What happened at the Legal Professions Act trial?

In May 2024, the B.C. government passed the Legal Professions Act, sweeping reforms that bring lawyers, notaries and paralegals under a single regulator.

Soon after, the Law Society of BC and the Trial Lawyers Association of BC challenged the Act’s constitutionality, leading to an 11-day summary trial at the BC Supreme Court in October 2025.

The Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch has consistently maintained this position: We support a single regulator model only if lawyer independence is maintained.

However, the LPA changes how the rules governing lawyers are created. Rather than lawyers holding each other to account, the Act would leave lawyers with only a slim majority on the regulator’s board—and elected lawyers as a minority. This could eliminate self-governance by preventing lawyers from making rules governed by an elected majority. [See how the Board would change]

As an intervenor in the constitutional challenges, the Canadian Bar Association argued that the Act unconstitutionally interferes with lawyer-client relationships and erodes protections for the independence of the bar and its self-regulation.

What key arguments did the Court hear?

The Supreme Court heard arguments on several constitutional questions:

• Is there a constitutional requirement for an independent bar, or does the constitution only require the independence of individual lawyers? The Law Society of BC framed the case as engaging the unwritten constitutional principle of an independent bar, essential to the rule of law and the administration of justice.
• Does eliminating lawyer self-governance constitute intrusion on independence? The Law Society of BC argued meaningful self-regulation requires lawyers to choose their own self-governing body of lawyers.
• Are there infringements to sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and can they be justified? The Trial Lawyers Association of BC argued that the LPA undermines Charter protections by introducing mandatory disclosure and coercive treatment measures to address lawyers’ mental health. These measures, they said, conflate mental illness with professional incompetence.  

In response, the Attorney General of BC argued that the LPA does not violate constitutional protections. They maintained that lawyer independence is a functional principle rooted in the ability to provide impartial and culturally competent legal advice—not in any specific governance structure.

For a day-to-day recap of the trial and written arguments, visit our website.

What did the CBA argue?

The CBA intervened to argue that the independence of the bar is essential to lawyers’ ability to fulfill their unique and indispensable role in the justice system.

According to the CBA, the LPA unduly interferes with this independence.

CBA outlined six ways the LPA unduly interferes:

1. Eliminates self-governance, preventing lawyers from making rules and policies governed by an elected majority

2. Removes lawyers’ democratic participatory rights

3. Prescribes professional standards, including misconduct and conduct unbecoming, rather than leaving them to the regulator

4. Exposes lawyers to forced counselling or medical treatment without considering capacity or tying it to legal practice

5. Gives Cabinet the power to create new professions, even if they impair the independence of the bar

6. Removes the regulator’s public interest mandate

CBABC extends our gratitude to CBA counsel Michael Feder, KC, Connor Bildfell and Lindsay Frame, along with the McCarthy team, for their outstanding support and advocacy on behalf of the CBA.

What’s next?

Chief Justice Skolrood reserved his decision.

CBABC will continue to provide updates to members and on LinkedIn.