Abstract

This paper tests Harry Arthur's theory that there is an “ethical economy“ of lawyer regulation in Canada, in which Canadian law societies use their regulatory powers only in high reward/low risk cases - ie, where the practitioner is less likely to resist their authority and the offence is morally unambiguous. Analysing reported cases from 2009 in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia the paper concludes that Arthurs' description still accurately characterises the regulation of lawyers by Canadian law societies. The paper then conducts a case study of law society and court cases related to one Canadian lawyer, Anthony Merchant, to assess whether the ethical economy is inevitable, or whether a different approach to lawyer regulation can and should be undertaken