Law Society Bencher Says ‘Serious Unfinished Business’ Remains After Meeting on CEO Pay Hike Report
The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) held a meeting on Thursday, March 21, 2025, to address the fallout from a controversial report regarding a significant salary increase for its former CEO, Diana Miles. The report, authored by former associate chief justice Dennis O’Connor, examined the circumstances surrounding Miles’ pay raise, which ultimately led to her departure after the details became public.
Despite the meeting, Bencher John Fagan expressed concerns that “serious unfinished business” remains unresolved. While some progress was made, Fagan highlighted lingering questions about governance and accountability within the LSO that still need to be addressed.
Fagan emphasized the LSO’s obligation to transparency, given its role as a public interest regulator. He argued that the full O’Connor report should be made public, with any genuinely confidential information redacted. This level of openness, Fagan believes, is essential to maintaining public trust in the organization.
LSO Treasurer Peter Wardle has defended the decision to keep the report private, citing legal privilege and employment confidentiality. However, critics argue that the LSO could waive privilege if doing so serves the public interest.
The meeting has left some benchers unsatisfied with the level of disclosure and accountability surrounding the CEO pay controversy. LSO leadership continues to face pressure to prioritize transparency and implement concrete measures to improve governance practices.
LSO’s Decision to Withhold Report Sparks Debate on Transparency and Public Interest
The Law Society of Ontario’s decision to keep the O’Connor report confidential has ignited a heated debate among legal professionals and the public alike. While Treasurer Peter Wardle maintains that the report is protected under legal privilege and employment confidentiality, critics argue that the public interest in the matter outweighs these concerns.
Legal experts suggest that the LSO could waive its privilege to disclose the report, especially given its role as a public interest regulator. “Privilege is not absolute,” said one legal ethics specialist. “When the public’s trust in an institution is at stake, transparency often becomes the greater good.” This perspective is echoed by several benchers who feel that the LSO’s credibility is at risk if the report remains undisclosed.
The controversy has also raised questions about the governance structure of the LSO. Some benchers have called for an independent review of the organization’s decision-making processes, particularly in matters involving executive compensation and accountability. “This isn’t just about one report,” said a bencher who wished to remain anonymous. “It’s about ensuring that our governance practices align with the transparency and accountability we expect from our members.”
As the debate continues, the LSO faces growing pressure to address these concerns. While no official timeline has been set for further action, sources indicate that the matter is unlikely to fade from the agenda. With the legal community closely watching, the LSO’s handling of this issue could set a precedent for how similar organizations balance confidentiality and public accountability in the future.
Conclusion
The Law Society of Ontario’s recent meeting highlighted the ongoing challenges in addressing the controversial CEO pay hike and the subsequent O’Connor report. While some progress was made, significant concerns remain regarding governance, accountability, and transparency. The debate over whether to disclose the report underscores the tension between legal privilege and the public’s right to know. As the LSO navigates this complex issue, its decision will not only impact its credibility but also set a precedent for balancing confidentiality with public accountability in similar situations.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened at the LSO meeting on March 21, 2025?
The meeting addressed the fallout from a report on the controversial pay raise for former CEO Diana Miles. While some progress was noted, concerns about governance and accountability remain unresolved.
Why is the O’Connor report controversial?
The report details the circumstances surrounding the CEO’s pay raise, which led to her departure. Its confidentiality has sparked debate over transparency and public interest.
What is the LSO’s position on releasing the O’Connor report?
LSO Treasurer Peter Wardle argues the report is protected by legal privilege and employment confidentiality, while critics believe the public interest outweighs these concerns.
Can the LSO waive legal privilege to release the report?
Yes, legal experts suggest the LSO could waive privilege, especially given its role as a public interest regulator, to maintain transparency and trust.
What are the implications if the report remains confidential?
Non-disclosure could erode public trust and credibility in the LSO, potentially affecting its governance practices and accountability standards.
What’s next for the LSO regarding this issue?
While no timeline is set, the LSO faces pressure to address transparency and governance. The matter is expected to remain a key agenda item.
