Upper Canada” (Toronto: York University Doctor of Jurisprudence Thesis, 1971), 40–51Google Scholar.

5. Abel-Smith, Brian and Stevens, Robert, Lawyers and the Courts (London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1967), 20, 53-54, 212 ffGoogle Scholar; Manchester, A.H., A Modern Legal History of England and Wales, 1750-1950 (London: Butterworths, 1980), 52, 66–67Google Scholar; Carr-Saunders, A.M. and Wilson, P.A., The Professions (London: Frank Cass, 1964), 7-9, 19-29, 45Google Scholar.

6. Mack, William and Hale, William B. (eds.), Corpus Juris Volume 6 (New York: American Law Book, 1916), 580–583Google Scholar; American Digest, 1658–1896, Century Edition Volume 5 (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1898), cols. 1463-66Google Scholar; American Digest, Decennial Edition, 1897–1906 Volume 2 (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1908), 1718–19Google Scholar; Friedman, Lawrence, A History of American Law (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 561-64, 593Google Scholar; Hermann-Chroust, Anton, The Rise of the Legal Profession in America Volume 2 (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965), 154-71, 262–64Google Scholar; Gawalt, Gerald, The Promise of Power: The Emergence of the Legal Profession in Massachusetts, 1760-1840 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979), chapter 5Google Scholar; Hurst, J.W., The Growth of American Law (Boston: Little, Brown, 1950), 285–294Google Scholar.

7. Cole, , “‘A Learned and Honorable Body,” 228-33, 255Google Scholar; Orkin, , “Professional Autonomy and the Public Interest,” 40–51Google Scholar. Cole suggests that the benchers were as reluctant as the courts to discipline lawyers in the late nineteenth century.

8. Legal Professions Act, 1884, Statutes of British Columbia 1884, c. 18, s. 47Google Scholar; An Act Respecting the Barristers' Society…, Consolidated Statutes of New Brunswick 1903, c. 68, ss. 16-23Google Scholar; An Act to amend the Law Society Act, Statutes of Manitoba 1915, c. 37, s. 9Google Scholar; The Legal Profession Act, Statutes of Saskatchewan 1907, c. 19, s. 46 [Hereinafter S.S.]Google Scholar; An Act to amend the Legal Profession Act, S.S. 1919–1920, c. 44, s. 4Google Scholar; An Act to amend the Legal Profession Act, S.S. 1923, c. 49, s. 3Google Scholar.

9. The population of the Territories/Alberta in this period was as follows: 74,000 (1895), 173,000 (1898), 236,000 (1907), 588,000 (1921) and 658,000 (1928). Statistics Canada, Estimates of Population for Canada and the Provinces, June 1, 1983 (November, 1983), 12Google Scholar.

10. Thomas, L.H., The Struggle for Responsible Government in the North-West Territories, 1870-97 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Owram, Douglas R. (ed.), The Formation of Alberta: A Documentary History (Calgary: Historical Society of Alberta, 1979), IntroductionGoogle Scholar; Friesen, Gerald, The Canadian Prairies: A History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

11. See Friesen, , The Canadian Prairies, 239Google Scholar on the state of public finances in the 1890s and early 1900s.

12. An Ordinance Respecting the Legal Profession, Ordinances of the North-West Territories 1885, no. 10, s. 2 [Hereinafter Ord.]; The Legal Profession Ordinance, Ord. 1898, no. 21, s. 2Google Scholar; Sibenik, , “The Doorkeepers,” 21–25Google Scholar. A discrete discipline committee was created in 1914. Law Society of Alberta, “Minutes,” January 1914, 3. [Hereinafter LSA, “Minutes”.]

13. Statutes of Alberta 1907, c. 20 [Hereinafter S.A.].

14. Sibenik, , “The Doorkeepers,” 70 (note 4), 91, 199Google Scholar.

15. An Act further to amend the law respecting the North-West Territories, Statutes of Canada 1886, c. 25, s. 4; The Supreme Court Act, S.A. 1907, c. 3, ss. 30, 33–34Google Scholar; The Statute Law Amendment Act of 1913, S.A. 1913 (1st session), c. 9, s. 38Google Scholar; The Judicature Act, S.A. 1919, c. 3, ss. 6, 30Google Scholar.

16. Ord. 1885, no. 10, s. 11; An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 10 of 1885 …, Ord. 1887, no. 16, s. 1Google Scholar. Many of the earlier ordinances do not make clear that this was a self-help remedy normally initiated by a complainant against a lawyer. See An Act to Amend and Consolidate as Amended the Law Respecting the Legal Profession, Ord. 1895, no. 9, s. 15Google Scholar; Re Harris and Burne (1897), 3 Territories Law Reports, 70–72Google Scholar (en banc) [Hereinafter T.L.R.]. But see In Re Harris (No. 2) (1898), 3 T.L.R., 105–112 (en banc)Google Scholar. A struck member was removed from the roll for an indefinite period of time, whereas a suspended member was removed for a limited period and then automatically restored to the roll.

17. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 41 of the Revised Ordinances …, Ord. 1889, no. 25, ss. 6, 7Google Scholar; An Ordinance to Amend the Revised Ordinance Respecting the Legal Profession, Ord. 1890, no. 19, ss. 4, 5Google Scholar; Ord. 1895, no. 9, ss. 15, 16; An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 9 of 1895…, Ord. 1896, no. 5, ss. 2, 3Google Scholar; The Ordinances Amendment Ordinance, Ord. 1897, no. 38, s. 25(10)Google Scholar. The Attorney General's function had been handled by the Clerk of the Assembly, and before him by the Lieutenant-Governor. Ord. 1885, no. 10, s. 11; Ord. 1889, no. 25, s. 8.

18. Ord. 1898, no. 21, ss. 41-43. The ordinances after 1888 (except for a 1904 ordinance) no longer mention criminal convictions. An Act to amend Chapter 51 of The Consolidated Ordinances 1898 …, Ord. 1904 c. 4, s. 3Google Scholar.

19. Law Society of the North-West Territories, “Minutes,” January 1904,69 [Hereinafter LSNWT, “Minutes”]; ibid., January 1905, 94; ibid., July 1906, 130; LSA, “Minutes,” July 1908, 50; ibid., January 1909, 68; Attorney General's Department to O.M. Biggar, January 12, 1909, Provincial Archives of Alberta, Attorney General's Records, Ace. No. 66.166, box 11, file 201c. [Hereinafter AG, PAA, and AGR respectively.] See also Law Society of Alberta, Summary of Convocation, July 1914Google Scholar, 6 for another reference to tension between the Society and the judiciary over professional discipline. [Hereinafter LSA, Summ. Con.]

20. Riste to AG, August 8, 1920; AG to Adams, August 10, 1920 and September 3, 1920; and Adams to AG, September 29, 1920, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2720b.

21. Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (Ottawa, 1940), Book I, 105Google Scholar [Hereinafter Rowell-Sirois Report, I]; Bates, Stewart, Financial History of Canadian Governments (Ottawa: Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, 1939), 259, 262, 267, 268Google Scholar.

22. “Memo,” August 13, 1920; AG to Adams, October 2, 1920; and Adams to AG, October 4, 1920, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2720b.

23. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1921, 20-21, 90, 135. Convocation sought the same power that the medical governing authority had over doctors. Ibid., 135. The Attorney General also promised to consider the possibility of laying criminal charges in clearcut cases (notwithstanding the fact that judicial proceedings to discipline a lawyer were pending) and of granting the Society the power to tax solicitors' costs. Ibid., January 1921, 21, 90.

24. It could investigate “any member … convicted of an indictable offence, or who is known or reported to be guilty of or who is charged with dishonourable, disgraceful, infamous, unbecoming, improper or criminal conduct, professional or otherwise….” The Statute Law Amendment Act, S.A. 1921, c. 5, s. 7 [s. 33(2)].

25. S.A. 1921, c. 5, s. 7. The hearings could also be in camera. LSA, “Minutes,” July 1922, 107.

26. Ibid., January 1923, 58; ibid., July 1923, 20; ibid., January 1924, 39; ibid., March 1924, agenda item V after 13; ibid., September 1924, 9.

27. Ibid., March 1924, 5-7, 32; ibid., July 1921, 125-126; ibid., January 1922, 115, 123. The court did not issue written reasons for its decision; hence the reliance on the Society's Minutes.

28. Ibid., March 1924, 8-9; ibid., 3-4 of agenda item III after 13. Bennett, unlike the others, wanted only a minimal number of amendments. Ibid.

29. It received Royal Assent April 12. The Legal Profession Act Amendment Act, 1924, S.A. 1924, c. 19Google Scholar.

30. The proscribed conduct was: conduct unbecoming a barrister or solicitor, misconduct for which the English superior courts could discipline, a breach of the Legal Profession Act (or the Society's rules and regulations) and a conviction for an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more. Ibid., s. 2.

31. Ibid., s. 2.

32. LSA, “Minutes,” April 1924, 11.

33. Ibid., March 1924,4, 5-12 of agenda item III after 13.

34. In Re V., a Solicitor, (1924), 20 Alberta Law Reports 585, 586-87 (Appellate Division). [Hereinafter A.L.R. and A.D. respectively.]

35. Ibid., 585, 586. He also objected to the various proceedings he was being subjected to. He contended that the District Court should have accepted a plea of res judicata to the theft charge because the Society had already imposed a penalty on him. More importantly, he contended that since the District Court had in fact convicted him, the Society could not now take disciplinary proceedings against him. LSA, “Minutes,” March 1924, 9-10 of agenda item III after 13. Convocation discussed the implications of the plea at ibid., March 1924, 12-13.

36. In Re V., a Solicitor, (1924), 20 A.L.R. 585, 585-96 (A.D.); LSA, “Minutes,” September 1924, 31-34. The written reasons were issued in November.

37. In Re V., a Solicitor, (1924), 20 A.L.R. 591 (A.D.).

38. LSA, “Minutes,” March 1924, 3 of agenda item III after 13.

39. The case of C.F. Harris is also instructive. The Society had struck Harris in 1923 for a defalcation. Harris had participated in the initial hearings before the discipline committee. He did not appeal Convocation's subsequent striking, but he asked Convocation several times between 1924 and 1930 to reinstate him. The requests were refused. In 1928—three years after he learned that the committee that had presided over his case had the ‘Varley’ defect—he sued the Society for wrongfully striking him He asked for damages and a declaration restoring him. At his 1935 trial Chief Justice Simmons held that the striking was void due to the ‘Varley’ defect. He granted the declaration and $1,500 in damages. The Appellate Division overturned the decision. It felt that Convocation's decision to strike was not void, but only voidable and, therefore, valid until set aside. It felt that Harris's decision not to appeal amounted to acquiescence similar to Varley's eleven years earlier. It also felt that courts should not interere lightly with the decisions of tribunals created by the legislature where there was no want of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial decision (except for the damage award) on the grounds that Convocation's decision was void and that Harris's acquiescence was irrelevant. Harris v. Law Society of Alberta, [1936] Supreme Court Reports 88 reversing [1935] 1 Western Weekly Reports 735 (A.D.). The original court records are at PAA, Lethbridge Court Records [Supreme Court Civil], 1928, box 60, file 5943.

40. LSA, “Minutes, January 1925, 12-13, 30, 41. The reference was no doubt to that year's developments. This was not the first time that the issue of the publication of the names of disciplined members had arisen. In 1917 Alexander Knox asked Convocation to order that Justice Stuart's reasons for disciplining him not be published in the A.L.R.s. Convocation declined to do so, “particularly in view of the instructive disquisition … on ethics and philosophy and Christian charity” in the judgment. Ibid., July 1917, 104. However, it does not appear that Knox was the subject of a case reported in the A.L.R.s for that year. But see In Re Knox; A Solicitor, (1914), 7 A.L.R. 409 (A.D.) The names of those struck or suspended first appear in the published Summaries of the Society in 1922.

41. LSA, “Minutes,” January, 1925, 12-13, 30, 41; ibid., July 1925, 5.

42. Ibid., January 1925, 30-31, 40; The Legal Profession Act Amendment Act, 1925, S.A. 1925, c. 13, s. 5 [s. 33b]. The original motion at the general meeting had suggested that the onus be reversed if the member had received trust funds. The motion that carried added another precondition: the member must have failed to account for the funds. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1925, 30-31, 40. On a related matter that had sparked a controversy at the general meeting, Convocation agreed to discontinue the practice of calling upon the member complained against to give evidence. Ibid., July 1925, 5.

43. Ibid., January 1925, 39-40; SA. 1925, c. 13, s. 5 [s. 33a].

44. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1925, 39; S.A. 1925, c. 13, s. 5 [s. 33c]. Where there had been court hearings, Convocation had been insisting on the recovery of its costs against either the member complained against or (after 1920) the complainant. LSA, “Minutes,” July 1912, 13; ibid., July 1920, 22.

45. An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 9 of 1895 …, Ord. 1897, no. 4, s. 1 (or no. 38, s. 25(11))Google Scholar; see various documents at Saskatchewan Archives Board (Saskatoon), AGR, file 659, items 2-4, 8-12, 14, 17-18. [Hereinafter SAB(S).] The aggrieved client, his legal counsel and the Attorney General were given notice of the application. Ibid. It appears that the ordinance was passed due to uncertainty over jurisdiction to reinstate and over the criteria of reinstatement.

46. Except that notice of the reinstatement proceedings now went to the Society instead of the Attorney General. Ord. 1898, no. 21, s. 45; S.A. 1907, c. 20, s. 56.

47. S.A. 1921, c. 5, s. 7 [s. 33(4)]; S.A. 1924, c. 19, s. 2 [s. 32(11)]; The Legal Profession Act Amendment Act, 1926, S.A. 1926, c. 18, ss. 3, 5Google Scholar.

48. LSA, “Minutes,” February 1925, 12; ibid., July 1925, 29-30.

49. In Re Blaylock, A Solicitor, (1914), 7 A.L.R., 163-66 (en banc).

50. Ibid.

52. In Re V., a Solicitor, (1924), 20 A.L.R., 592-596 (A.D.). Justice Beck, who had dissented from the other members of the Appellate Division, wanted Varley restored, provided that he agreed to abide by a number of conditions satisfactory to Convocation.

53. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1925, 50.

54. Bowker, W.F., “The Honourable Horace Harvey, Chief Justice of Alberta,” Canadian Bar Review, 32 (1954), 1131–1132Google Scholar; Law Society of Alberta, Summary of the General Meeting, January 1927, 1. [Hereinafter LSA, Summ. Gen. Mtg.] For a history of Harris's disciplinary problems, see the cases cited in Note 17 and the following decisions: Re Harris, (1906), 3 Western Law Reporter 167 (en banc) [Hereinafter W.L.R.]; In Re C.F. Harris, Barrister and Solicitor, (1910), 2 A.L.R. 503 (en banc); In Re Harris, A Solicitor, (1911), 7 A.L.R. 287 (en bane); In Re Harris (1914), 7 A.L.R. 272 (en banc). Bowker suggests that Chief Justice Harvey applied a stricter set of criteria with respect to reinstatement than his fellow justices, but the implication of practically every reported decision on the disciplining of Territorial and Alberta lawyers is that the Territorial and Alberta Societies would have liked the courts to be even stricter on all aspects of professional discipline within the purview of the courts.

54. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1926, 29-30; ibid., January 1927, 2.

55. Ibid., 157-163.

56. Ibid., July 1927, 16.

57. Ibid., January 1928, 4-5.

58. This included “conduct unbecoming,” defined (for the first time) as “any matter, conduct or thing that in the judgment of the benchers or of any such [investigating] committee is such as to be inimical to the best interests of the public or the profession. …” The Legal Profession Act Amendment Act, 1928, S.A. 1928, c. 19, s. 4Google Scholar [s. 32 (3)]. The amendments also stated that a member's failure to comply with a direction of the committee was deemed to be conduct unbecoming; that rendering an excessive bill could be conduct unbecoming; and that convocation could discipline a member convicted of a criminal offence. Ibid., s. 4 [s. 32(9)(17)(23)]. On the matter of criminal convictions, compare ibid., s. 4 [32(17)] with S.A. 1921, c. 5, s. 7 [s. 32(7)] and S.A. 1924, c. 19, s. 2 [s. 33].

59. S.A. 1928, c. 19, ss. 4 [s. 32(10)(12)(13)(15)(22)], 8.

60. Rowell-Sirois Report, I, 109–111Google Scholar; Friesen, , The Canadian Prairies, 334 ff, 348, 364ffGoogle Scholar; Canadian Law Times, 1919, 539Google Scholar. [Hereinafter CLT.]

61. CLT, 1919, 619, 702–705Google Scholar; CLT, 1921, 379–384Google Scholar.

62. The statistics in this section have been generated from the minutes of the law societies and from the records of the Attorneys General Departments.

63. The non-pecuniary complaints were: non-communication, negligence, unauthorized practice of law and offences against the administration of justice.

64. Ord. 1885, no. 10, s. 11.

65. See documents at SAB(S), AGR, file 659, items 5-6, 17-18. Since there was a provision on discipline in the first legal profession ordinance in 1885, it is likely that this was not the first complaint that reached the courts or the Attorney General's Department.

66. It is also noteworthy that there was a high ratio of lawyers per general population in times of recession. In 1914 and 1915, for every 100,000 Albertans there were 112 and 117 lawyers respectively. In each of 1922 and 1923 the number was 104. In the 1908-1912 and 1926-1928 periods—years of economic prosperity—numbers ranged from 62 to 98. Sibenik, , “The Doorkeepers,” 199Google Scholar.

67. LSNWT, “Minutes,” January 1905, 93-94; ibid., October 1905, 110-112.

68. Ord. 1889, no. 25, ss. 10-26.

69. William Ashworth to AG, September 11, 1909 and AG to Ashworth, September 18, 1909, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 66.166, box 11, file 201c. The best collection of complaints is at PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 66.166, box 10, files 201a, 201b and PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 75.126, box 145, item 2720a.

70. G.E. Boughton to AG, January 8, 1916 and AG to Boughton, February 14, 1916, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 66.166, box 10, file 201a.

71. Gorham to AG, January 22, 1914 and AG to Gorham, January 25, 1914, ibid., box 10, file 201b. The response was frequently used after passage of the 1921 amendments: eg. AG to E.D. Thomas, April 20, 1921 and May 31, 1921, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2721b.

72. Boissevain to AG, June 4, 1921 and AG to Boissevain, June 9, 1921, ibid. When the Department could not determine whether a complaint over the settlement of a civil action amounted to overbilling or negligence, the complainant was told to tax the bill (if the former) or to sue (if the latter). W. Williams to AG, September 30, 1923 and AG to Williams, October 3,1923, ibid., box 145, file 2722a.

73. Stewart to AG, August 27, 1924 and AG to Stewart, September 2, 1924, ibid.

74. Bradley to AG, May 13, 1918, ibid., box 145, file 2720a.

75. Ibid.

76. AG to Bradley, May 18, 1918, ibid. There is no further correspondence and the Minutes of the Alberta Society do not indicate how the Discipline Committee dealt with the complaint. LSA, “Minutes,” July 1918, 35.

77. Welch to AG, July 23, 1917; AG to Barnett, July 25, 1917; and Barnett to AG, July 31, 1917, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 66.166, box 10, file 201a. The Department wrote Welch that it was satisfied with his lawyer's reputation and conduct, but Welch replied that a three-year delay in the collection of his debts was unsatisfactory. AG to Welch, August 1, 1917 and Welch to AG, August 11, 1917, ibid.

78. L. Bierinckx to AG, October 24, 1922; AG to Auxier and Brennan, November 2, 1922, December 8, 1922, and December 19, 1922; and Auxier and Brennan to AG, November 9, 1922 and December 11, 1922, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2722b.

79. Eckert to AG, November 11, 1922, November 26, 1922 and December 19,1922 and AG to Eckert, November 17, 1922, ibid.; AG to Adams, December 4, 1922 and Adams to AG, February 19, 1923, ibid.

80. AG to Adams, February 16, 1915 (2 letters) and February 20, 1915; and Adams to AG, February 19, 1915, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 66.166, box 10, file 201b.

81. LSA, Summ. Con., July 1923, 5, 7-8.

82. Ibid., January 1928, 8.

83. Friesen, , The Canadian Prairies, 239Google Scholar; Mackintosh, W.A., The Economic Background of Dominion-Provincial Relations (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1969), 71–75Google Scholar; Regehr, T.D., “Bankers and Farmers in Western Canada, 1900-1939,” in Foster, John E. (ed.), The Developing West (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1983), 311Google Scholar.

84. See the voluminous correspondence at PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 146, file 2725a. The complaints were written in French, translations of which are on file.

85. Girard to AG, February 16, 1922, ibid.

86. See the circular, March 5, 1922, ibid.; LSA, “Minutes,” July 1922, 18.

87. AG to Honore Ouellette, March 11, 1922, PAA, AGR, Ace. No. 75.126, box 146, file 2725a.

88. LSA, “Minutes,” July 1922, 17. Similarly, Louis Gagnon of Lafond had made disparaging remarks against the firm and then retracted them. He blamed the Commissioner of Oaths, LaRue and his own illiteracy for making the initial allegations. See the sworn affidavits, March 27, 1922 and May 1, 1922, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2721a.

89. LSA “Minutes,” July 1922, 18.

90. Ibid.

91. See the Society's report, July 4, 1922, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2722b; Mailloux to Adams, June 24, 1922, ibid., box 145, file 2721a.

92. In the 1920s members of the Legislative Assembly [Hereinafter MLAs] were mainly farmers, whereas their predecessors had business or professional backgrounds. In 1887 there were 16 members of the Territorial Council, of which 5 were businessmen, 3 were farmers, and 1 was a lawyer. In 1898 the corresponding figures for the Territorial Assembly were 29, 11, 6 and 2. In the 1908 Alberta Legislature, they were 25, 10, 6 and 4. In 1918 they were 58, 18, 7 and 7. In 1928 they were 60, 7, 35, and 7. See generally The Canadian Parliamentary Companion/Guide (Ottawa, 1887, 1898, 1907, 1918, 1928)Google Scholar.

93. The Canadian Parliamentary Guide, 1928, 351; LSA, “Minutes,” July 1926, 6-7. One lawyer's concern that the rulings of the proposed board would not be subject to judicial review is ironic: many of the amendments to the Legal Profession Act increasing the Society's disciplinary powers in the latter half of the 1920s actually restricted judicial review. Ibid; S.A. 1926, c. 18, s. 3; S.A. 1928, c. 19, ss. 4 [s. 32 (15)], 8 [s. 53].

94. LSA, “Minutes,” January 1917, 78.

95. Adams to Begg, March 9, 1925 and AG to Adams, March 13, 1925, PAA, AGR, Acc. No. 75.126, box 145, file 2723.

96. LSA, “Minutes,” July 1926, 7.

97. Ibid. Convocation felt it was “not workable and would defeat its own objects….” The Minutes give no further indication of the discussion leading to the decision.

98. Ibid., January 1927, 9, 17-18, 103.

99. Ibid., July 1927, 20.

100. Brownlee to Bown, June 22, 1928, PAA, Premiers Papers, Acc. No. 69.289, roll 11, file 112.

101. Ibid.

102. Ibid.; Adams to Brownlee, July 10, 1928, ibid.; LSA, “Minutes,” July 1928, 19; Adams to AG, July 10 and 26, 1928 and Brownlee to Adams, July 28, 1928, PAA, Premier Papers, Acc. No. 69.289, roll 11, file 112.

103. See generally Auerbach, Jerold S., Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Larson, Magali S., The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

104. Sibenik, , “The Doorkeepers,” 86-132, 170–180Google Scholar.