One step ahead of the United States, where the American Bar Association approved Model Rule 8.4(g) to require lawyers to adhere to social justice orthodoxy or be deemed unethical, the Law Society of Upper Canada demanded lawyers swear an oath to “promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, and in their behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.”

In the National Post, Christine Blatchford noted how law schools took up arms in furtherance of the cause.

[Adam Dodek, the dean of the common law faculty at the University of Ottawa] said, in part, “We recognize that the legal institutions of this country have not only failed to deliver justice to Indigenous peoples of this country but have in fact continued to perpetrate many injustices. We acknowledge that racism still very much exists in our justice system.

“As jurists, professors, and law students, it is incumbent upon us to speak out against injustice, especially within our justice system.”

Is it wrong for a law dean to implore his students and faculty to “speak out against injustice”?

As one U of O law student said, the email made clear that “There are acceptable and unacceptable views at Canada’s universities.”

As students of the faculty, we had our marching orders. The decision was racist and so is our legal system.

A decision was wrong, and the reason was that “all 12 jurors were bigots,” because what else could it possibly be? Were they not, they would have reached the right outcome. They learned racism was the answer, and it would be on the test.

Toronto criminal defense lawyer, Sayeh Hassan, sought to nicely raise a problem.

While this may all be well meaning I am troubled by the fact that promoting all the above-noted concepts seem to focus on one factor alone: race of both lawyers and clients, whereas in my experience as a lawyer who has practiced law for over ten years there are many factors which may be barriers to access to the justice system.  These factors include but are not limited to economic disparity, mental health and addiction issues and the lack of government-funded programs to address those issues, as well as lack of support system for accused people before the courts.

Bear in mind, this is Canada, and politeness counts.

What didn’t appear to be an issue, however, was the race or ethnicity of the accused, as the accused were from many diverse backgrounds including Caucasian, East and West Asian and African American, and they all faced the same issues that would make access to the justice system difficult.

I believe focusing on race or ethnicity alone will set a dangerous precedent which may lead to ignoring other key factors that make access to the justice system difficult for many accused. Focus on race and ethnicity may also have the opposite effect and further marginalize certain groups and create prejudice.

This applies not just to race, but to any -ism which provides a facile answer to the law’s failures. It does two things, both of which are extremely dangerous. First, it diverts attention away from real problems by providing simplistic rationalizations for systemic failures. If the answer to all problems is race (or sex), then we ignore actual problems in favor of a stalking horse. We arrive at ineffective solutions because we’ve misunderstood the problem.

Second, it’s an ineffective excuse for failing our client, who isn’t a cartoon character but a human being.

As lawyers and lawyers to be (law students) it’s important to focus on the individual needs of our clients rather than putting them in a box based on their race or ethnicity, to ensure obtaining the best result possible for each and every client.

Our duty is to represent our client, not the cause of oppressed black men. Our duty is to find a way to accomplish our client’s goals, not a systemic excuse for failing to do so. And particularly not a false systemic excuse. This isn’t to say that there isn’t systemic racism, but that systemic racism doesn’t answer all questions, no matter how easy an answer it may be and how painlessly it absolves us of our own failure as lawyers to serve our client well.

As Blanchard noted, law schools are indoctrinating students so as not to be left behind by more woke disciplines.

With a few exceptions, Canada’s law schools are increasingly determined not to be left behind by other faculties, such as education studies and social work, where SJWs, as they’re often called, make no bones about being all about anti-racism, gender equity and wholesale reform to the institutions of the country.

In the United States, there are pockets of resistance to this ideological misadventure, such as Cato Institute, but even their policy wonks are becoming misfocused on race rather than principle. Is the War on Drugs wrong because it’s a misguided effort to resolve an economic and public health issue with a penal solution? Is it exacerbated by the ever-increasing length of punishment to overcome its failure to work, time and again? Or is it wrong because it disproportionately impacts minorities?

While it may be unquestionably true that cops disproportionately round up black guys for weed, would it make things better if they arrested far more white guys to compensate for the numbers, or stopped arresting for pot at all?

If you approach a problem with a flawed paradigm, you end up with a failed solution. That’s what Canadian law students are being taught. Worse yet, the well-intended, if fundamentally flawed, message, leaves the most important person out of the mix: the client.

Criminal defense lawyers represent clients, defendants. It is not our duty to “promote equality, diversity and inclusion,” but to win their case if at all possible within the bounds of the law. If that isn’t foremost in your head, get another job. Based on my 35 years of criminal defense, no client will ever say mean things about you for ignoring his systemic racial oppression but getting the jury foreman to say “not guilty.”