History Cover & Text.qxp - The Advocates' Society

John Nelligan was beginning tovoice concerns over the problemsthat likely would result from theSociety's ever-increasing membership.Issues such as the problem ofaccommodation would once morecome to the fore -- but not quite yet.On the legal front, the Bench andBar Committee was active on theissue of the limits of financial jurisdictionin the County Court. It waswidely recognized that the limitneeded to be increased, but by howmuch? At one point, the Committeehad decided that $25,000 would besufficient, but a canvass of membersshowed that the majority were preparedto go as high as $30,000 oreven $35,000. Ultimately, it wasdecided that the Society's recommendationwould be for a limit of$25,000, but that this number wouldbe re-visited in a year's time.The End of Term Dinner was one tobe remembered. It featured PremierWilliam G. Davis as guest speaker,and was highlighted by the presentationof The Advocates' SocietyMedal to Brendan O'Brien, Q.C. Inhis last official address as Presidentof the Society, Ken Howie informedthe membership gathered atToronto's King Edward Hotel onJune 23, 1983 that the work of theSociety continued apace, and that"no other legal organization inCanada could boast greater dedicationto the aims of the legal professionthan this Society."Incoming President John P.Nelligan, Q.C., LSM (1983-84) inheritedan organization that had grownto 1,118 members, with 66 Associatemembers, and was fiscally soundand securely established. In short,the Society probably never had beenas well positioned to tackle the challengesof the on-coming year.tees, he gave special mention to thenewly-formed Automation andCourt Merger Committees. TheAutomation Committee was formedto deal with the arrival of the computerage. Lengthy discussions onthe advantages of computerizationwould result in $22,500 being budgetedto procure a system thatwould both meet the Society's immediateneeds and, it was hoped, notneed to be completely up-dated orreplaced two years later. The CourtMerger Committee would report onthe proposed merger of the Countyand District Courts in the TrialDivision of the Supreme Court.The Program Committee scheduleda full range of activities, from a jointmeeting with the Medico-LegalSociety in September -- the purposeof which was to present a primer onbasic human anatomy for younglawyers -- through to the SpringConvention in Kenya.At Campbell House, the Societyentered into a contract that saw afirm of architects prepare a feasibilitystudy for determining possiblerenovations to, and hence the possiblefuture function of, the building'sthen unused third-floor space.And on the Standing Committeefront, the Law Reform Committeewas preparing a report on recommendationsto the Ontario LawReform Commission regarding classactions. Past President Earl Cherniakwas the force behind a committee torepresent the Society's position onthe federal and provincial government'sinitiatives with respect to theproblem of drinking and driving,and a committee of Past Presidentswas formed to deal with the issue oftelevision in the courts.The Society journeyed into Africa forthe Spring Convention in March1984. With legal programmingarranged by Terry O'Sullivan andwith the detailed organization ofchair Bert Raphael, this turned out tobe an exciting excursion that culmi-14At the first full Director's meetingheld later that summer, Mr. Nelligandemonstrated an inclination to meetthe challenges of the organizationhead on. In his review of commitnatedin addresses to the delegatesby both the Attorney General andthe Chief Justice of Kenya.Back in Toronto, the End of TermDinner featured the RightHonourable R.G. Brian Dickson,P.C. as guest speaker.Peter Webb, Q.C. assumed leadershipof the Society in June 1984.Early on during his leadership camethe welcome news that RevenueCanada had abandoned the issue ofout-of-country convention expenses,a result that not only repudiatedthe Society's long-standing claims inthis regard, but also boded well forthe upcoming Spring Convention toNew York City.During Mr. Webb's tenure, theBoard considered whether Societymembers, and Directors in particular,should participate in competingeducational programs such as thoserun by the Law Society. While itseducational programs were animportant contributor to theSociety's financial health, it also recognizedthat competition betweenorganizations had resulted in anupgrading of standards of legaleducation and a greater variety inprogramming. This led to a discussionof the need to carefully definethe Society's unique areas ofstrength and, subsequently, to theoft-held but necessary debate on thepurposes of the Society itself.Another issue that arose at this juncturewas that of lawyers talking tothe media. The Law Society alreadyhad entered into a debate on thetopic, and the Society took the positionthat "a lawyer should not usethe news media to publicize himselfor herself and all public communicationsshould be free from circumstancesthat suggest that thelawyer's real purpose is to promotehimself or herself in comparisonwith other members of the bar." Itwas, however, understood andnoted that, in light of the Charter ofRights and Freedoms, there could or