The LSA has nixed an EDI committee, Indigenous cultural competency training to comply with the law
Lawyers across Alberta will vote on which of their peers will serve on the Law Society of Alberta’s governing board from Nov. 10 to Nov. 17, following a term that saw the legal regulator roll back a slate of equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and spark frustration among many licensees as a result.
The rollback measures were the LSA’s efforts to comply with the province’s Regulated Professions Neutrality Act. Passed by the United Conservative Party in late 2025 and inspired by a conflict between psychologist-cum-media personality Jordan Peterson and Ontario’s regulatory body for psychologists, the RPNA bars Alberta’s professional regulators from making training mandatory unless it relates to “professional competence or ethical standards.” Compulsory cultural competency, unconscious bias, or EDI training is not permitted under the law.
In March, Canadian Lawyer reported that the LSA had eliminated its equity, diversity, and inclusion committee for 2026 to comply with the RPNA. Over the next several months, the LSA stopped requiring Alberta lawyers to complete an Indigenous cultural competency training course that is mandatory in other provinces and territories and eliminated programs for new lawyers and Indigenous students.
The changes have provoked ire in members of Alberta’s legal community, some of whom have raised concerns directly to the LSA, the law society’s president, Bud Melnyk, said this summer. In October, an LSA bencher, Moira Vane, announced her resignation from the regulator’s board on LinkedIn, explicitly citing the LSA’s decision to dismantle its EDI committee and arguing that “the purpose of the law society is to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice.
“It is with real disappointment that I say I have lost faith that this body is fulfilling that purpose,” Vane wrote.
But candidates for the LSA’s upcoming bencher election are divided on whether it is the regulator’s role to push back on government policy. While some argue that challenging laws like the RPNA is part of the LSA’s mandate to regulate lawyers independently of the government, another perspective holds that it is inappropriate for the regulator to engage in political advocacy or to use its power to mobilize lawyers against public policy.
Different interpretations of the LSA’s mandate
Paul Moreau falls into the former camp. A longtime criminal defence lawyer and former Crown prosecutor, Moreau first ran for bencher in 2020 but fell short of securing a seat. Now, he is running again for one of the LSA’s Edmonton bencher seats, partly because he views the RPNA as “an unjustifiable intrusion” on the law society’s ability to make its own decisions about how to govern Alberta’s lawyers.
Moreau says he does not believe the LSA should engage in politics. However, “where the government of the day passes legislation which intrudes on the mandate of the law society, then I think it is the function of the law society to address that,” he argues, adding he believes the LSA had an obligation to push back, to some extent, on some of the UCP’s measures.
“The mandated purpose of the law society is to protect the public interest. What is at stake in this election are perhaps differing views on how to best protect the public interest,” Moreau says. “My own view is that the public interest is best protected by having the law society zealously protect the independence and integrity of the legal profession.
“In the last three years, the law society has, in my personal opinion, failed to do that.”
Yameena Ansari, the managing lawyer at Ansari Immigration Law who is running for a Calgary bencher seat, argues that disagreements over whether the LSA should have pushed back against the RPNA likely boil down to the fact that every lawyer interprets Alberta’s Legal Profession Act, the law that sets out the regulator’s mandate and scope of power, slightly differently.
“I think that is what happens when you have [dozens] lawyers talking,” Ansari says, referencing the number of bencher candidates in the upcoming election.
She points to s. 2.1 of the legislation, which states that the LSA’s purpose is to “uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice,” partly by protecting the independence of lawyers and establishing “standards, programs and education and training with respect to the competence, ethical conduct and professional responsibility of lawyers and students-at-law.”
“To me, the purpose of the law society is not political,” Ansari says. Still, in her view, upholding and protecting the public interest involves ensuring a separation of powers, as between the Alberta government and the LSA. “The law society is supposed to be an independent body,” she says.
“There’s a reason that most of the provinces have chosen to have an independent legal profession separate from government interference: integrity,” she adds.
But Roger Song of Song & Howard Law Office, who is running for a Calgary bencher seat, argues that the RPNA does not interfere with the LSA’s independence. When the LSA rolled back its EDI and Indigenous programs this year, it was simply complying with the law, he argues.
“The legal profession is… still under the rule of law,” Song says.
The lawyer says the main reason he decided to run for bencher was that he witnessed “concerning developments” at the LSA in recent years. In 2023, Song sued the LSA to challenge several policies that he argued exceeded the law society’s role as a professional regulator and instead transformed it into an ideological regulator, including mandating Indigenous cultural competency training. After a trial court dismissed his challenge, Song filed an appeal.
Song explained that his opposition to the policies came from his experience growing up and studying law in Communist China, where he was born in the 1960s. “I was receiving this legal training in China for many years, and I was very familiar with the harm of this concept of ‘cultural competence’ – the harm of requiring lawyers to be politically conformed to the dominant view or worldview or ideology,” he says.
“Benchers may express their views as individuals, provided they make clear that they are speaking personally and do not represent the law society,” he says.
“I do not believe the law society should use its institutional voice to campaign for or against political policies,” Song argues. He adds that he believes mandatory training for lawyers should focus solely on the knowledge, skills, and ethical obligations required to practise law competently.
LSA’s distinction from BC and Ontario counterparts
The LSA’s response to the RPNA stands in stark contrast to how its counterpart in British Columbia, the Law Society of BC, has responded to provincial legislation that would effectively reduce the power of lawyers to regulate themselves.
The LSBC has spent years fighting the BC NDP law in court, arguing it undermines the legal profession’s independence. The BC Conservatives’ promise to repeal the law could soon render that litigation moot.
While Ansari says dozens of Alberta lawyers have told her they were disappointed with the LSA’s response to the RPNA, she doesn’t see “that kind of activist appetite taking hold in our province.
“I don't feel that that is how Alberta lawyers would want to engage with their law society,” she adds, referring to the LSBC’s decision to sue the BC government.
“As a litigator, I know that litigation is the last strategy that you undertake when there are no other strategies left,” she says. “We don’t start with that, right? We start with negotiation, with collaboration, and then we see where the conversation goes.”
Ansari adds that it is important to ensure the public maintains its confidence in Alberta’s lawyers. “I don't think the best way to do that is to have a really public fight between the law society and the province,” she argues.
Colin Lachance, founder of legal tech companies LawQi and Jurisage, disagrees. “I think the starting points are: we always need to respect the independence of the profession, and the role of the regulators to protect the public interest,” he says.
“When those two elements lead to a disagreement of interpretation between a regulator and a government, I think it is appropriate for them to publicly duke it out, because at the core there’s the protection of the public interest.”
Still, he argues that many other issues beyond the LSA’s independence are at stake in the upcoming election. To help lawyers understand where the bencher candidates stand on these issues, Lachance – who is not a candidate in the election but will be voting – co-launched a website with lawyers Donna Purcell and Arman Chak to compare the candidates’ perspectives on AI, regulatory burdens on solo and small firms, rural and remote practices, pathways to the legal profession, and access to justice through allied professionals.
The lawyers hope the website will spark discussion about these issues among voters.
“When there’s an opportunity to discuss issues in advance, it’s easier to develop proactive policies,” Lachance says. “For me, a big part of why it’s important that we have some robust discussions on the Alberta side is to allow Alberta to lead the country amongst its peer regulators – that the focus shouldn’t be about, we like this slate and that slate screwed up so now we want the other slate,” he says, referencing the Law Society of Ontario’s history of having bencher candidates who align with political factions.
“Alberta has a chance to provide a positive example,” he adds.
