Tending the Bar: The Good Character Requirement for Law Society Admission
Every Canadian law society requires that applicants for bar admission be of “good character. ”The author assesses the administration of this requirement and its stated purposes of ensuring ethical conduct by lawyers, protecting the public and maintaining the profession’s reputation. In particular, the premise underlying the use of the good character requirement to fulfill those purposes - that character is the “well-spring of professional conduct in lawyers” - is subjected to critical examination through the theoretical principles of Aristotelian virtue ethics and the empirical evidence of social psychology. The primary thesis of this paper is that as currently justified, administered and applied the good character requirement cannot be defended and must not be maintained. The secondary thesis of the paper, however, is that given the relationship - albeit a qualified one - between character and ethical conduct, a reformed version of the good character requirement can, and arguably should, be maintained by the provincial law societies.
Canadian Legal Ethics: Ready for the Twenty-First Century at Last
This article analyzes the transformation in the scholarship of legal ethics that has occurred in Canada over the last decade, and maps out an agenda for future research. The author attributes the recent growth of Canadian legal ethics as an academic discipline to a number of interacting factors: a response to external pressures, initiatives within the legal profession, changes in Canadian legal education, and the emergence of a new cadre of legal ethics scholars. This article chronicles the public history of legal ethics in Canada over the last decade and analyzes the first and second wave of scholarship in the area. It integrates these developments within broader changes in legal education that set the stage for the continued expansion of Canadian legal ethics in the twenty-first century.
History, criminology and the ‘use’ of the past
This article considers why, despite an apparent congruence of subject matter and methodologies, the disciplines of sociological criminology and criminal justice history are not more closely aligned. It contends that intellectual traffic between the two fields is not usually limited by institutional barriers, nor is it a legacy of the disciplinary antipathy which existed between history and sociology in Britain during the mid-twentieth century. Rather, it is due to the different ‘purposes’ with which sociological criminologists and criminal justice historians imbue their work and to the differing disciplinary perceptions of the relationship between the past, present and future which result from this. These different ‘purposes’ are traced via a consideration of the paths of development of the two disciplines from the 1940s. The article concludes by proposing an arena for future collaboration between criminal justice historians and sociological criminologists.