The federation suggested that the regulator modify current licensing examinations
The Federation of Ontario Law Associations has spurned the Law Society of Ontario’s proposal to replace current licensing examinations with a third-party, skills-based assessment.
FOLA suggested that the LSO keep and modify the exams instead in its response to the legal regulator’s consultation on updating the lawyer licensing candidate assessment process. The federation’s response was centered on the core propositions of preserving substantive knowledge, existing skills training, insufficient evidence, regulatory accountability, and higher cost and complexity.
The licensing process needed to credibly prove to the public that new lawyers’ Ontario legal knowledge met a demonstrable baseline. Moreover, skills training was already provided through articling and experiential pathways.
FOLA also found that there was inadequate evidence as to whether a skills-based assessment would more effectively verify candidates’ competence or equity. The pitched model could drive up costs and complexity without significantly bolstering competence or public protection; thus, a comparative feasibility study needed to be conducted.
The federation also warned that outsourcing core assessments to third parties could dilute the LSO’s central regulatory responsibilities.
“Our members, the practising bar on the front lines of legal services, have clearly stated that rigorous, substantive testing is non-negotiable for public protection. Replacing the solicitor and barrister examinations with a skills-based course risks signalling that foundational legal knowledge can be de-emphasized. That premise is fundamentally flawed, as errors in substantive law are a direct cause of client harm and professional misconduct risk,” said Mark R. Giavedoni, FOLA’s second vice chair, in a statement.
He added that the LSO’s pitch “misunderstands the impact of technology, suggesting generative AI will reduce the centrality of legal knowledge.”
“AI tools can augment practice, but they cannot replace a lawyer’s obligation to know, analyze, and exercise independent judgment and scrutiny. We must not lower the cognitive rigor or standards of the licensing process, which risks licensing candidates into environments for which they are unprepared and where client harm is more likely,” Giavedoni said.
In addition to recommending a targeted and comprehensive amendment of existing licensing examinations, the federation suggested modernizing the Bar Admissions Course, which was used before 2006, to reflect updated technology and practice realities.
The new BAC model would integrate discrete subject domain assessments into modular substantive instruction. Examinations would mix multiple choice, short answer, and essay formats to evaluate the analytical application of legal concepts by examinees. Secure electronic delivery would be implemented in proctored centers across Ontario to boost logistics and security without impacting exam integrity.
This alternative tackled the LSO’s operational issues while maintaining the key regulatory function of the licensing examinations, which is to confirm lawyers’ verifying substantive legal competence.
