Miles’ compensation package, which included a nearly 50% raise, was approved without the knowledge of the LSO’s governing body, Convocation. Her base salary jumped from just under $600,000 to nearly $1 million, along with a $226,000 lump sum for pension adjustments. The deal also removed a 20% performance bonus incentive, raising eyebrows among legal professionals and the public alike.
In response to the backlash, the LSO hired former Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor to investigate the circumstances surrounding the pay increase. However, despite calls for transparency, the LSO has refused to make O’Connor’s report public, citing it as privileged legal advice.
FOLA, representing 12,000 practicing lawyers in Ontario, has demanded full disclosure of the report. “Mistakes need to be aired and rectified,” said FOLA Chair Douglas Judson. “As a public interest regulator, the LSO must uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability.”
The controversy has also raised questions about governance within the LSO. Former Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat signed off on the contract without notifying Convocation, and the board only learned of the raise in late November. Current Treasurer Peter Wardle later commissioned a review of the compensation benchmarking report used to justify the increase, which found the recommendations to be “unusual in the market and uncharacteristic for a senior executive role.”
The LSO announced Miles’ departure on March 6, just hours after benchers were granted access to O’Connor’s report under strict conditions. However, the regulator has yet to release the document publicly, fueling concerns about a lack of openness.
FOLA’s call for transparency is part of a broader chorus of criticism. The Ontario Bar Association and other legal organizations have also urged the LSO to disclose the report, arguing that public trust in the regulator depends on it. As the debate continues, the controversy has cast a spotlight on governance practices within the LSO and the need for greater accountability.
The controversy deepened when it was revealed that former LSO Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat had signed off on the contract without notifying Convocation. The board only learned of the raise in late November, months after the decision had been made. This lack of communication has been criticized as a failure of accountability, particularly given the significant public interest in the matter.
Current Treasurer Peter Wardle commissioned a review of the compensation benchmarking report used to justify Miles’ pay increase. The consulting firm hired to conduct the review found that the recommendations were “unusual in the market and uncharacteristic for a senior executive role.” This finding has cast further doubt on the justification for the substantial raise and lump sum payment.
The LSO announced on March 6 that Miles was no longer employed by the regulator, just hours after benchers were given access to O’Connor’s report under strict conditions. However, the regulator has continued to withhold the report from the public, citing it as privileged legal advice. This decision has been met with criticism from FOLA and other legal organizations, who argue that the public interest demands full disclosure.
FOLA’s chair, Douglas Judson, has emphasized that the LSO, as a public interest regulator, should be held to a high standard of transparency. “Mistakes need to be aired and rectified,” Judson said. “The public trust in the LSO depends on its ability to be open and accountable in its decision-making processes.”
The Ontario Bar Association has also joined FOLA in calling for the release of O’Connor’s report. The controversy has raised broader questions about governance and accountability within the LSO, with many legal professionals and the public expressing concerns about the lack of transparency in the regulator’s actions.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding Diana Miles’ salary increase at the Law Society of Ontario has brought to light significant concerns about transparency and accountability within the legal regulator. The substantial raise, approved without the knowledge of Convocation, has sparked widespread debate and calls for the release of the O’Connor report. FOLA and other legal organizations have emphasized the importance of openness, arguing that public trust in the LSO depends on its ability to be transparent and accountable. As the situation continues to unfold, the LSO must address these concerns to maintain its credibility and uphold the standards expected of a public interest regulator.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the controversy surrounding Diana Miles’ salary increase?
Diana Miles, the former CEO of the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), received a nearly 50% salary increase, raising her base salary from just under $600,000 to nearly $1 million. The raise was approved without the knowledge of Convocation, the LSO’s governing body, leading to calls for transparency and accountability.
Why is the Federation of Ontario Law Associations (FOLA) involved?
FOLA, representing 12,000 practicing lawyers in Ontario, has demanded the release of a report detailing the circumstances surrounding Miles’ salary increase. FOLA argues that transparency and accountability are essential for maintaining public trust in the LSO.
What were the details of Diana Miles’ compensation package?
Miles’ compensation package included a base salary increase from just under $600,000 to nearly $1 million, a $226,000 lump sum for pension adjustments, and the removal of a 20% performance bonus incentive. The package was approved without Convocation’s knowledge.
What is the O’Connor report, and why is it important?
The O’Connor report is an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Miles’ salary increase, conducted by former Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor. The LSO has refused to make the report public, citing it as privileged legal advice, despite calls for transparency from FOLA and other legal organizations.
Why has the LSO refused to release the O’Connor report?
The LSO has cited the O’Connor report as privileged legal advice and has refused to release it to the public. However, FOLA and other legal organizations have argued that the public interest demands full disclosure, given the significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
What are the implications of this controversy for the LSO?
The controversy has raised serious questions about governance and accountability within the LSO. The lack of transparency has fueled concerns about the regulator’s ability to uphold the highest standards of openness and accountability, potentially eroding public trust in the institution.
