D. Jared Brown

Lawyer Bencher Candidate – Toronto Region

Priorities

1) Restore and strengthen the independence of the legal profession and avoid government taking control.

2) Return fiscal responsibility to the Law Society (no more deficits).

3) Reduce annual fees and licensing fees (by scaling back mission creep at the LSO).

4) Reduce the regulatory burden on the profession.

5) Depoliticize the Law Society.

6) Restore ideological diversity to Law Society governance by, inter alia,revoking the compelled Statement of Principles.

Background

Trial Lawyer, litigating commercial/employment disputes.

Called 2002, founded Brown Litigation in 2014.

2017, joined Dr. Jordan B. Peterson testifying before the Senate on compelled speech. Testimony viewed over 1 million times on YouTube.

October 2017, spoke about authoritarian initiatives (the SOP) from the LSO in a series of YouTube discussions with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and Queen’s Law Professor Bruce Pardy.

February 2018, participated in a CIJA/UJA panel discussion on authoritarianism from the LSO (the SOP) with Bruce Pardy and Treasurer Paul Schabas.

July, joined Lindsay Shepherd, Dr. Debra Soh, and Barbara Kay in panel discussion on compelled speech.

Commentary on legal issues can be found at www.brownlaw.ca including MSM articles, YouTube videos, podcasts, and speaking engagements and on Twitter @litigationguy.

Enjoy this candidate’s “Of Counsel” interview while you read more about them!

Candidates I support

The Stopsop slate of candidates – http://stopsop.ca/bencher-election/candidate-profiles/
Joe Groia
Sydney Troister
Heather Zordel
Ken Alexander

Something the LSO does that it should stop doing

The LSO should stop ring-fencing the profession with unnecessary barriers to entry and stick to ensuring minimum standards of competence for those seeking entry and continuation in the profession. The regulatory and financial barriers to the practice of law erected by the LSO are the primary threat to access to justice. In an increasingly global market, regulating law schools is outside the mandate if not impossible. The profession is failing the Articling system such that it has become a bottleneck to entry. NY state annual bar dues are $187, LSO are $2,487. The annual report has become a social policy undertaking. The LSO should not be compelling speech and enforcing ideological conformity with its Statement of Principles values test.

Something the LSO doesn't do that it should start doing

Get out of the way. Look for ways to alleviate the regulatory and financial burden it places on Licensees and entry to the profession.

website

www.brownlaw.ca – blog

email

jbrown@brownlaw.ca

social media

Twitter: @litigationguy
https://www.linkedin.com/in/djaredbrown/

All Candidates were invited to comment on any or all of the following topics

Expand to read Jared's views
The LSO is the singular most immediate barrier to access to justice in Ontario. Rather than ring-fencing the profession to uphold monopolistic conditions, the LSO ought to regulate the profession simply to ensure competency among those entering and practicing. Any initiative outside that basic requirement represents a barrier to access to justice.
– stop trying to regulate law schools;
– reduce licensing requirements to competency measures, including removing the broken Articling requirement;
– reduce the cost of the licensing process;
– reduce annual dues and reporting requirements;
– reduce the operations of the LSO to measuring and ensuring competence;
– rein in the LSO’s eye-popping $142M budget, and $8M deficit
Expand to read Jared's views
Time restrictions and limitations on those addressing Convocation on any given issue makes sense, however, attempting to reduce Convocation or implement a corporate style Board of Directors threatens to undermine the public representative nature of Convocation and the trust placed in the profession by the public to regulate the profession in the public interest.
Expand to read Jared's views
The LSO should not (and I argue cannot) regulate law schools. Myopically focusing on law school tuition in Ontario or Canada ignores that we welcome more and more foreign-trained lawyers to our jurisdiction. We cannot possibly regulate the academy in Canada or elsewhere and nor should we. Measure competence on application for entry and during practice, full stop.
Expand to read Jared's views
Repeal it. The Statement of Principles is compelled speech. The SCC clearly states that compelled speech “…is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada even for the repression of the most serious crimes” (Beetz, J). Forcing Licensees to affirm that they will promote certain values and ideologies is a dangerous development regardless of the values and ideology being favoured by the regulator.

Artificial Intelligence in Legal Service Delivery

Expand to read Jared's views
The acronym has lost all meaning with overuse as a buzzword. AI is a technology that will be incorporated into the practice law along with all others. Licensees will be responsible to the public and the LSO for their use and outcomes from the technology as with all others before.
Expand to read Jared's views
The only reason that pathways to licensing is debated, is because the traditional Articling system has irreparably failed. Rather than create new and interesting ways in which Licensees can enter the profession (and the LSO can then regulate), remove the broken Articling system. Lets admit failure on the part of the profession. Administer a bar admission exam. Monitor competence during practice.
Expand to read Jared's views
Freedom to engage and contract with clients in any manner satisfactory to the Licensee and the client should be encouraged.
Expand to read Jared's views
The LSO should stick to regulating Licensees. Attempting to regulate entities is simply an effort to expand the reach of an already overgrown LSO and an example of the type of mission creep at the LSO that has lead to $8M annual deficits. If Licensees are in regulatory compliance, then the public interest is met.
Expand to read Jared's views
There should be no duty. The LSO should not be delving into the technological competence of Licensees just as much as it should not be concerned with the keyboarding or handwriting competence of Licensees.

Reconciliation and Indigenous Communities

Expand to read Jared's views
Systemic barriers that proveably, and unnecessarily impact on any community, including indigenous Licensees should be addressed (such as the Good Character requirement). If the requirement is proveably and unnecessarily impacting any single community, the requirement should be removed for all individuals without exception. The LSO should ensure equality of opportunity and equal application of requirements for all individuals.
Expand to read Jared's views
Freeing the profession up to provide legal services in new and different ways should be encouraged from both an access to justice and relevancy standpoint. So long as individual Licensees remain in regulatory compliance, the manner in which they deploy their services should be beyond the scope and purview of the LSO.
Expand to read Jared's views
The LSO should not be concerned with the advertising practices of individual Licensees, or the contractual arrangements between Licensees and their clients.

Specific Enhancements to Licensing System

Expand to read Jared's views
Rather than enhance the system, it ought to be reduced to the minimum required to ensure competence of those entering the profession. Eliminate unnecessary and disproportionate barriers to entry like the good character requirement, Articling, and high licensing fees.
Expand to read Jared's views
No
Expand to read Jared's views
Get out of the way. Monitor competence. Stop erecting new requirements, regulations, and increasing the cost to the profession.
Expand to read Jared's views
Society is grappling with mental health issues and looking for ways to alleviate suffering and improve outcomes in mental health. This is beyond the scope of a legal regulator and best left to society at large to address. The LSO ought to be sensitive to and accommodate mental health issues when determining issues of competence and discipline.
Expand to read Jared's views
The LSO has become a tax and spend instrument of social policy, rather than a legal regulator regulating in the public interest. At an annual budget of $142M, the LSO has become another layer of government pursuing its own social policy initiatives in duplication of, and sometimes competitive with, government. Examples of unnecessary funding include: CPD (leave it to private providers), advertising standards (govt), marketing (not required), Canlii (govt or private provider), Harassment and Discrimination Counsel (OHRT, courts).

Diversity and Inclusivity Priorities

Expand to read Jared's views
Licensees have duties to abide by all Human Rights legislation, not to discriminate, and to uphold the rights and freedoms of all in society. I support these requirements and continue to meet and exceed them in my own law firm. I oppose the LSO’s authoritarian compelled speech Statement of Principles.

Scope of practice for paralegals and non-licensees

Expand to read Jared's views

FOLA asks: Thoughts on Funding Staffed Local Law Libraries

Expand to read Jared's views
Local law libraries can be an important resource, however, not every Licensee needs or uses this resource. Without anything approaching universality of usage, and the low barriers of access to information in the digital age, there is no business case for the regulator to fund these entities or look to the annual dues of all Licensees to fund them.

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Other topics

Candidate contributions on additional topics

Expand to read Candidate's views

Endorsements of this candidate

Some candidates have chosen to provide lists of the people supporting their candidacy

Expand to see this Candidate's endorsements