Lawyers deserve answers about how their regulator is handling executive accountability
The Law Society of Ontario is entrusted with upholding transparency, accountability, and the highest ethical standards in the legal profession. Yet, in the wake of the controversy surrounding former CEO Diana Miles’ salary increase and sudden departure, the regulator is failing to meet those very principles.
At the centre of the growing scandal is a report prepared by Dennis O’Connor, the former associate chief justice of Ontario, which was finalized at the end of February. The report examines how and why Miles received a substantial pay increase – one significant enough that, once disclosed, it led to her abrupt exit from the organization. But despite mounting pressure from the legal community, the LSO has refused to release the report, citing concerns over legal privilege and employment confidentiality.
LSO Treasurer Peter Wardle has defended the decision to keep the report under wraps, explaining that O’Connor’s findings constitute “privileged legal advice” and that “matters related to employee performance and employment relationships are confidential.” These are serious considerations, and no one is suggesting that the LSO should indiscriminately release privileged documents or breach private employee information. However, the sweeping application of these principles to justify complete secrecy does not hold up to scrutiny.
As Federation of Ontario Law Associations (FOLA) Chair Allen Wynperle has pointed out, the issue at stake is not simply an internal employment matter – it is about public confidence in the governance of the profession’s regulator. The LSO is not a private company managing its personnel behind closed doors; it is a public interest body funded by lawyers’ and paralegals’ dues and entrusted with regulating the profession in a fair and transparent manner. Benchers – elected by Ontario’s legal community to oversee the LSO – have access to the report, yet the very lawyers and paralegals who fund the organization are being kept in the dark. That contradiction is untenable.
Furthermore, if O’Connor’s report provides legal advice, the LSO is not bound to keep it confidential – it can waive privilege if it serves the public interest. Genuinely private information can be redacted.
Given that this controversy has already resulted in leadership upheaval and has called the organization’s governance into question, transparency is the only path to restoring trust. The LSO cannot credibly demand that Ontario lawyers uphold professional and ethical accountability in their own practices while it shields itself from scrutiny.
Ultimately, secrecy breeds suspicion. The refusal to disclose the report only fuels speculation that its findings are politically damaging or reveal deeper governance failures. If the LSO wants to demonstrate that it has learned from this controversy and is committed to responsible oversight, it should not hide behind privilege and confidentiality. It should release the report.
Ontario’s legal profession deserves better from its regulator. If the LSO values the trust of the lawyers it governs – and the public it serves – it must embrace transparency. Anything less is a disservice to the profession and the principles it stands for.
