The controversy surrounding the Law Society of Ontario and its CEO Diana Miles’s new, nearly $1 million contract highlights systemic problems within The Law Society, including concerns over governance, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest.
The hiring of retired Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor to conduct an independent review of the matter signals the seriousness of the concerns raised by LSO benchers. However, this case does not occur in a vacuum; it fits into a broader pattern of opaque financial dealings within the legal establishment, including the operations of CanLII, a legal database controlled by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. The Ontario Law Society funds roughly half of CanLII.
The Problem with the Law Society’s CEO Contract
Diana Miles’s salary increase, negotiated by former LSO Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat, raised eyebrows among the governing board members, many of whom were not consulted.
A 50% pay raise without board approval raises fundamental questions about governance within one of Canada’s most influential legal institutions. If such a significant contract change can occur without proper supervision, what other financial dealings are happening behind closed doors?
A former Law Society bencher who spoke to us under the condition of anonymity noted, “The secrecy surrounding this decision is deeply troubling. Benchers were kept in the dark, and that’s unacceptable.”
The LSO’s need to hire a retired judge to investigate its own leadership suggests a lack of internal accountability. This incident underscores the need for greater transparency in how the Law Society handles financial and administrative decisions that impact the broader legal community.
The CanLII Connection: A Broader Pattern of Financial Mismanagement?
While the public outcry over Diana Miles is justified, it is only one part of a more significant issue concerning how the Law Society operates. The Law Society of Ontario—and other provincial Law Societies—control CanLII, a non-profit legal information database supposed to provide free access to Canadian legal information.
However, concerns have been raised about whether CanLII has leveraged its position to engage in anti-competitive practices and side deals with for-profit AI companies.
In November 2024, CanLII filed a lawsuit against the AI legal research company Caseway, alleging unauthorized data scraping. The lawsuit, covered by multiple media outlets, is widely seen by experts as an attempt to protect CanLII’s monopoly over Canadian legal data rather than a genuine copyright issue.
While CanLII claims to be a non-profit, it has dealt with private AI firms like Lexum and Jurisage, which former CanLII executives control.
Alistair Vigier, CEO of Caseway, fought back in the media against the lawsuit, telling us, “This is about control. CanLII is happy to partner with private AI companies run by former insiders while suing any real competition that might disrupt their monopoly.”
If CanLII is genuinely a public resource, why is it selectively partnering with certain AI companies while shutting others out? If it is receiving money from these deals, where is that money going? Is any of it flowing back to the Law Society, benefiting individuals?
These are pressing questions that require investigation. How did the CEO of the Ontario Law Society afford to pay herself $1m/year in salary? Where did this extra money come from?
The “Lawfia”: A System Designed to Protect Insiders
The tight connections between the Law Societies, CanLII, and select CanLII-affiliated AI companies reveal a troubling pattern. Financial self-interest is disguised as public service. Those who control legal information control access to justice. It raises serious ethical concerns if that control benefits insiders instead of the broader legal community.
Legal AI consultant Colin Lachance, a former CanLII CEO, admitted that obtaining bulk legal data in Canada is complicated. “There is no other way for anybody to get bulk case law unless they have a relationship with the courts to receive it,” he said in a LinkedIn post about the lawsuit.
Legal data is widely accessible in the U.S., fueling a thriving legal tech sector. Access in Canada remains restricted to those who can afford it, likely a direct result of how the Law Society and CanLII choose to operate.
Ontario Law Society CEO – The Need for Reform
The investigation into Diana Miles’s compensation should be just the beginning. The legal community must demand greater accountability for executive salaries and all aspects of the Law Society’s operations. If the Law Society secretly approves salary hikes, what else is happening behind closed doors?
Fairness, justice, and transparency are core principles of the legal profession. The Law Society operates under a different set of rules that benefit a small group of insiders at the expense of lawyers and the public.
It’s time to dismantle the “Lawfia” and push for real change. Independent audits of CanLII and the Law Society’s finances are essential. Legal data partnerships must be transparent, and the legal information ecosystem should be open and fair.
If the Ontario Law Society CEO wants to serve the public, transparency must replace secrecy. The future of legal innovation—and access to justice in Canada—depends on it.
Author: James Caldwell, investigative reporter, Ottawa.
Editor: Al Vigier
