The Law Society of Alberta has voted in favour of keeping a requirement for its members to complete a course on Indigenous history and culture. Almost 3,500 lawyers voted on the motion, which would have struck down the society's right to require such courses.JASON FRANSON/The Canadian Press
A clear majority of Alberta lawyers voted Monday to uphold a rule set by their governing body that mandates a professional development course on Indigenous culture and history.
Nearly 4,000 lawyers, who are active members of the Law Society of Alberta, attended a virtual meeting to debate a resolution to do away with Rule 67.4, which allows the society’s board to prescribe further education. A free, five-hour training module called “The Path: Your Journey Through Indigenous Canada” is the only education currently required under that rule.
The motion was defeated 2,609 to 864, with 75 per cent of voters against repealing the rule.
The meeting was called after 51 of the province’s 11,100 active lawyers signed a petition to axe the requirement. The group argued the law society should not have the power to mandate “cultural, political or ideological education” and that the regulation “diminishes and hinders professional autonomy.”
Hadley Friedland, one of the lawyers who fought back against the petition, said it’s a good day for the legal profession in Alberta.
“It signals that the vast majority of lawyers in Alberta recognize that understanding Canadian legal history and the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is important for reconciliation, but it’s also important for our professional competence and ethics,” she said.
Dr. Friedland was among a small group of lawyers who helped gather more than 400 signatures from active law society members in support of the education requirement ahead of Monday’s meeting.
An hour was set aside for debate during the special meeting with members granted two minutes each to argue for or against the requirement. Some participants argued the rule was an overreach by the law society, while one member went so far as to compare it to indoctrination. Lawyers who argued to uphold the rule said it was a benefit to the profession and public interest.
The course was introduced in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, one of which is that lawyers should receive appropriate training on Indigenous history. The training is Alberta-specific and covers a range of topics, including reconciliation and Canada’s current legal and constitutional relationship with Indigenous peoples.
Lawyers risk suspension if it is not completed.
Indigenous lawyer Koren Lightning-Earle said the strong show of support from her colleagues on Monday to maintain the Indigenous education requirement was moving. She said work is not done to expunge negative views from the profession but that this is a positive step forward.
“It signals that they value the TRC calls to action and they value this education and it’s important to them and that we have an obligation to take on those calls to action,” Ms. Lightning-Earle said. “This really is hopeful for Indigenous students who are going into this profession that it is a safe place for them.”
Roger Song, one of the lawyers who put forward the petition to challenge the rule, declined to comment when contacted by The Globe and Mail. Lawyer Benjamin Ferland, who co-wrote a letter with Mr. Song in July calling for members to oppose the rule, did not respond to a request for comment.
In the letter, they said opposition to the rule was not rooted in a “belief that understanding Indigenous culture is unimportant.”
The provincial law society, which has been operating as an independent regulator since 1907, is governed by a board with 24 members known as Benchers. Prior to the meeting, the board had advocated for members to maintain the rule in the interest of preserving the society’s right to self-regulation.
Benchers, in a statement on Monday, said that the level of engagement was unprecedented and reflects well on the profession.
“We have always understood that there is a balance to achieve between setting standards of competence to protect the public interest and allowing lawyers to choose their own continuing professional development,” Benchers said.
“The flexibility granted in Rule 67.4 is critically important so that we can thoughtfully consider whether specific education courses are necessary to protect and advance the public interest.”
Alanna Smith