ON COLLEGIALITY AND THE LAWYERS’ INN SOCIETY’S NEW HOME

By Murray Clemens, K.C.

When the author of the companion article, “The Lawyers’ Inn Society and Its New Home”, was in diapers, I graduated law school and moved to Vancouver to article—I was called to the bar in 1976.

On my arrival, the Lawyers’ Inn was into its third year of operation. All three of the firms where I have practised over the following decades have been supporters of the Lawyers’ Inn, maintaining memberships and hosting occasional events (remember the massive shrimp appetizer?).

The more important feature of the inn was the venue it offered as a welcoming environment where you could meet and enjoy lunch with colleagues, not unlike the inns of court in London where I attended a lunch with a barrister member of Four Essex Court with whom I was working on a file for a common client. Attendance at lunch at the inns of court was a prerequisite for students to be called to the bar. Unlike our Lawyers’ Inn, solicitors did not belong as members, but were often guests. To qualify, students were required to attend a specific number of lunches with their principal. The task was not burdensome and helped foster the collegiality of the bar for generations of barristers. The same was true of our Lawyers’ Inn, except that solicitors were not only welcome but were an important part of the establishment of a robust institution over the years.

In recent years, the Lawyers’ Inn has struggled with maintaining a sustaining membership. The onset of COVID-19 helped to hide the government’s decision to close the Lawyers’ Inn at its Vancouver Law Courts location. Another feature of our collective experience with COVID was the transition to virtual meetings and events, such as CLE programs, discoveries and arbitrations, reducing the opportunity for collegial in-person dialogue.

The closing of the Lawyers’ Inn at the courthouse was another challenge to the circumstances available to members of our profession to meet in person. What is not said in the companion article, but must be known, is that the changes in our methods of association to “virtual events” on platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams has impacted the viability of in-person discoveries, in-person arbitrations and in-person contact with our colleagues. Without a return to the increased use of in-person discoveries and hearings at Charest’s facilities in the very short term, it will have to close its large hearing rooms, if not all discovery rooms, and return to the old days of using lawyers’ offices and hotels. This will threaten the viability of events such as discoveries, mediations and arbitrations being held in such a convenient, comfortable and professional venue where casual meetings of our profession can continue. Another brick out of the collegiality firmament.

The plain and simple fact is that unless the use of Charest’s facilities as a venue for in-person discoveries, mediations and arbitrations significantly increases, a downsizing may become a reality threatening the new opportunity for the Lawyers’ Inn as described in the penultimate paragraph of Adam’s article.

Bottom line: Support your local court reporter with in-person hearings and discoveries!