The bounds of legality: an exploration of the limits on ethical advocacy in family law

ABSTRACT

It seems to be commonly understood that sometimes a family lawyer’s advocacy can go too far; however, absent disciplinary proceedings or a claim in negligence, it is not always easy to identify exactly what line a lawyer has crossed. A lawyer’s role, properly understood, is to pursue their client’s interests within the bounds of legality. In this paper, I examine the positivist conception of the bounds of legality in the context of family law. My examination includes consideration of adversarial and non-adversarial advocacy, how much resolve a lawyer can properly use as an advocate, and the means of a lawyer’s craft – both substantive and procedural tactics. In doing so, I provide a theoretical mapping of the bounds of legality, demonstrating that they are insufficient in family law. My aim is to provide the theoretical tools to help inform change to family law, and the law and professional rules governing lawyers.

KEYWORDS:

• Legal ethics
• legal theory
• family law
• family violence
• dispute resolution

Acknowledgements

I presented an early version of this paper at the 2019 Canadian Association of Legal Ethics Conference held at the University of Windsor in Ontario, Canada, and I am grateful for the supportive discussions I had with the attendees. Thank you to Trevor Farrow, Malcolm Mercer, Amy Salyzyn and my anonymous peer reviewers for their thoughtful and generous comments on a previous draft. Finally, thank you to Brenda Cossman for her guidance during my LLM.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See e.g.: Elle Hunt, ‘‘Marriage story was stunningly on-point’: what divorce lawyers what you to know’ The Guardian (20 June 2020) www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jan/20/marriage-story-was-stunningly-on-point-what-divorce-lawyers-want-you-to-know.

2 Gerald Postema, ‘Moral Responsibility in Professional Ethics’ (1980) 55 New York University Law Review 63 at 73; W. Bradley Wendel, Lawyers and Fidelity to Law (Princeton University Press 2010) 176; Alice Woolley, ‘Is Positivist Legal Ethics an Oxymoron?’ (2019) 32 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 77, 88.

3 Katherine Kruse, ‘The Jurisprudential Turn in Legal Ethics’ (2011) 53 Arizona Law Review 493, 496.

4 Postema (n 2) 73.

5 W. Bradley Wendel, ‘The Limits of Positivist Legal Ethics: A Brief History, a Critique, and a Return to Foundations’ (2017) 30 The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 443, 452.

6 e.g.: Groia v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27.

7 Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct (Ottawa: FLSC, 2022).

8 See generally: W. Bradley Wendel, ‘The Rule of Law and Legal-Process Reasons in Attorney Advising’ (2019) 99 Boston University Law Review 107; Wendel, Fidelity (n 2); Wendel, Positivist (n 5).

9 See generally: Tim Dare, The Counsel of Rogues? A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role (Ashgate 2009).

10 See generally: Alice Woolley, ‘The Lawyer as Advisor and the Practice of the Rule of Law’ (2014) 47 UBC Law Review 743; Alice Woolley, Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics in Canada (2nd edn, LexisNexis 2016); Woolley, Positivist (n 2).

11 David Luban and Bradley Wendel, ‘Philosophical Legal Ethics: An Affectionate History’ (2017) 30 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 337, 352–354; Woolley, Positivist, ibid at 88.

12 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) at 49–50.

13 e.g.: David Luban, Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study (Princeton University Press 1988).

14 Katherine Kruse, ‘Beyond Cardboard Clients in Legal Ethics’ (2010) 23 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 103, 104.

15 e.g.: William Simon, The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyers’ Ethics (Harvard University Press 2000).

16 e.g.: Trevor Farrow, ‘Sustainable Professionalism’ (2008) 46 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 51.

17 See generally: Kruse, Jurisprudential (n 3); Luban and Wendel (n 11).

18 e.g.: Richard Devlin, ‘Normative, and Somewhere to Go – Reflections on Professional Responsibility’ (1995) 33 Alberta Law Review 924, 935; David M. Tanovich, ‘Law’s Ambition and the Reconstruction of Role Morality in Canada’ (2005) 28 Dalhousie Law Journal 267, 271–72; Allan Hutchinson, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (2nd edn, Irwin Law 2006) 98–99; Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 44; Farrow (n 16) 63–64.

19 e.g.: Charles Fried, ‘The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relationship’ (1976) 85:8 Yale Law Journal 1060, 1060; Monroe Freedman, ‘Are There Public Interest Limits on Lawyers’ Advocacy’ (1977) 2 Journal of the Legal Profession 47, 47–48; David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge University Press 2007) 22; Dare (n 9) 5–6; Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 37.

20 Dare, ibid 5–6.

21 Monroe Freedman, ‘Henry Lord Brougham and Resolute Lawyering’ (2011) 37 The Advocates' Quarterly 403, 407.

22 Dare (n 9) 5.

23 ibid 5–6.

24 Monroe Freedman, ‘Henry Lord Brougham and Zeal’ (2006) 34 Hofstra Law Review 1319, 1320; Freedman, Resolute (n 21) 404–5; ibid 5–6.

25 Freedman, Zeal, ibid 1320–1; Freedman, Resolute, ibid 404–5.

26 Freedman, Resolute, ibid; Freedman, Public Interest (n 19); Luban, Dignity (n 19) 22.

27 R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70 [12] citing J. Nightingale Trial of Queen Caroline (1821) vol. II, The Defence, Part 1, p 8.

28 Freedman, Resolute (n 21) 405.

29 ibid 405–7; Dare (n 9) 6.

30 Freedman, Public Interest (n 19) 48; Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 44.

31 Freedman, Public Interest, ibid 48.

32 Neil (n 27) [12].

33 e.g.: Devlin (n 18); Tanovich (n 18); Farrow (n 16).

34 Freedman, Resolute (n 21) 405–7; Dare (n 9) 5–6.

35 Freedman, Resolute, ibid 406.

36 Showell Rogers, ‘Ethics of Advocacy’ (1899) 15:3 Law Quarterly Review 259, 270.

37 Luban and Wendel (n 11) 343; Dare (n 9) 10–11.

38 Postema (n 2) 73. Postema was the first person to call it the ‘standard conception’, but Simon and Schwartz defined the principles prior to that, see generally: William Simon, ‘The Ideology of Advocacy: Procedural Justice and Professional Ethics’ (1978) 29 Wisconsin Law Review 29; Murray Schwartz, ‘The Professionalism and Accountability of Lawyers’ (1978) 66 California Law Review 669.

39 Luban, Lawyers (n 13) 52–56; Postema, ibid 73; Dare (n 9) 8–10; Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 29–30.

40 Dare, ibid 59–60; Wendel, Fidelity, ibid 49 and 87–89; Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 461–4; Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 79–80; Kruse, Jurisprudential (n 3) 496.

41 Jeremy Waldron, ‘The Concept and the Rule of Law’ (2008) 43:1 Georgia Law Review 1; Woolley, Positivist, ibid 79 and 85–87.

42 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 49 and 177; Woolley, Positivist, ibid 91.

43 Bradley Wendel, ‘Civil Obedience’ (2004) 104 Columbia Law Review 363, 365–6; Wendel, Fidelity, ibid 89.

44 Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 449.

45 Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 51–52. See also: Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 79–80 and 84–85; ibid 461–4 and 449–50; Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 86–89.

46 Monroe H. Freedman and Abbe Smith, Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics (5th edn Carolina Academic Press 2016) 75.

47 Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 80.

48 Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 449.

49 Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 56.

50 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 6.

51 Ibid 139. See also: Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-2[2-3].

52 Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 88 and 100.

53 Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 92. See also: Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 450.

54 Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) s 16. See also: Robert Mnookin, ‘Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39:3 Law & Contemporary Problems 226; Robert Mnookin, ‘Child Custody Revisited’ (2014) 77:1 Law & Contemporary Problems 249.

55 See generally: Amy Salyzyn, ‘Positivist Legal Ethics Theory and the Law Governing Lawyers: A Few Puzzles Worth Solving’ (2014) 42 Hofstra Law Review 1063.

56 Divorce Act (n 54) ss 7.3 and 7.7(2); Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR / 97-175, s 1; LMP v LS, 211 SCC 64 [14] (Abella and Rothstein JJ); Miglin v Miglin, 2003 SCC 24 [54-55] (Bastarache and Arbour JJ); Colucci v Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 [69] (Martin J).

57 Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455 (SCC); Model Code (n 7) R 3.3-3.

58 Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 88.

59 Benjamin C. Zipursky, ‘Legal Positivism and the Good Lawyer: A Commentary on W. Bradley Wendel’s Lawyers and Fidelity to Law’ (2011) 24:4 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1165; David Luban, ‘Misplaced Fidelity’ (2012) 90 Texas Law Review 673, 689-690; Simon, Justice (n 15) 37; Salyzyn, Puzzles (n 55); Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 444.

60 Salyzyn, Puzzles, ibid 1074–5; Wendel, Positivist, ibid 444; Simon, Justice, ibid 37–40. See also: Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 99.

61 Richard Wasserstrom, ‘Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues’ (1975) 5:1 Human Rights 1; Postema (n 2); Luban, Dignity (n 19) 63; Luban, Lawyers (n 13) 154.

62 Simon, Justice (n 15) 2; Tanovich (n 18).

63 Allan Hutchinson, ‘Taking it Personally: Legal Ethics and Client Selection’ (1998) 1:2 Legal Ethics 168, 172 and 181; Hutchinson, Responsibility (n 18) 212–6.

64 Woolley, Positivist (n 2) 81.

65 Ibid 81.

66 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 9.

67 See generally: Katharine Bartlett, ‘Feminist Legal Methods’ (1990) 103:4 Harvard Law Review 829; Nancy Levit, Robert R.M. Verchick, Martha Minow, Feminist Legal Theory (2nd edn NYU Press 2016) 41–44.

68 Schwartz (n 38) 671.

69 Ibid 671.

70 Gavin MacKenzie, ‘Breaking the Dichotomy Habit: The Adversary System and the Ethics of Professionalism’ (1996) 9:1 The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 33, 41; Farrow (n 16) 65–66; Schwartz (n 38) 671–4.

71 Luban, Dignity (n 19) 63. See also: Deborah Rhode, In the Interests of Justice (Oxford University Press 2000) 53–55; Deborah L. Rhode, ‘Legal Ethics in an Adversary System: The Persistent Questions’ (2006) 34:3 Hofstra Law Review 641, 649–54.

72 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 191.

73 Ibid 191.

74 Carrie Menkel-Meadow, ‘The Evolving Complexity of Dispute Resolution Ethics’ (2017) 30 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 389, 405. See also: Carrie Menkel-Meadow, ‘Ethics and Professionalism in Non-Adversarial Lawyering’ (1999) 27 Florida State University Law Review 153, 162.

75 Menkel-Meadow, Complexity, ibid.

76 For some of the problems that are caused by a lack of regulation in non-adversarial processes, see generally: Julie Macfarlane, ‘The Emerging Phenomenon of Collaborative Family Law (CFL): A Qualitative Study of CFL Cases’ (DOJ 2005) 63–71 and 79–84 www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/2005_1/pdf/2005_1.pdf; Julie Macfarlane, The New Lawyer (UBC Press 2008) 191–222; Deanne Sowter, ‘Full Disclosure: Family Violence and Legal Ethics’ (2020) 53:1 UBC Law Review 141; ibid.

77 e.g.: Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F3, s 56(4); Rick v Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10.

78 But see: Law Society of Alberta, Code of Conduct, Calgary, AB: LSA, 2022, R 7.2-2.

79 Divorce Act (n 54) s 17; Colucci (n 56) [48–54] (Martin J); Michel v Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 [32–33] (Brown J).

80 See: ON FLA (n 77) ss 35 and 56(1); Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 31, ss 7(1), 9(1) and 20. See also: LMP (n 56).

81 See generally: Rosemary Hunter, ‘Adversarial Mythologies: Policy Assumptions and Research Evidence in Family Law’ (2003) 30:1 JL & Soc’y 156, 172; Wanda Wiegers, Jennifer Koshan, and Janet Mosher, ‘Domestic Violence and Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes’ (ABlawg 15 November 2018) https://ablawg.ca/2018/11/15/domestic-violence-andalternative-dispute-resolution-in-family-law-disputes/.

82 Divorce Act (n 54) s 1.

83 David Luban, ‘Partisanship: Betrayal and Autonomy in the Lawyer-Client Relationship: A Reply to Stephen Ellmann’ (1990) 90:4 Columbia Law Review 1004, 1015.

84 See generally: Department of Justice, ‘Legislative Background: An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make Consequential amendments to another Act (Bill C-78 in the 42nd Parliament)’ (DOJ June 2019) 13 www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/c78/legislative_background_E.PDF. But see: Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre and National Association of Women and the Law, ‘Bill C-78: An Act to Amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act’ (NAWL, 2019) 2 and 7 https://nawl.ca/wp-content/uploads/attachments/NAWL_Lukes_Place_Brief_on_C-78_(final_for_resubmission).pdf.

85 Howard Erlanger, Elizabeth Chambliss and Marygold S Melli, ‘Participation and Flexibility in Informal Process: Cautions from the Divorce Context’ (1987) 21:4 Law & Society Review 585, 597; Cynthia L. Chewter, ‘Violence Against Women and Children: Some Legal Issues’ (2003) 20 Canadian Journal of Family Law 99, 142; Miriam Grassby, ‘Two Income Couples: Presumption of Need for the Lower Income Spouse’ (2004) 20 Canadian Journal of Family Law 321, 326.

86 Heather Douglas, Women, Intimate Partner Violence and the Law (Oxford University Press 2021) 239; Susan B Boyd and Ruben Lindy, ‘Violence Against Women and the BC Family Law Act: Early Jurisprudence’ (2016) 35 Canadian Family Law Quarterly 101; Rise Women’s Legal Centre, Haley Hrymak and Kim Hawkins, ‘Why Can’t Everyone Just Get Along?: How BC’s Family Law System Puts Survivors in Danger’ (Women’s Legal Centre, January 2021) 48–51 https://womenslegalcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Why-Cant-Everyone-Just-Get-Along-Rise-Womens-Legal-January2021.pdf.

87 Luban, Partisanship (n 83) 1016, 1018 and 1024.

88 Luban, Dignity (n 19) 63.

89 Divorce Act (n 54) s 16.

90 Model Code (n 7) R 5.1-2(a).

91 Ibid R 5.1-1[4].

92 Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C 12 s 24; Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25 ss 37 & 38; Divorce Act (n 54) s 16; Michel (n 79) [72] (Martin J); Young v Young, [1993] 4 SCR 3 (SCC).

93 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 191.

94 Ibid 78–79.

95 Descôteaux v Mierzwinski, [1982] 1 SCR 860 (SCC); Model Code (n 7) at R 3.2-7, R 3.2-8 and R 5.1-2(e).

96 Law Society of Upper Canada v Curtis, [1993] LSDD no 216 (QL).

97 Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-7(c).

98 Ibid R 3.2-7[1] and [2].

99 Ibid R 5.1-2(a).

100 Ibid R 5.1-2(b).

101 Ibid R 5.1.

102 Ibid R 3.2-7.

103 Measuring conduct by ideas of honour also imports a problematic version of professionalism that is white, male, and privileged, see: Constance Backhouse, ‘Gender and Race in the Construction of ‘Legal Professionalism’: Historical Perspectives’ in Adam Dodek and Alice Woolley (eds), In Search of the Ethical Lawyer: Stories from the Canadian Legal Profession (UBC Press 2016) 128.

104 Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-4.

105 Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99 R 1(8.2); Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C 43 s 140; Kavanagh v Kavanagh, 2016 ABQB 107 [63-64] (Shelley J).

106 See generally: Divorce Act (n 54) s 2(1); Evan Stark, ‘Re-presenting Battered Women: Coercive Control and the Defense of Liberty’ (Stop Violence Against Women, 2012) www.stopvaw.org/uploads/evan_stark_article_final_100812.pdf; Evan Stark and Marianne Hester, ‘Coercive Control: Update and Review’ (2019) 25(1) Violence Against Women 81.

107 Only some individual tactics of coercive control are criminalised, not the pattern as a whole, see: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 229–239, 264, 264.1, 265–269, 271–273, 278, and 430.

108 Hokhold v Gerbrandt, 2014 BCSC 1875, aff’d 2015 BCCA 268; Janet E. Mosher, ‘Grounding Access to Justice Theory and Practice in the Experiences of Women Abused by their Intimate Partners’ (2015) 32 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 149, 158–9; Hrymak & Hawkins (n 86) 30–36; Boyd & Lindy (n 86) 103–4.

109 Rise Women’s Legal Centre, Zara Suleman, Haley Hrymak and Kim Hawkins, ‘Are We Ready to Change? A Lawyer’s Guide to Keeping Women and Children Safe in BC’s Family Law System’ (Women’s Legal Centre, May 2021) 16–17 https://womenslegalcentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Are-We-Ready-to-Change-Rise-Womens-Legal-May-2021.pdf; Deanne Sowter, ‘If It Wasn’t Required Before, It Is Now: All Family Lawyers Must Screen For Family Violence’ (Slaw, 2 November 2021) www.slaw.ca/2021/11/02/if-it-wasnt-required-before-it-is-now-all-family-lawyers-must-screen-for-family-violence/; Chewter (n 85) 142–4.

110 Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 444.

111 Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-2[3].

112 Ibid R 3.2-2.

113 Wendel, Positivist (n 5) 450.

114 Model Code (n 7) R 5.1 and R 3.4-1[5]; Maruca v Yarema, 2016 MBQB 200 [3] (Rempel J).

115 Model Code, ibid R 5.1.

116 Ibid R 5.1-2(e-l). See also: General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada v Isaac, [1992] 7 Alta LR (3d) 230 (AB QB) [78-90] (Funduk M).

117 Model Code, ibid R 1.1-1.

118 Ibid R 5.1-1[1]. See also: Deanne Sowter, ‘Advocacy in Non-Adversarial Family Law: A Recommendation for Revision to the Model Code’ (2018) 35 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 401.

119 e.g.: Model Code, ibid R 5.1-1[8].

120 Groia (n 6) [94] (Moldaver J).

121 Model Code (n 7) R 7.2-2.

122 e.g.: Ibid R 3.2-5.

123 Ibid R 7.2-2.

124 Blackwell v Dixon, [2009] OJ No 2968, 179 ACWS (3d) 318 (Ont Sup Ct J).

125 Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-5.

126 Edwards (re), 2020 LSBC 21; Mcleod (re), 2020 LSBC 33.

127 See generally: Law Society of British Columbia v Laarakker, [2011] LSDD No. 175; Amy Salyzyn, ‘Zealous Advocacy or Exploitive Shakedown?: The Ethics of Shoplifting Civil Recovery Letters’ (2015) 36 Windsor Rev Legal Soc Issues 1; Amy Salyzyn, ‘Bully Lawyers & Shoplifting Civil Recovery Letters: Who’s Going to Stop Them?’ (Slaw, 1 April 2015) www.slaw.ca/2015/04/01/bully-lawyers-shoplifting-civil-recovery-letters-whos-going-to-stop-them/.

128 Douglas (n 86) 168–70.

129 Rick (n 77) [40–44] (Abella J). See also: Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139.

130 Groia (n 6) [72] (Moldaver J).

131 Model Code (n 7) R 5.1-1[1].

132 Canadian Bar Association, ‘Model Code of Professional Conduct: Proposed Amendments for Family Law Lawyers’ (CBA 2021) 10 www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=83d37b58-ee30-43c8-a59e-3b35ce9d8cd6. See also: Sowter, Recommendation (n 118).

133 Luban, Dignity (n 19) 26.

134 Ibid 63.

135 Dare (n 9) 76–80. See also: Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 79.

136 Dare, ibid 75–76.

137 Ibid 76–77.

138 Ibid 76.

139 Ibid 76–77.

140 Ibid 81.

141 Ibid 78 and 81.

142 Ibid 77–81.

143 Ibid 78–79.

144 This does not mean the law will not provide for a child who is neglected.

145 e.g.: Divorce Act (n 54) s 15.1; FCSG (n 56); ON FLA (n 77) s 31; BC FLA (n 92) s 147.

146 Divorce Act, ibid, s 16; BC FLA, ibid Part 4.

147 Divorce Act, ibid, s 16(2).

148 Heather A. Turner and Kathleen Kopiec, ‘Exposure to Interparental Conflict and Psychological Disorder Among Young Adults’ (2006) 27:2 Journal of Family Issues 131, 151–3; Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, ‘Meaningful Change for Family Justice: Beyond Wise Words’ (FLSC, April 2013) 5 https://flsc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/services5.pdf; Shannon M. Monnat and Raeven Faye Chandler, ‘Long-Term Physical Health Consequences of Adverse Childhood Experiences’ (2015) 56 Sociological Quarterly 723, 724–7; Linda C. Neilson, ‘Parental Alienation Empirical Analysis: Child Best Interests or Parental Rights?’ (Freda Centre, 2018) 5–7 https://fredacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/Parental-Alienation-Linda-Neilson.pdf.

149 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 188.

150 Ibid 188.

151 FLR (n 105) R 17(18), R 17(18.1), R 18(14) and R 24; British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71 [25] (LeBel J); Serra v Serra, 2009 ONCA 395 [8] (Moldaver J); Arthur v Arthur, 2019 ONSC 938 [8–12] (Chappel J).

152 Groia (n 6) [102–10] (Moldaver J).

153 There are also processes designed for specific issues, such as parenting issues resolved by a parenting mediator or a parenting co-ordinator. See generally: Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17; Family Arbitration, O Reg 134/07; BC FLA (n 92) ss 14-19; Martha Simmons, ‘Collaborative Law at 25: A Canadian Study of a Global Phenomenon’ (2016) 49:2 UBC Law Review 669; Lorne Wolfson, Settling Family Law Cases: Practical Techniques for Advocates and Neutrals (Thomson Reuters 2017) 31–51.

154 Divorce Act (n 54) ss 7.3 and 7.7(2); BC FLA, ibid at ss 4-9; FLR (n 105) R 24(5); Serra (n 151) [8] (Moldaver J).

155 Joanne J Paetsch, Lorne D Bertrand, John-Paul E Boyd, Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, ‘An Evaluation of the Cost of Family Law Disputes: Measuring the Cost Implication of Various Dispute Resolution Methods’ (CRILF, December 2017) 30–31 www.crilf.ca/Documents/Cost_of_Dispute_Resolution_-_Mar_2018.pdf.

156 Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-4.

157 Divorce Act (n 54) s 7.7(2)(a).

158 Legislative Background (n 84) 33; Colucci (n 56) [69] (Martin J).

159 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 189.

160 Ibid 188. See also: Bradley Wendel, ‘Executive Branch Lawyers in a Time of Terror: The 2008 F.W. Wickwire Memorial Lecture’ (2008) 31:2 Dalhousie Law Journal 247, 265.

161 See generally: Woolley, Advisor (n 10).

162 Ibid 746.

163 Bradley Wendel, ‘The Torture Memos and the Demands of Legality’ Cornell Law School research paper No. 09-019, 9-10; Wendel, Wickwire (n 160) 265.

164 Rick (n 77) [49] (Abella J). See also: Miglin (n 56).

165 Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Penguin Books 2011) 99–100.

166 See generally: Douglas (n 86) 170–80; Linda C. Neilson, ‘Responding to Domestic Violence in Family Law, Civil Protection and & Child Protection Cases, 2nd ed.’ (CanLII, 2020) 12.1 https://canlii.ca/t/ng.

167 Negar Katirai, ‘Retraumatized in Court’ (2020) 62 Arizona Law Review 81, 96.

168 See generally: Kristy Candela, ‘Protecting the Invisible Victim: Incorporating Coercive Control in Domestic Violence Statutes’ (2016) 54 Family Court Review 112, 115–16; Anna Heenan, ‘Neoliberalism, Family Law, and the Devaluation of Care’ (2021) 48 Journal of Law and Society 386; Leigh Goodmark, ‘Autonomy Feminism: An Anti-Essentialist Critique of Mandatory Interventions in Domestic Violence Cases’ (2009) 37:1 Florida State University Law Review 1, 19-20; Katirai, ibid, 96–97.

169 ON FLA (n 77), ss 33(4), 33(15), 35(1), 55(1), 56; BC FLA (n 92) ss 5, 6, 93 and 164; Rick (n 77).

170 Association de médiation familiale du Québec v Bouvier, 2021 SCC 54 [146–150] (Karakatsanis J); Miglin (n 56); LMP (n 56) [15] (Abella and Rothstein JJ).

171 LMP, ibid [15] (Abella and Rothstein JJ).

172 McClenahan v Clarke, 2004 CarswellOnt 366, [2004] OJ No 287, (ON Sup Ct J) [85] (Aitken J); Raichura (n 129).

173 Berthin v Berthin, 2016 BCCA 104 [45-49] (Newbury J).

174 e.g.: Ontario Association of Family Mediation, ‘Standards of Practice’ (OAFM, June 2020) www.oafm.on.ca/about/standards/standards-of-practice/.

175 e.g.: International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, ‘Standards and Ethics’ (IACP, 2019) www.collaborativepractice.com/sites/default/files/IACP%20Standards%20and%20Ethics%202018.pdf.

176 Sowter, Family Violence (n 76) 140 and 163; Simmons (n 153) 684–92.

177 Luban, Lawyers (n 13) 11–12.

178 Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re.), [1998] 1 SCR 27 (SCC) [21] (Iacobucci J). See also: Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c I-21, s 12; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42 [26–30] (Iacobucci J).

179 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; Canadian Union of Public Employees v New Brunswick Liquor; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65; Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66.

180 Woolley, Advisor (n 10) 773. See also: Groia (n 6).

181 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 72.

182 Wendel, Wickwire (n 160) 265.

183 Ibid 265.

184 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 70–71.

185 Ibid 49.

186 Kruse, Jurisprudential (n 3) 508.

187 Ibid 522.

188 Ibid 519.

189 Ibid 496.

190 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 53.

191 Ibid 53–54.

192 Ibid 188.

193 FH v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 [49] (Rothstein J); CCV v British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) 2017 BCSC 412.

194 Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 [31–33] (Karakatsanis J).

195 Woolley, Advisor (n 10) 773. See also: Leo Katz, ‘A Theory of Loopholes’ (2010) 39:1 Journal of Legal Studies 1, 2.

196 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 66.

197 Luban, Lawyers (n 13) 47–49.

198 Katz (n 195) 2–4.

199 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 49.

200 Ibid 51–52.

201 FCSG (n 56) s 9.

202 Contino v Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63 [41] (Bastarache J).

203 If the payor has the child 39% of the time, they pay full table child support. Whereas if they have the child 40% of the time, they pay the set-off amount (adjusted for ‘the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse’). See: FCSG (n 56) s 9.

204 Woolley, Advisor (n 10) 773–4.

205 Deanne Sowter, ‘Professionalism & Ethics in Family Law: The Other 90%’ (2016) 6:1 Journal of Arbitration and Mediation 167, 185–9.

206 Hryniak (n 194) [31–33] (Karakatsanis J).

207 R v Lyttle, 2004 SCC 5 [48] (Major and Fish JJ); Model Code (n 7) R 5.1-2; Monroe Freedman, ‘Professional Responsibility of the Criminal Defence Lawyer: The Three Hardest Questions’ (1966) 64 Michigan Law Review 1469; Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 386–7 and 400–1.

208 Dare (n 9) 80.

209 Ibid 80.

210 Ibid 80.

211 Fisher & Ury (n 165) 137.

212 Ibid 137–40. But see: Model Code (n 7) R 3.2-5.

213 Ibid 140.

214 Ibid 141–2.

215 Ibid 142–4.

216 Luban, Dignity (n 19) 26.

217 LSA (n 78) R 7.2-2.

218 Arguably, the rule of integrity works to discourage lawyers from misleading each other, but this is not explicit. See: Model Code (n 7) R 2.1-1.

219 Ibid R 7.2-2.

220 Wendel, Fidelity (n 2) 191.

221 Ibid 193–4.

222 i.e.: AM v JM, 2016 ONCA 644; Verdon v Verdon, 2015 ONSC 6402 (ON Sup Ct J) [10–11] (Young J). See also: Berend Hovius, Mary-Jo Maur and Nicholas Bala, Family Law: Text, Cases, Materials and Notes (9th edn Thomson Reuters 2017) 684–7.

223 R(GE) v R(HJ), 2012 PESC 24 [21-22] (Campbell J).

224 Model Code (n 7) R 5.1-1[8].

225 Ibid R 5.1-1[8]. See also: Woolley, ULEC (n 10) 135–8.

226 If the client were forced to proceed to court it would cost legal fees and time, and the court may make an order against the client’s interests. Cf: Woolley, ULEC, ibid 402.

227 CLRA (n 92) ss 20(4) and 26.

228 Fisher and Ury (n 165) 99–107.

229 Ibid 102.

230 Ibid 104.

231 Wolfson (n 153) 186–91.

232 Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press 2007) 228–9; Emma Williamson, ‘Living in the World of the Domestic Violence Perpetrator: Negotiating the Unreality of Coercive Control’ (2010) 16:12 Violence Against Women 1412, 1416.

233 See also: CBA Proposal (n 132).

234 e.g.: Simon, Justice (n 15).

Additional information

Funding

This paper is adapted from my LLM thesis entitled, ‘The Bounds of Legality for Family Lawyers: Is the Law Enough?’ (LLM Long Thesis, University of Toronto, 2020). This paper draws on research supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship – Master’s; Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship).