National Defence

by Barry Cavanaugh

What does the CBA do for me?! Why does the national office pull so much of our fees out of BC? We hear these pointed questions often. I thought, in light of issues facing the profession, I should address those questions, point out some of the “value for dollar”, and recall some of the reasons that national organizations--including our own--exist.

Some questions spring to mind: if we didn’t have a national Bar, who would speak for us in Ottawa? Or in Regina, or in Quebec? Who would speak for us in Washington? Who would represent our collective interest in federal laws? One may as well ask why we need a federal government. This is one profession, in 12 provinces and territories, with many common interests. In the face of threats to our practice, we need to stand together, and act together to influence government and policymakers. It is self-evident that the 35,000 lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association are far more influential than the 200 of the PEI Bar acting alone.

Once we give in to parochialism, where does it end? If there’s no need for a national Bar, is there any need for a BC Bar? Any need for a County Bar or Local Bar? (My firm can look after itself just fine, thank you!) How then do we resist the competition of Notaries, financial institutions, accountants, or court paralegals? How do we speak to the national government? As individuals? As the four-member Bar of Lower Podunk? The national organization, CBA, speaks for all lawyers, and is a major force in Ottawa. The BC Branch has, arguably, far more weight with the BC government because it is part of a national organization, and brings a wider perspective. It’s a fair question, isn’t it, to ask whether we want the only body representing lawyers to be the one which regulates us? Don’t we need a body which can speak to the regulators on our behalf, as well?

The national initiative on emerging professional issues is an example of the leading edge work done by our national organization. It’s looking at task-based billing systems, alternative billing methods, multi-disciplinary practices, client partnering. It’s examining the impact of paralegals and their use, title insurance, the globalization of legal practice, major technological implications, and it’s working on limitations on professional liability. These issues are of present import to all lawyers, now and in the future. Very few could muster the resources--technical, research, communications, volunteer base--that our cooperative effort can, through our muscular national organization. And when it speaks on these issues, to our various Law Societies, governments, clients, publics... we know the CBA is heard and heeded.

A look at the National, December issue, suggests the range of value. Read the President’s column, where André Gervais discusses precisely CBA’s view on professional liability; how it was reached, and how it proposes to deal with a multi-jurisdictional issue. The December issue also carries quality advice on client relations, advice on using the Internet (including a new national service, bringing immigration information on-line). It carries excellent articles on family law issues, and it describes member benefits only a large national organization can procure. You might notice mention of the Canadian Bar Insurance Association, too. Surely no one thinks that was possible without the national organization of the CBA!

Frankly, this column is difficult to write. It seems so obvious as to defy exposition! It also seems an impossible task to describe the range of activity of the CBA on our behalf. If you doubt it, get involved. If you want to improve it, get active. But remember the advice of our National President: if the CBA didn’t already exist, lawyers would have to invent it!

This article was published in the February 1998 issue of BarTalk. © 1998 The Canadian Bar Association. All rights reserved.