Tending the Bar: The Good Character Requirement for Law Society Admission

Abstract

LL.B. (Toronto); LL.M. (Yale); Faculty of Law, University of Calgary. 1. I would like to extend particular thanks to Dalhousie Law School for inviting me to present this paper as the Wickwire Lecture in legal ethics, to Mike Bolitho for his research support, and to Sara Bagg for her long conversations about virtue ethics and the character requirement. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the last four years of legal ethics classes at the University of Calgary whose lively engagement with the question of whether character is the source of ethical behaviour significantly expanded my own thinking on this question. Any errors are, of course, my own. Virtue ethicsthe relevance of character Social psychologythe relevance of circumstances Reasserting character 3. The definition of good character, the standards used to assess character, and the application of those standards in particular cases 4. Conclusion IV. Fixing the good character requirement Conclusion 7. The most important American article on the good character requirement is the seminal piece by Deborah L. Rhode, "Moral Character as a Professional Credential" (1985) 94 Yale L.J. 491. The debt which I owe Professor Rhode's work is enormous, despite the difference in the conclusion which I reach with respect to the good character requirement. 8. MacKenzie, supra note 4 at 23-3. 97. MacKenzie, supra note 4 at 23-12. 98. Rhode, supra note 7 at 496.

Prescribing Outside-Work Behavior: Moral Approaches, Principles, and Guidelines

“…The Good Competences Approach, also called "the good character requirement" by Woolley (2007), focuses on the competences or character employees show outside work and not on the outside-work circumstances as the predictor of unethical behavior at work. When employees display a lack of a competence outside work and this competence is relevant for their work, this is evidence that they are less fit or even unfit to perform their work; this then allows or even requires employers to interfere.…”

The Questionable Character of the Bar's Character and Fitness Inquiry

“…Today, the stated purpose of the good character requirement is to protect both the public and the administration of justice by ensuring that only individuals who possess the requisite character and fitness are admitted to the bar (NCBE and ABA 2013, vii). Theorists also believe that the character inquiry serves to bolster the legal profession's reputation with the public and to maintain its status and prerogatives as a profession (Rhode 1985; Abel 1989; Cunningham 1992; Woolley 2007).…”

Social media and social change lawyering: influencing change and silencing dissent

“…An individual must be honest and must disclose any good character issues at the time of applying (Law Society, n.d-a). This process is not very transparent, thereby calling into question its legitimacy about what is required of a candidate, including the standard to meet and the process involved (Ha-Redeye, 2016; Woolley, 2007, 2013; Woolley and Stacey, 2008). A group of lawyers in Ontario brought forward a motion asking the Law Society to review and report on the good character requirement and its assessment at the application stage, especially as it concerns Indigenous and racialized applicants (McRobert, 2018; Robinson, 2018; Spratt, 2018).…”

“…A group of lawyers in Ontario brought forward a motion asking the Law Society to review and report on the good character requirement and its assessment at the application stage, especially as it concerns Indigenous and racialized applicants (McRobert, 2018; Robinson, 2018; Spratt, 2018). While there are no reported cases of an Indigenous person being denied a license to practice law in Ontario (Woolley, 2007), the lack of transparency as to how the Law Society decides which applications to further investigate and on what basis, is troublesome. One could argue that this secretive process does not accord to the Law Society’s commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion; commitment to access to justice; and commitment to protect the public interest.…”

“…While a good starting point, the Sample Policy misses the mark when it comes to Indigenous lawyers. The Sample Policy simply adopts the Rules that regulates all lawyers, including Indigenous lawyers, without a critical understanding in how the Rules have been used to police and regulate certain experiences out of the legal profession (Backhouse, 2016: 128, 137, 140–141; Woolley, 2007, 2013; Woolley and Stacey, 2008). As such, one must examine the Sample Policy in an Indigenous feminist legal theory (IFLT) through a decolonial lens.…”