There is a showdown pending at the Law Society of Ontario that mirrors two opposing philosophies that one can see from watching geopolitical events around the world.
The establishment folks, whom one might loosely call the Obama or Trudeau social engineering types, who have, over time, created a large staff at the Law Society and thus a large budget, and of course, resultant large fees to the paying lawyers and paralegals in Ontario.
The newcomers, whom one might loosely call the “get back to basics and avoid social engineering” types, whom one might loosely align with some of the leading Conservatives across the globe, are concerned about one main flashpoint, and to some extent the “mission creep” that has made the Law Society so large and expensive to run.
The flashpoint is the “statement of principles” that the establishment social engineering folks have forced members to adopt.
Rather than just compel lawyers to say that they will obey the laws of the land (like the Human Rights Code) the statement would appear to force lawyers to say that they would never advocate against those principles.
Given how each generation in the 20th century thought their values were correct, one can see how the statement of principles could be dangerous, as it would prevent society, and its spokespeople (often lawyers) from advocating for change.
In any event, keep an eye on a small amount of “lay benchers’ who I gather were appointed by someone (I presume the old establishment guard a few years ago)- although the elected folks seem to be a majority of the “get back to basics” group, the election could be swung by this appointed crowd.
Reminds me of the Democratic National Committee and its “super delegates” and the Hillary Clinton v Bernie Sanders debacle and the “thumbs on the scale” by Debbie Wasserman Shulz.
We live in interesting times.