Time for leadership on articling

If you’ve read our blog, you’ll know that I take a keen interest in the debate around articling and in particular how the legal profession is going to address the shortage of articling positions in Ontario.  With the Law Society estimating that 1 in 7 law graduates will be unable to find an articling position in 2013, like it or not, we have a “crisis” on our hands.

The Articling Task Force set up in 2011 by the Law Society of Upper Canada was scheduled to present its final report to Convocation in May.  However, it decided that it needed more time so instead issued an interim report.  If you read the interim report and the submissions that were made to the Task Force (they can be found here), you won’t be surprised.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of consensus around any of the options proposed by the Law Society.  In fact, the report includes suggestions about new options and permutations of current options.  It made my head hurt.

While I commend the Task Force for its consultation process where it painstakingly set out the problems with the current articling system and reached out to all interested parties for their views,  it made a big mistake.  By asking for comments on five options - ranging from the status quo to abolishing articles - it made it seem that they were all were legitimate options.  They simply weren’t and aren’t.  Keeping articling as it is or with minor changes doesn’t address very serious concerns ranging from whether the system is fair (it isn’t) or whether it raises significant competition concerns (it does).

However, based on the submissions, a significant number of individuals and groups are in denial, clinging to articling as the only way path to getting licensed.  Maybe they didn’t read the Law Society's Consultation Report or have never spoken with a student who would make an excellent lawyer but can’t find articles.  Possibly the most surprising party to express this view was the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) – the single largest employer of lawyers and articling students in Ontario.  I’m not going to bother dissecting MAG’s arguments one by one (most are addressed in this post).  However, I will say that the Ministry’s strong opposition to the idea of simply adding a practical legal training course as a pathway to practice for those who chose it or can’t find articles, seems bizarrely reactionary.

On the other end of the spectrum, abolishing articling altogether was never likely to be palatable.  While it is disappointing that more law firms didn’t make submissions – especially large law firms in major centres who provide the bulk of the articling positions  – presumably most would take the view that articling is working reasonably well.  And overall, very few submissions took the position that articling should be done away with altogether.

So it’s now time for the Law Society to take a stand and do its job as the regulator.  Rather than wasting more time discussing five options, it is time that it focuses on the option that both addresses the concerns with the current system and is the most realistic – the introduction of a practical legal training course (PLTC) as an alternative to articling.

Designing a PLTC won’t be easy and there are legitimate concerns about affordability, how to ensure that it isn’t seen as second-class option, and how to incorporate hands-on experience.  Also, the Law Society will have to work with the Federation of Law Societies of Canada and individual law societies to ensure national mobility is maintained. And, it would be very good if the Law Society and Ontario law schools did a better job of working together to ensure that law school combined with articles or a PLTC actually adequately prepares students for the modern practice of law (and no, that doesn’t need to jeopardize academic freedom).

But despite the naysayers, I’m optimistic.  I’m convinced that a properly designed, PLTC can do just as good a job, and probably even better, in preparing law students for the rigours, challenges and opportunities associated with the practice of law.   And that would be a welcome innovation.

P.S.  On a completely unrelated note, I'd highly suggest you read Anne-Marie Slaughter's piece in The Atlantic, "Why Women Still Can't Have it All".  It rocks.

Related articles

• Canadian Law Grads Struggling to Find Required Work (jdjournal.com)

• Ontario's articling shortage widens to 15% as LSUC considers alternatives (business.financialpost.com)

• Our other blog posts about articling: Articling, Let's Get the Debate Started, Articling and the 2011 LSUC Bencher Election, Revisiting (yet again) the question of what to do about articling