Elena R.

Iosef
Email: elenaRiosef@gmail.com

Policy Secretariat
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON, M5H 2N6
[via email: policy@lsuc.on.ca]
October 19 | 2016
To Whom It May Concern:
Re:

Pathways Pilot Project Evaluation and Enhancements to Licensing Report

Please accept this submission in response to the Pathways Pilot Project Evaluation and
Enhancement to Licensing Report (the LPP Report) that was issued for consultation on
September 22, 2016 on the issue of the Law Practice Program (the LPP) and licensing
process.
Background
My name is Elena Iosef and I am a lawyer practicing in Toronto, Ontario. I was called to the
Ontario Bar in 2014. I graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School (Osgoode) in 2013. As
Osgoodes 2012-2013 student government president and one of the founding members of
the Law Students Society of Ontario (the LSSO), I was involved in many consultations with
Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) benchers regarding the LPP before its formal
implementation.
During consultations with LSUC, I was dismayed at how little regard benchers gave to the
serious concerns students had with the proposed LPP program. I sincerely hope LSUC avoids
making the same error. LSUC should heavily weigh the opinions of law students and young
lawyers who are closer to the heart of this important issue.
I strongly oppose the dismantling of the LPP. I adopt and underscore the submissions of the
Ontario Bar Association Pathways Report Working Group, the Roundtable of Diversity
Associations, and fellow LSSO alum Douglas W. Judson. Below, I outline some of the reasons
why I believe discontinuing the LPP would be an enormous injustice to our profession.
The Adverse Effect on Equity Seeking Groups
On September 22, 2016, LSUC released a report entitled Working Together for Change:
Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Profession (the Diversity
Report). The Diversity Report does not pull any punches or mince any words. It states that

discrimination based on race is a daily reality in our profession1. LSUC has admitted flat
out that systemic racism is a problem that must be solved within our community.
While the Diversity Report is eye opening and a worthy read in its entirety, the following
two passages are of particular note in this consultation2:
Racial and ethnic barriers were ranked highly among the barriers to entry and
advancement. Forty percent (40%) of racialized licensees identified their
ethnic/racial identity as a barrier to entry to practice, while only 3% of non-racialized
licensees identified ethnic/racial identity as a barrier. Racialized licensees frequently
identified physical appearance, socioeconomic status, place of birth and upbringing,
age, manner of speaking English/French and gender identity as barriers more so
than non-racialized licensees. Racialized licensees were also more likely to have
struggled to find an articling position or training placement.
Similarly, 43% of racialized licensees identified ethnic/racial identity as a
barrier/challenge to advancement, while only 3% of non-racialized licensees
identified ethnic/racial identity as a barrier. Racialized licensees were more likely
than non-racialized licensees to believe they had not advanced as rapidly as
colleagues with similar qualifications.
The LPP Report outlines that in its second year, close to 32% of LPP students were
racialized, compared to only 18% of articling students. Similarly, 19% of LPP students were
over 40 years of age compared to only 2% of articling students.
It seems that for some reason, racialized students end up being shunted into the LPP path.
In light of the Diversity Reports findings it is hard to believe that systemic racism is not one
of the chief reasons why this occurs. I cant know for certain what the Diversity Report
committee thinks of the evolving patterns in the LPP program, however, because the
Diversity Report does not mention the LPP even once. Similarly, the LPP Report does not
cross-reference the findings of the Diversity Report.
How is it possible that when faced with the difference in program makeup the LPP and
Diversity Reports did not reference one another? I am frankly shocked LSUC would even
consider dismantling the LPP without doing further research into why and how racialized
and mature students end up in the program to begin with.
The LPP Report concluded that despite how it is perceived, the LPP provides effective
experiential training to students. It even goes as far as stating that in some ways the LPP
delivery is superior to the Articling Program for consistency and attention to sole and small
firm practice realities.3 We are unable to fully consider the benefits of the LPP seeing as
the Report does not have any data on post-LPP career placements of its second year cohort.
The reality is that despite its current architectural flaws, the LPP ensures that a substantial
amount of racialized and mature students get called to the bar. As the Diversity Report
states, part of LSUCs mandate is to ensure that the law and the practice of law are
1

Diversity Report page 35.

Diversity Report page 39.
3
LPP Report page 24.
2

Page | 2

reflective of all the people in Ontario, including Indigenous peoples, Francophones and
equality-seeking communities4. Discontinuing the LPP after only its second year without
another solution in place to support racialized students get called to the bar would go
directly against this important mandate.
Detrimental Reliance on Existence of LPP
The LPP was marketed to law school students as a four year pilot program. Students
currently in law school detrimentally relied on the programs availability when crafting
summer and post-graduation plans. Some students may have preferred the LPP to articling
after hearing positive feedback from LPP graduates. Some students may have wanted to
enroll in the LPP due to its emphasis on practical learning. Other students may have
preferred the program because they wanted the opportunity to work with organizations
that rarely offer formal articling programs.
Students who expected to enroll in the LPP in its third and fourth years trusted LSUC with
their future. LSUC should not break its promises to these students by discontinuing the pilot
after only two years and on the basis of limited data.
Like many other young lawyers, I fear that dismantling the LPP without another solution in
place will only increase the amount of exploitative unpaid articling positions being offered
in the market. Like Mr. Judson, I fear that without the LPP such a troubling phenomenon
would be normalized further. Its also important to note once again that students who
resort to accepting unpaid articling positions are more likely to be older and racialized, and
LSUC should take this factor into consideration when making its final decision.
The LPP Can Be Improved
Once again, I agree with Mr. Judson as to how two of the LPPs biggest issues can be
improved upon.
I strongly believe that the financial burden of continuing the LPP should be borne by all
members of the profession rather than just licensees. I am very confused as to why
licensees, a group already beleaguered by low pay and heavy student debt, is the only
subset of our profession supporting the program.
I also believe that the perception of the LPP can be improved with architectural changes
such as emphasizing its consistency and practical skill building and integrating it with OCI
and articling recruitment processes. LSUC should take active steps in the next two years in
marketing the program as competitive with articling as opposed to an option of last resort.
As one contributor to the Diversity Report wisely stated: If attitudes dont change, the
numbers are not going to change.5 I and many others believe that perceptions can be
changed. If LSUC ultimately does not agree with us, it should use the two remaining years of
the pilot program to research viable alternatives to the articling crisis.

4
5

Diversity Report page 3.

Diversity Report page 45.
Page | 3

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this consultation. Please feel free to contact
me if you have any questions about this submission.
Sincerely,

Elena R. Iosef

Page | 4