Society's further submissions from November 2012 - The Advocates ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TAS Submissions Respecting theFinal Report of the LSUC’s Articling Task Force(c) Reduce the length of the LPP by eliminating the proposed four month (17 week) cooperativework placement component; and(d) Include a commitment of the profession to the mentoring of lawyers during their first yearof practice with defined milestones and reporting to the LSUC as further approved byConvocation.Continuing Hardship for Candidates Without Articling Placements4. The LSUC’s Articling Task Force was established in June, 2011 to study the issues relating to thearticling requirement, including the increasing number of unplaced candidates. In theapproximately 18 months since that task force was established, the crisis has worsened and thenumber of candidates who are unable to find articling jobs and are adversely affected by the crisishas increased significantly.5. The Final Report informs us that these candidates will remain without relief in the form ofabridgment or exemption of this licensing requirement before the pilot project is implemented. TheFinal Report does not recommend the waiving of articles as a licensing condition on the ground thatit would be inconsistent and contrary to the public interest to license these hundreds of candidateswithout such transitional training.6. Accordingly, until the actual implementation of the pilot project, articling as a mandatory licensingrequirement remains a barrier to entry to the profession for hundreds of candidates who haveobtained law degrees from accredited institutions and may have otherwise demonstrated theirprofessional competency by passing the bar admission examinations set by the LSUC.7. Those candidates who are unable to find articling positions will continue to face this barrier to entryuntil the completion of the first LPP which, under the motion proposed in the Final Report, will nottake place until the spring or summer of 2015 at the earliest, with no other form of relief for thesecandidate in that interim period.8. In TAS’s view, this is simply too long a period for these candidates to wait for relief. This isparticularly so in circumstances where we as a profession must acknowledge that these candidatesare being denied entry to Ontario practice because of our own inability to provide the articlingpositions necessary to meet this current mandatory licensing requirement. Any unnecessary delay inproviding relief to these candidates is unfair and inequitable.9. TAS has earlier submitted that any artificial barriers to entry that are imposed by market conditionsthat affect existing law firms and the number of articling placements must be rejected. It is TAS’sposition that fairness dictates that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to demonstrate theability to meet all licensing requirements and that a licensing process barrier imposed by theshortage of articling positions is a fundamental access to justice issue.—3—
TAS Submissions Respecting theFinal Report of the LSUC’s Articling Task ForceElimination of Cooperative Work Placement Component of LPP10. From its review of the Final Report, TAS believes that the cooperative work placement componentof the proposed LPP may be a significant impediment to getting the project underway. The absenceof an adequate number of cooperative work placements for the LPP candidates -- and the potentialfor further delay in the implementation of the LPP for that reason -- appears to pose a significantimpediment to the commencement of the LPP as well as adding significantly to its costs.11. While the Final Report acknowledges that it is within the LSUC’s expertise to establish the standardsfor the LPP, as well as its system-wide testing and project assessment, it is clear that the Final Reportdoes not recommend that the LSUC actually play any role in LPP candidate training. If the LSUC didso, for at least part of the project, TAS believes that it would undoubtedly assist in the earlierimplementation of the project.12. TAS is advised in the Final Report that the transitional training competencies will be taught by a thirdparty provider, the program(s) will be implemented in the 2014-2015 licensing year, and that it isestimated that approximately 400 candidates will be required to take the LPP at that time, based onthe pattern of increase in candidates seeking entry to the licensing process and the ever-increasingshortage of articling positions available for them.13. The RFP bidders are asked not only to design the classroom setting training course, that is expectedto be four months in length, but also to include, as an essential component of the LPP, an additionalfour month (17 week) cooperative work placement for each LPP candidate.14. No such cooperative work program exists at present to TAS’s knowledge and no suggestions aremade in the Final Report where such cooperative work placements can be found that providesettings that replicate the “experiential opportunities” that are provided by a good articlingplacement.15. It is difficult to imagine that any service provider could be ready to provide that cooperative workplacement component by next summer. But it is anticipated by TAS that an experienced serviceprovider could be ready to provide classroom training by next summer for the candidates whocannot find articling positions. TAS also questions the willingness and ability of law firms to absorbshort-term cooperative students (particularly if they are also hiring articling students, therebycreating an overt two-tier system within some firms) and to give them meaningful hands-onexperience.Early Assessment of Project16. The Final Report proposes that the formal review of the pilot project shall only commence in thefinal year of the proposed five year project, with an assessment report to Convocation within thatyear, and with the continuation of the pilot project thereafter until Convocation determines that thepilot project should end, become permanent or result in a different approach. TAS sees no reasonfor delay in the critical assessment process.—4—
Page 1 and 2: The Advocates’ SocietyPROMOTING E
Page 3: TAS Submissions Respecting theFinal
Page 8 and 9: TAS Recommendations for theProposed
Page 10: TAS Recommendations for theProposed

Society's further submissions from November 2012 - The Advocates ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?