Thursday, 12 October 2017

Law society's new policy compels speech, crossing line that must not be crossed

quote [ A recent message almost made me choke on my sandwich. “New obligations for 2017” was its subject line, “Actions you need to take.” All lawyers, it said, must prepare and submit a personal “Statement of Principles” attesting that we value and promote equality, diversity and inclusion. ]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the C-16 debates?
Another perspective: LSUC implements reporting requirements for diversity and inclusion
[SFW] [politics] [+1 Underrated]
[by Jodan@12:06amGMT]


foobar said @ 4:31am GMT on 12th Oct
It doesn't compel speech. No one is forcing you to be a lawyer.
5432 said @ 1:21pm GMT on 12th Oct [Score:-1 Boring]

There are no non sequiturs here. This is the Internet.
5th Earth said @ 12:55am GMT on 14th Oct
I dunno. I'm pretty sure the courts frown on compelling people to take (or not take) constitutionally protected actions as a condition of employment. I'm not being sarcastic, I just think this is one of the more complicated areas of law and it's not as simple as you say it is.
foobar said @ 4:14pm GMT on 14th Oct
It's not a condition of employment, nor is the law society even offering it. How does this differ from any of the other ethical standards lawyers are held to?
5th Earth said @ 6:58am GMT on 15th Oct
The law society has the power to disbar lawyers, and has repeatedly referred to this as an "obligation" and an action lawyers "need to take". So the threat of unemployment is clearly inferred even if not intended.

As for differing from ethical standards, well, that's why this is complicated. IANAL.
5432 said[2] @ 2:46pm GMT on 15th Oct [Score:-1 Boring]

The exercise is straight out of Orwell, to wit:

“The Law Society has developed resources to help in creating your personal Statement of Principles.”

That says it all right there.

The Law Society has a series of “principles” they’re demanding. These aren’t “yours”, they are “theirs”, hence the helpful “resources”, so that you get the politics right.

For instance, submitting the statement that, “my principles include diversity of opinion, freedom to dissent, and the furtherance of reward based on merit” won’t suffice. They don’t want, nor will they accept, “your principles”. They want their principles. But worse than just jamming them down your throat, which would at least be honest, they’re insisting on some Stalinist exercise where you are forced to ventriloquize them for them – In some bizarro piece of political theater, to pretend that they are your own.

Any competent lawyer will tell them to shove if up their ass. (IN ANAL).

foobar said[1] @ 7:38pm GMT on 15th Oct
Just like a college of physicians has the power to pull a doctor's license. There's no threat of unemployment, it's a professional certification that includes ethical requirements. If you aren't a sufficiently ethical person, you're not qualified to be a lawyer.

How is this any different than requiring they not defraud their clients?
5432 said[1] @ 10:06am GMT on 16th Oct [Score:-1 Old]

“How is this any different than requiring they not defraud their clients?”

In order to understand that difference, one needs first to understand the difference between ethics and politics. Your post fails to recognize the distinction.

A cursory glance at this policy reveals it’s about politics, not ethics. So then, it is both out of scope and unethical.

Regulatory bodies have no business dictating politics to their members.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings