David, who had been a non-practicing member of the Law Society of British Columbia since 2004, applied to the Law Society in 2016 to return to law practice. The Law Society’s Credentials Committee considered David’s application and decided that he had not remained current with the law; therefore the Committee decided David would have to pass the qualifications examination prior to returning to practice. David was concerned that the Committee did not adequately consider his proposal or explain why the decision was made. David did not understand how the decision was reached so he asked for reconsideration.

The Law Society denied David’s request for reconsideration on the basis that he did not provide new information. Seeking to understand the reasons the Committee denied his application to return to practice, David then turned to the Office of the Ombudsperson for help.

The focus of our investigation was whether the Law Society provided an adequate response to David’s application to return to practice. Under the Law Society’s rules, an applicant who has been away from law practice for more than three of the last five years must either pass qualification examinations or receive the Committee’s permission to return to practice. In this case, the Committee resolved that David’s “activities had not kept him current with substantive law and practice skills for over seven years”, therefore, he was required to take the examinations. Although there is no requirement in the Law Society’s rules for the Committee to provide reasons for its decisions, there are benefits to doing so. Reasons improve transparency, provide a measure of accountability and increase public confidence in decision making processes. Reasons also serve to inform the individuals who may be adversely affected by the decision of the evidence and rationale on which the decision was based and allow those individuals to determine whether there may be grounds for appeal or review. Where a decision is of greater complexity and importance to the affected parties, written reasons may be warranted even if there is no legal obligation to provide them. A decision by the Law Society’s Credentials Committee can have serious consequences for individuals seeking registration. In light of this, we asked the Law Society to consider some administrative improvements. First, we proposed that the Credentials Committee provide written reasons to applicants explaining why and how the Committee reached a decision.

The Law Society agreed to our proposal. Second, we asked the Committee to provide David with reasons for the decision to deny his application. This was agreed to in principle, however, the Law Society explained that this presented some logistical challenges. Specifically, the membership of the Committee changes on a yearly basis, and re-convening the Committee with the 2016 members for the purpose of providing reasons for a decision they made at that time was not feasible. As a means to settle the concern, we asked and the Law Society agreed that the current Committee would re-consider David’s application, and would provide reasons for their decision following their consideration of his application. Given that the Law Society agreed to address the concerns raised during our investigation, we considered this matter resolved.