Breaking the Monopoly: A Call for Legal Reform
The modern legal landscape is dominated by an entrenched monopoly that stifles efficiency and evades accountability: the law society. In virtually every province and state across the Western world, these organizations claim exclusive jurisdiction over the practice of law, mandating that no individual may appear in court on another's behalf without their explicit sanction.
History has repeatedly shown that monopolies are fundamentally inefficient and lack any meaningful incentive to hold their members accountable. Instead, their primary drive is the preservation of the "brand" - protecting it from scrutiny and criticism at all costs. We are currently witnessing an acceleration of deep-seated corruption within these institutions, necessitating a move toward true competition in the legal space.
The authority of the law society is often rooted in specific legislation, such as a "Law Society Act," which establishes a "gang bargain" between the government and the legal regulator, essentially a division of turf, with cooperative promises.
This partnership allows both entities to bestow credibility upon one another, creating a closed loop of mutual reliance. Central to this system is the "code of conduct" and the "duty of candour". The government and the courts point to these rules as proof that lawyers are inherently honest - truthful to their clients, the opposition, and the bench. This assumption of integrity grants lawyers a perceived legitimacy to act in the best interests of others, yet in practice, it often serves as a shield for manipulation.
In the courtroom, this perceived duty of candour creates a dangerous imbalance. Judges frequently accept a lawyer’s word as the absolute truth simply because of their professional status. When a lawyer chooses to lie, their deception is far more effective because they are shielded by a presumption of honesty.
Conversely, for a citizen to challenge a lawyer’s truthfulness is an arduous uphill battle. Those who dare to suggest that a lawyer has misled the court are often treated as the "problem" rather than the victim of the lie. Judges may even issue warnings of consequences for those who allege fraudulent misrepresentation or "fraud upon the court," effectively silencing whistleblowers.
This systemic protection of the legal brand hides a dark underbelly where fraud is covered up by the very institutions meant to prevent it. Individuals who attempt to reveal these truths are frequently subjected to personal attacks and severe professional or legal consequences. However, there are moments when a person's back is against the wall, and the only path to securing justice is to prove that fraud upon the court has occurred. Much of what the public believes about the legal system is based on manufactured perception rather than fact; the law society functions more as a public relations campaign than a public protection agency.
Ultimately, the goal of these organizations is to maintain their position of power and prevent any outside force from displacing them. By ensuring there is no competition, they remain the sole arbiters of legal practice, prioritizing the brand over the people they are ostensibly sworn to serve. It is time to dismantle this monopoly and introduce a system where multiple law societies can compete.
Only through such competition can we hope to restore actual accountability, efficiency, and truth to the "Legal" system, ensuring that justice is no longer a casualty of brand protection.
It would be great if this were not true.
The law society could change, will they?
If the entire system collapses, which it is doing right now, they will only have themselves to blame.