BC lawyers passed resolutions on lawyer safety, timely law society updates at annual general meeting
At the Law Society of British Columbia’s annual general meeting Wednesday, lawyers across the province narrowly rejected a proposal to have the legal regulator certify a list of digital tools, including those involving AI, that lawyers can use without fear that doing so will accidentally lead to a breach of their professional obligations.
BC lawyers voted 986-845 to toss out the resolution, while more than 400 others abstained from voting. The resolution to create a list of certified tools was one of four rejected at the annual general meeting, which gives lawyers the opportunity each year to submit and vote on proposals on matters that impact the legal profession.
Lawyers who voted Wednesday and via advance online voting passed four other resolutions. The first two resolutions effectively approve an auditor for the LSBC and change the LSBC’s rules for removing benchers from its board.
The third approved resolution, introduced by Vancouver lawyers Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko, creates a new requirement for the LSBC to inform lawyers of any policies or proposed laws that could impact the legal profession.
According to Lee, lawyers looking for timely updates currently have to “wait for what the law society decides to tell us, on whatever schedule the law society decides to tell it to us.” She noted that the information covered by the resolution is disclosable under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act process, and said a policy on timely updates would free lawyers from having to file individual requests with the LSBC.
“There are costs associated with freedom of information requests. There are times that it takes to respond to those requests,” Lee said. A dedicated policy requiring timely updates would help individual lawyers save money, and prevent the LSBC “from having to respond to repeat requests from different members,” Lee added.
“It just makes it easier for all of us to stay informed about what's happening.”
Introduced by Vancouver lawyers Leena Yousefi and Ari Wormeli, the final approved resolution creates a narrow exception to solicitor-client privilege, so that lawyers can disclose certain client information – like names and email addresses – to law enforcement and other security personnel if a client engages in threatening, harassing, or defamatory conduct.
“This is a simple, common sense resolution that would afford lawyers and legal staff the same basic rights and protection that every member of Canadian society should enjoy,” Yousefi said.
The lawyer noted that LSBC rules already carve out a narrow exception to solicitor-client privilege when a lawyer reasonably believes there is a risk of death or serious bodily harm. However, Yousefi argued this leaves a “significant gap.”
“Lawyers and law firm staff may be subject to threats, harassment, stalking, persistent intimidation, defamatory campaigns, and even physical assaults, and still be unable to disclose a client’s basic identifying information to the police or other authorities because these instances may not amount to threats of death or serious bodily harm,” she argued, noting that lawyers at her firm have been subjected to stalking, defamation, and harassment.
“It’s our position that the privacy interest in maintaining the confidentiality of a client is far outweighed by the compelling public interest in protecting the safety of lawyers, legal staff, and the public,” Yousefi said.
Two other resolutions by Yousefi and Wormeli were among those rejected on Wednesday, including the proposal that the LSBC create a list of certified software that lawyers can safely use.
Presenting that resolution at the law society meeting, Wormeli asked participants, “Should thousands of lawyers, including sole practitioners in small firms, each have to decide on their own whether ordinary practice technology complies with our professional obligations? Or should our regulator give clear, practical guidance on that question?”
Wormeli clarified that the resolution does not aim to shield lawyers who use tech tools irresponsibly. “Those who recklessly use AI will be just as much at risk if this resolution is passed as they are now,” he argued. “If a lawyer, instead of emailing a client, accidentally emails the entire newsroom of the Globe and Mail, this resolution will not help them.
“What this resolution means is that if the lawyer uses, for example, Outlook, they are potentially shielded from getting into trouble based on the bare fact that they use Outlook.”
Wormeli addressed criticisms that the resolution, if passed, could require a significant investment of resources from the LSBC, particularly because tech is developing and changing at a rapid pace.
“If that is true for the law society, it is even more true for individual lawyers and small firms,” he argued. “Having every firm read the same terms of service, retain the same consultants, and make separate guesses about the same products does not better protect the public. It creates duplicated costs and inconsistent answers.”
Lawyers at the meeting did not publicly raise any concerns before voting to reject the resolution.
