On September 28th 2012, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) terminated funding of the Ontario Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP), effective December 31, 2012. For 35 years OLAP has been an arm’s length/Chinese-walled service provider to LSUC members suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, financial stresses, marital breakdown, stress, burn-out and a myriad of other personal and professional issues that impact a lawyer’s ability to properly practise law and serve one’s clients. The LSUC is trying to replace all of OLAP’s services and programs with Homewood Human Solutions (Homewood), a commercial for profit EAP provider, – a move that should be discomforting to all members of our profession and the public. Why?
With OLAP, there has been no direct relationship between the service providers (OLAP staff, Shepell or OLAP volunteers) and the LSUC. This ensures complete confidentiality between lawyer-clients and the treatment providers, with the lawyer-clients being able to focus on themselves without fear of intrusion by the professional regulator. Not only must the lawyer-clients be protected by confidentiality, there must be the unequivocal perception of such confidentiality lest members be fearful of reaching out for the help they need.
Today, except for serious misconduct or criminal activity, anything disclosed to the OLAP case worker or any OLAP volunteer by the lawyer-client is not sent to LSUC. This ensures that lawyer-clients in trouble can openly talk about their problems to obtain the best treatment regimen possible for their particular dilemmas. OLAP assists its clients to get back on track both personally and professionally. It has significant experience helping distressed lawyers transition out of practice in a way that takes into account professional obligations to LSUC and clients, thus upholding the highest standards of professionalism and the protection of the public.
While Homewood may adequately provide services of similar nature and quality to Shepell, the demolition of the wall between the LSUC and the EAP provider is very unwise.
The expectations of our peers, our families, our clients, and society at large serve to put additional unnecessary pressures upon lawyers that can lead to financial difficulties. The situation is even more acute for those lawyers practising outside the confines of large Bay Street firms, particularly sole practitioners, whose presence as defendants at LSUC discipline hearings is over-represented, perhaps due to their vulnerability to the pressures of the profession.
Also, no significant transitional period has been arranged to move the existing hundreds of clients from OLAP- Shepell to Homewood. What is the emotional and health related costs to those individuals? OLAP has provided services on a continuous basis for over 35 years and it is important that these services remain in place. The integrity of our profession demands it.
Today, I am happier and healthier than at any time in my 45 years. My children are happier as I am a more attentive parent. My professional reputation is restored; my law practice is busier and more lucrative than ever. I am a better father, son, friend, and boss than I ever was, and the next woman to marry me will get a version of me that neither of my ex-wives would believe possible. I owe it all to the initial visit with OLAP one winter day in 2009. My story is not unique.
In the last year, I personally know of two lawyers who attempted suicide, several with degenerative genetic illnesses that have hindered their ability to properly service their clients, many who have gone through divorce, a scarily large number who show the signs of depression, and many more who used to be able to pay their bills but cannot seem to find their footing in this new economic reality. There are tens of thousands of lawyers in Ontario. That means thousands in need of OLAP’s services.
LSUC’s decision to essentially abolish OLAP is myopic. It is not just lawyers in distress who will suffer, but the very public LSUC claims to protect, and the very image of the profession it governs. Perhaps the Attorney General as the guardian of the public interest should look into LSUC’s decision.