In Roby Doolittle’s latest piece, here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-inside-the-law-society-of-ontarios-decision-to-release-report-on/

She writes:

“Now, a controversy around executive pay and process was evolving into something even bigger. It has sparked fundamental questions about the extent to which the legal regulator has an obligation to the profession and the public to be transparent.”

To her I’ve said on my LinkedIn, this:

The most important question. This scandal has a huge side-benefit. Lawyers generally don’t care about the Law Society of Ontario other than to survive audits, avoid complaints, file our MARs and CPD hours. But suddenly now the bar is livid and demanding answers.

As shock in the wake of the release of the O’Connor Report gives way to fury, my colleagues have started asking questions. For example how is it that the Former Treasurer spent our fees on getting legal advice to help bypass our elected Benchers who might frown upon an exorbitant CEO raise? Why does the Law Society now want to appoint members and reduce our voice in electing fewer of our representatives? What exactly does the 6 Bencher Restaurant Working Group do? Where is our money being spent?

The Treaurer’s message says they’ll implement governance changes to avoid “this happening again.” Nobody is seriously worried the Treasurer will again personally contract with the CEO about their raise, acting alone. But with that said we don’t even know if the new Acting CEO is getting the same deal or what they’re paid.

The alarm now tho is much broader. What else has been done that was wrong or irresponsible? Is the spending frivolous? How out of touch with the lived reality of licensees is Convocation?

This level of scrutiny outside of the usual 4 year Bencher election cycle is good for healthy governance. If the Society listens to its members. If not, members will demand change.