Convolutions Hypocricies and Ironies: Ontario Lawyers

Here is (another ?) stab at an outline for a monograph
that has been in my head for a couple of decades or more.

For sure somethings related to this topic appear in one of my hand written journals,
but perhaps now is a good time to start a piece digitally.


The most recent element to cross my path connects the rules of our governing authorities and their partners for access to the real estate conveyancing software that allows lawyers to change the named ownership of a property online, ( read while in your pajamas and slightly inebriated at the comfort of your home worktable). I acknowledge that a real real estate lawyer would have written that sentence differently.

So a lawyer wishing access has to go through one lot of hoops - many of them repetitious, needlessly, some them comical and some tragic.

One irony before it slips my head: for a group that includes in its mandate 'promotion of the rule of law', the rules of these rule guardians promotes the breaking of the rules. Go figure. And without, heretofore, nary the slightest whisper from the governed, nor the governors for that matter.

For my dear readers it is probably best I now to set the stage, a backgrounder of sorts.

The software is required for the ordinary and the extraordinary practice of real estate law in the province. Real estate law practice at the householder side is all about doing the paperwork to reflect that Bob & Jane have just bought a new old home. New to the buyers, old to the sellers. The paper work will also reflect the reality that the First New Bank has loaned the money that was given to the bikers that have just sold the place, and their lenders whoever they may be.

Now in our system we allow anybody, for a small fee, (hmmmm), an opportunity to view a record disclosing ownership, and lender, and claimant information, about each privately owned chunk of land in the province. And it is known to be a very reliable system. People can and do count on it, routinely. The stakes are usually very significant, both in dollar terms, and emotional terms.

So the designers, and protectors of the system (read: lawyers) are eager to ensure the system is secure. And in an online, world around, bit based system, knowing who is actually entering the critical information into the system database is a paramount concern. Securing that security requires protocols, and procedures, and the inevitable rules, which rules often reach the status of laws, for which, on a breach, the State may impose severe penalties.

What I have recently had confirmed from an impeccable set of sources, is that there is widespread flaunting of the critical rules, and just as sadly, widespread lying about it. And for clarity, yes I level these charges at Ontario lawyers. Not that any other jurisdiction is meaningfully better.