 |
| A puzzling quote from The Law Society of Manitoba |
The Bureau responded leaving only a name and phone number on voice mail. I chose to follow up by email requesting a written response to my inquiry but to date no response.
The complaint: collusion* / price fixing – monopoly of a self-regulating body under The Legal Profession Act (Manitoba).
* Collusion (as defined by Fed Gov’t)
Restrictions may increase the likelihood that members of the profession can successfully collude to raise prices above the competitive level and lower output below it. Such collusion may be explicit, as is the case when the profession sets minimum or mandatory prices, or tacit, which could result from the profession issuing suggested price lists. Because collusive prices are higher than competitive ones (or quality is lower), collusion results in substantial harm to consumers.
LSM Communiqué: January 2012 as quoted from "Benched" CEO Allan Finebilt, Q.C.
... Our Benchers are mostly elected by their peers to govern the legal profession in the public interest. They do that by making policy decisions that shape the future of legal practice in Manitoba. In the last while they have decided:
...
- That occasionally (in really bad years) fees need to go up a lot; (bold emphasis added)
This new policy as presented by the CEO (as stated as approved by the Benchers* in 2012) would appear to be directing and controlling its members to collectively increase legal fees.
* Bencher: think benchwarmer --
a team member on reserve waiting to get on court
I would like to know where in The Legal Profession Act of Manitoba does it include that a Bencher's duty includes determining fees (of any kind) against the controlling criteria: really bad years?
As all members are subject to purchasing a $1M mandatory insurance policy through The Law Society of Manitoba (called reciprocal insurance**) it would appear the Society has all bases covered. See posting defining who are members in: Manitoba Courts Chief Justice Don't Stand for No Bullying.
** Reciprocal Insurance: everyone in the CLIA*** plan pays into the fund. If there is insufficient funds to cover a successful claim against a member, all members must make up the difference. Manitoba manages its own investigations, and processing of claims. And the Manitoba courts provide its decisions.
***CLIA: Canadian Lawyers Insurance Association-- a bit of a misnomer in that not all provinces are included. The larger provinces: British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are not subscribers.
The decision as to whether or not CLIA pays out a claim (if a subscriber should be found guilty of wrongdoing -- good luck) the decision is decided by the members who have paid into the compensation fund, and also the ones on the hook if the monies fall short; members would have to make up the difference.
If the quote is to mean in times of low volume of work resulting in less billable hours and less revenue for firms (all occurring simultaneously throughout the whole province) in really bad years -then it's OK to increase fees -- and oh, a lot?
Still not right and against the public interest given the public does not see an increase in value of the work that is being done at a lot higher rate?
Still not right and against the public interest given the public does not see an increase in value of the work that is being done at a lot higher rate?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, the quote was taken out of context and it was not meant in relation to collusion of legal fees, or to cover the rising cost of insurance, or to make up for volatile and flailing markets that provide monies for compensation fund payouts, or people are just plain too civil to one another -- that there actually is some logical reason. Should that not then be disclosed in the public interest?
No comments:
Post a Comment