Skip to content

Petty position

Editorial Obiter

There’s an old adage: If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them.

I was reminded of this phrase recently as controversy trickled up about a statement of principles lawyers will be required to sign. The issue is, admittedly, complex.

All licensed lawyers and paralegals will be required to write and sign a statement of principles acknowledging their obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion.

For some, this feels insulting, controlling or overbearing and is tantamount to having their thoughts policed.

It pains me to say those complaining about this requirement are, in some ways, technically correct and the requirement may slightly overstep in terms of requiring people to adopt and abide by the principles, without more detail on how such goals can be implemented.

Therefore, the document’s detractors are correct: Requiring people to have a statement of principles will not mean people actually work to promote diversity. People don’t like feeling forced to do things.

However, the spirit of the document persists — issues around diversity in the profession (which are, in my view, very well placed) have never been under closer scrutiny.

Therefore, those kicking up a fuss about ticking a box are choosing to complain about a process that takes minimal time and minimal effort. How I wish they had taken the time to complain about this to improve diversity within their own firms or listen to other lawyers’ experiences, as well as foster more positive, open dialogue about how to improve the situation.

People are allowed to take stands on issues that matter to them. But if history has taught us anything, it’s that listening to others should be the first step. An insurrection of a me-first attitude is depressing, dis-spiriting and, frankly, makes the profession look petty. For shame. For absolute shame.              

  • ... if history has taught us anything

    Jim Hamilton
    Indeed, if history has taught us anything, it is that staying silent in the face of attempts by others to dictate thought and belief, to compel on threat of sanction "correct" ideas, leads to tyranny.
  • Compassion yes compulsion no.

    David Shapiro
    I have practiced law for more than 42 years during which time I have acted for people of virtually every religion, race and ethnic background.I have represented persons with visual, hearing and physical impairments. I have also acted for persons of every sexual orientation and throughout my career I have observed the Golden Rule of treating others as you would have them treat you. I do not need to be compelled to sign a statement of principles to continue my practice of treating all persons with respect and dignity.
  • Huh?

    Kirk Rintoul
    There is nothing petty about defending actual diversity, diversity of opinion, against compelled speech and compelled belief.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?