Subscribe to Law Times RSS Follow Law Times on Twitter
HomeThis Week's IssueDigital EditionsCase LawVideoSubscribeAdvertiseContactMoves & ShakesEvents Calendar
Lawyer stymied in pro bono efforts Print E-mail
Man wants LSUC fee waived so he can help the poor
By Helen Burnett-Nichols | Publication Date: Monday, 02 November 2009
An Ontario lawyer is voicing his frustration at roadblocks to his plan to offer free legal services to Toronto’s homeless.

Mukhtiar Dahiya doesn’t want to work through an approved organization to get his LSUC fee waived.
The people Mukhtiar Dahiya is looking to help aren’t able to afford the services of a lawyer and can’t get legal aid because of a lack of address and identification, he says.

However, he’s not able to offer his services because the Law Society of Upper Canada won’t waive his licence fee if he volunteers on his own rather than through a charity.

Dahiya, previously a lawyer in India, moved to Canada in the 1990s and attended law school in Ottawa. After finishing his degree in 1995, he did his articles in 1996 with a Toronto firm.

However, an accident soon after left him in failing health, leading him to go on disability and not seek admission to the bar at the time. “I was feeling lonely. Because my grandfather was a barrister and my brothers-in-law are barristers, I know nothing other than practising law. So what I did, I started helping homeless people,” he says.

Dahiya went to the law society for permission to write his bar exam in 2006 and was called to the bar in September of that year. He then started going to court to defend the homeless in summary trials as an agent.
However, because he was on disability, he couldn’t afford his insurance or licensing fee.

Last May, Dahiya sent a letter to Gavin MacKenzie, then treasurer of the law society, explaining his situation along with a request for the LSUC to pay his licence fee so that he could “help these people in the street for free as a volunteer lawyer.”

He says he gave assurances that no money or billing would be involved and that if the law society felt he wasn’t competent or he was in poor health, it should appoint him a mentor.

In June 2008, the LSUC amended two of its bylaws permitting lawyers in the 25- and 50-per-cent fee categories who wish to provide pro bono legal services through approved Pro Bono Law Ontario programs to apply for an exemption from paying the full annual fee. The change mirrored the LawPRO exemption for pro bono practice through PBLO.

Subsequently, Dahiya attended a training session for free duty counsel and another on working as a volunteer lawyer run by PBLO.
He says he told them he wanted to start what he calls the City Law Centre to help people who are “shunned by the legal profession.”

“I will involve social workers and I will help them to return to society. This is what I want to do. I’m an old man, 58 years old, [and] I don’t need money. I have seen everything.”
However, he doesn’t want to join a charity in order to launch his services, something he says he’s been told he would have to do.

“I said no, I won’t join any charity because I know what I want to do. Through charity, I cannot achieve anything. Then I’m their employee, then I’m at their mercy. I want to shake things up because these people, they need a special kind of protection and help.”

PBLO executive director Lynn Burns says the organization can’t comment on whether the law society or LawPRO will amend their rules to facilitate individual lawyers wanting to provide pro bono legal services on an ad hoc basis.

She explains that the law society and LawPRO’s provisions for lawyers volunteering through PBLO-approved programs “are predicated on the understanding that these projects operate according to best practices which guarantee the allocation of sufficient administrative resources to adequately train and support volunteer lawyers on the one hand and ensure that clients receive high-quality legal services provided by competent lawyers in an ethical and professional manner on the other.”

A spokesperson for the law society says the LSUC has no plans to change its current rules that are “designed to ensure that clients receive an appropriate level of legal services provided by fully competent and professional lawyers and paralegals.”

At the moment, Dahiya says he is paying 25 per cent of the law society fee in order to keep his licence.

“They say that if you will practise or you will help or you will talk to destitute people in the street, you are practising, you will pay 100 per cent of the licence fee, and you will have to pay insurance, too, which I cannot,” he says. He adds that besides having his fees waived, he wants free space to run his service, likely from the city or provincial government. “The rest I will manage. No money will be involved at any stage.”

In the meantime, Dahiya says he notarizes documents for senior citizens or anybody who can’t afford representation, not as a lawyer but as a neighbour.

“I just don’t represent them in courts anymore. I don’t tell them that I’m a lawyer. I just tell them that I just have a licence and I have two law degrees,” he says.

His preference, however, is to work with the homeless. “They need help, they deserve help, and their constitutional rights are trampled.”
Comments
Add New Search
Victor Fletcher  - Editor   |2009-11-02
Mark Dahiya's experience has pointed him in the right direction.

The homeless
are denied access to legal advice -- the Law Society's claims that 'adequate'
services in an organization are required for a lawyer before he can speak for
them is the whole point.

So, again there is NO ACCESS for legal advice. The
Law Society appears to be content to leave the homeless to sometimes commit
suicide as their frustrations drive them to this.
John Legge   |2009-11-02
In the provision of services to the homeless and marginalized, great creativity
and diversity are essential. Out of the Cold, the Sally Ann, The Good Shepherd
Mission, The Fred Victor Mission, the Good Neighbour's Club - all very different
services - all quite essential. One size never fits all.

Hey LSUC, if on
balance Mark Dahiya's work is reasonable, and judges are grateful for his
representation of the powerless, Give him an Office, a Licence, Insurance and
after 10 years of good work a QC, an LSM and name a Library after him.
Bruce  - How much are these fees?   |2009-11-03
It's like $1700, right? Surely we can find 9 of us to fork over $200 apiece. I'm
in for $200. Anyone else?
Carol Wolkove  - I'm in for $200   |2009-11-03
With respect to the insurance fees, if we can get enough money together to pay
them I'm in for $200. Dayiha only needs to pay 50% of the fees as a part time
lawyer.
ron  - disband law society - colonial institution   |2009-11-03
It's not only 50% of $1700 license fee, insurance fee is around $ 3000 a year
than Ontario Bar fee, Canadian Bar fee and many more expenses hard to count.
History is a proof Law profession in Canada has become a tool of the rich and
corrupt in society; Canada will be better of without Barristers and Solicitors.
Mark Dahiya is a temporary measure needed badly in the present degradation the
ultimate goal should be to disband colonial corrupt institution Law Society of
Upper Canada - blot on the name of democratic Canada.
catherine currie  - Homeless Shunned--Not   |2009-11-03
I and my colleagues represent homeless people all the time in court. I am
frequently appointed as Special Duty Counsel by Legal Aid for the homeless and
represent them on bail hearings, trials, etc. and then help them to find homes
and services. As well there are any number of criminal defence lawyers who do
the same. We pay the LSUC & LPIC fees. Surely these clients are deserving of
the same level of professionalism as anyone else accused of a criminal offence.
Criminal law, as practiced by many of us, is for the most part poverty law.
However, when the system chooses to continue to put its finger on the scales of
justice and tip it by increasing salaries of judges, crowns and police and not
funding Legal Aid, it becomes difficult to provide defences for both those
charged with serious offences and less serious crimes. Is the answer to
underfunding Legal Aid, pro bono? Many of my homeless clients suffer from major
mental illnesses and deserve to be properly represented in court and connected
to the health system and housing. In my view the AG should recognize the rights
of these marginalized citizens and properly fund Legal Aid so that when the
homeless are arrested and before the justice system they can have the benefit of
experienced advocacy. Please give credit to the members of the defence bar who
have for many years represented homeless people on Legal Aid Certificates which
do not cover the overhead of office and liability insurance but do give homeless
people the professional legal services they deserve.
Cheryl Bullock  - Barrie Victims Against Violence   |2009-11-03
When there are people to help the homeless why stop them? The almighty dollar
again is in the way..Give Life A Break! Allow this man to help people...Who is
he hurting...obviously no one ecept the receipients of the fees! Open your
eyes...these people need help and this man cares...obviously you don't
Rose Perri Mark Dahiyas legal  - im for Mark Dahiya   |2009-11-04
Mark Dahiyas long time experience as a street legal advocate for the homeless
brought him insight into this antiquated corporate elite law profession which is
useless in todays social environment..Many years of advocacy sharpened his
understanding of the need to revamp the law profession.There are many cases
which he dealt with especially that of abused women and children. There are no
safeguards in place for the vulnerable who by no fault of their own have not the
money for council. In this broken society , the have nots verses the haves will
escallate to the point of frustration therefore leaving society aware that
lawyers are useless. In this great recession we are experiencing will only add
more numbers of jobless and underemployed to the list of people who drop out or
become suicidal. The law profession should be a nation building society not one
of greed letting its poor citizens fall through the cracks. The middle class
avoid lawyers as if they were robber barons. Once in the justice system, this
same system can leave you isolated and on the streets homeless holding a tin cup
in your hand. The mistrust is everywhere. Give mark Dahiya what he deserves. I
am willing to help in his achieving his goals in any way i can.As a social
advocate for the church at trinity square , every vigil i attend i see more
deaths on the streets. Stop this death by bureaucracy, let Mark Dahiya achieve
his nation building goals. Give him a licence insurance fee and a space in an
office of volunteer street lawyers. Help his practice take off in every way
possible. His selflessness amazes me. Remember justice delayed is justice
denied.- Rose Perri
Leave a comment about this article
Name:
Your email (for notification only):

Title:
 
Article comment here...
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
< Prev   Next >











[ Top ]