– well, those were the votes that were successfully cast anyway
Here is the article by Jessica Mach on September 18, 2025 in Law Times
Licensees pass motion asking LSO to itemize
total costs of CEO pay scandal, but vote is not
binding
An LSO bylaw says ‘a motion carried at a meeting of members’ is not binding on the regulator’s board
BY Jessica Mach 18 Sep 2025 Share
Law Society of Ontario licensees passed a motion Thursday evening asking the legal regulator to disclose how much money it’s spent on a controversial pay increase for former chief executive officer Diana Miles.
Introduced at the LSO’s annual general meeting of the regulator’s members, which include lawyers and paralegals across the province, the motion was approved by 101 licensees. Twenty-two licensees voted against the motion, while another nine abstained.
LSO Treasurer Peter Wardle said that, in accordance with one of the regulator’s bylaws, the motion’s results will be communicated to Convocation when it meets next week.
Section 42 of Bylaw 2 requires Convocation to consider the motion within six months of the annual general meeting.
It also stipulates that any motion “carried at a meeting of members is not binding on Convocation.”
Asked by an unnamed licensee whether Convocation “may refuse to release the information as set out and approved at this meeting,” Wardle answered by repeating the rules set out in the bylaw.
Thursday’s vote occurred amid a slew of technical difficulties on the LSO’s webcast of the annual general meeting, during which numerous licensees who asked to speak about the motion could not unmute themselves. This included Anita Szigeti, who filed the motion with the LSO in August. The seconder of the motion, Maya Shukairy, had to speak in Szigeti’s place.
“The motion asks you to tell us what you’ve done with our money,” Shukairy said, reading Szigeti’s planned speech aloud. “Specifically, what the CEO salary scandal… has really cost us.”
Szigeti’s speech said that while the LSO’s primary function is protecting the public, it also has other mandates. The lawyer listed challenges facing the legal profession, including a mental health crisis, unemployment, young women leaving the criminal defence bar, and insufficient legal aid funding.
“Those of us who work in social justice – mostly or exclusively on legal aid – are already donating our time to serve vulnerable people at the expense of our families and struggling to pay the bills,” Shukairy read. “There’s so much that the law society could be doing to help us, much of which would have the side benefit of improving services and minimizing risk to the public.”
Instead, she continued, the LSO is “focused on imaginary problems that preoccupy only the rich and privileged, like how to get another few $100,000 into the hands of the CEO who is demanding more money to manage the stresses of her position.”
Szigeti’s speech pointed to the crisis communications firm that the LSO reportedly hired to handle the public fallout of the pay controversy this spring. The LSO “didn’t really need a PR firm to address the scandal effectively, because 77,000 lawyers and paralegals gave you free image management advice when the CEO scandal broke,” Shukairy read. “We all clearly and repeatedly identified what you need to do to try to re-establish some trust and confidence in the law society, and that is being transparent and accountable.”
The LSO later opened the floor to licensees to discuss Szigeti’s motion. One lawyer said that while he was sympathetic to the motion, he would not support it as written.
Noting that many end-of-employment agreements include confidentiality provisions – the violation of which could incur penalties – the lawyer said he disagreed with the motion’s demand that the LSO “individually itemized” its expenses related to the pay scandal. Miles has since departed the LSO.
“My question is, am I correct in my presumption that if we were to comply with the part of the motion to individually itemize all of the things that follow, would that be in violation of any of the agreements that were signed with any of the individuals that are named, resulting in the law society becoming responsible for additional costs?” the lawyer asked. “I don’t plan to support the motion.”
Other licensees voiced their support of the motion, with several criticizing the webcast’s technical issues.
“Let me echo some of the comments about the appalling lack of technical sophistication and you putting on the AGM the way it is,” said Cecil Lyon, a lawyer. “This is the most arcane way of doing it I’ve ever seen.”
Following the vote, Wardle and acting CEO Priya Bhatia took general questions from licensees. The first two questions asked where the 2024 costs associated with Miles’ pay hike were reflected in the LSO’s recently published annual report.
Wardle responded that the question was “within the ambit of the motion that just carried.
“Convocation will be considering that issue when it deals with the motion,” he added.
Another licensee asked whether “any provisions in any agreements” would bar the LSO from releasing the information stipulated in Szigeti’s motion.
“The answer to that question is that the motion that has now been approved will go to Convocation for consideration, and that includes the part of the motion that deals with Ms. Miles’ compensation,” Wardle said.
“So Convocation will have to consider all of that information in deciding what to do about the motion.”
The controversy around Miles’ pay emerged in February, when news broke that the LSO had hired a former Ontario judge to investigate the circumstances of an employment contract that raised her base salary to nearly $1 million from just under $600,000. Convocation did not learn about the raise until months later, and Bhatia replaced Miles in March.
Convocation will next meet on Sept. 25.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify that Shukairy was reading Szigeti’s speech aloud, rather than speaking in her own words.
anitaszigeti 