The Law Society of B.C. is pursuing an appeal of a court decision finding the new Legal Professions Act does not undermine the independence of the bar, nor is it unconstitutional.

B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Skolrood had dismissed the society’s challenge to the act on April 29. On May 5 the society filed a notice at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In a statement published on its website, the independent regulator of B.C. lawyers said the decision warrants further consideration by the appellate courts as it impacts “the public’s right to impartial legal advice free from external influences.”

However the statement does not specify how, in the opinion of the society, Skolrood erred in his decision. Society spokesperson Vinnie Yuen told Business in Vancouver via email the society would not provide specifics.

The act was conceived in 2022 by Premier David Eby, who was attorney general at the time.

The act effectively dissolves the society and creates a new regulator to oversee not just lawyers but also paralegals and notaries.

In doing so the new regulator’s 17-member board of directors will consist of as few as nine lawyers, including some appointed by the government.

The society argued the new board structure removes the ability for lawyers to independently regulate themselves.

Skolrood noted Manitoba’s legal regulator does not have a majority of elected lawyer directors “and yet its ability to function independently is not challenged.”

As for government appointments, Skolrood noted cabinet appoints only three of 17 directors. “Thus, its ability to control or unduly influence the new regulator through the exercise of its appointment power is limited,” he said.

The society also took issue with the act imposing requirements on the new regulator to support Indigenous reconciliation and to align with the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

Included in those requirements is to have at least two Indigenous directors.

The society, Skolrood summarized, framed the creation of the regulator’s Indigenous Council and Transitional Indigenous Council as introducing a model of co-governance and unilaterally imposing government policy on the regulator.

Skolrood ruled that the act needs to abide by its Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), citing the landmark 2025 Gitxaala case, now being appealed by the provincial government.

Skolrood added: “The [society] has itself long been committed to reconciliation and has implemented a number of measures in pursuit of that goal.

“While the [society] rightfully distinguishes between measures adopted voluntarily and those imposed by government, there is no meaningful difference in terms of the impact of such measures,” ruled Skolrood.

The Indigenous Council, Skolrood added “does not undermine independence because the Council does not have independent rule-making authority. In many areas its role is advisory.”

Skolrood also noted that government’s regulation-making powers under the act are also not an infringement on the bar as it “simply empowers cabinet to make regulations where regulations are already contemplated,” such as for addressing unmet areas of legal services.

Skolgrood agreed the independence of the bar is an unwritten constitutional principle since for example, lawyers act to protect the liberty of their clients in criminal prosecutions backed by the weight and resources of the state.

However, Skolrood also stressed the society “is not an association meant to represent lawyers; its purpose is to regulate lawyers in the public interest.”

The government has maintained that the changes are rooted in improving access to justice, such as by making basic legal work more accessible and cost efficient via paralegals and notaries.

The society stated: “The decision noted that the government offered no clear rationale for the significant changes the Act brings to the regulation of lawyers and failed to justify why it was overturning 150 years of self-regulation, in the face of widespread opposition from the bar.”

[email protected]