La formation continue est maintenant obligatoire depuis quelques années. Une vaste majorité trouve le processus bénéfique, mais il y a encore des sceptiques.
Une «critique» intéressante a d’ailleurs été publiée dans le Financial Post il y a quelques semaines. Lisez la ici.
L’auteure émet un commentaire suite à la lecture du Joint Report to Convocation from the Paralegal Standing Committee and the Professional Development & Competence Committee, publié le 30 mai dernier par le Barreau du Haut-Canada. Remarquez qu’il s’agit ici d’un regard critique sur un document émanant de l’Ontario et ne concernant pas le Barreau du Québec.
Voici un extrait assez représentatif:
What I found was that the committees had pronounced the program to have been “successfully implemented” because lawyers and paralegals were “overwhelmingly adapting” to it. Since the failure to meet your CPD requirement means that your licence to earn income will be summarily suspended, it’s not too surprising that more than 99% of practitioners chose to comply rather than cut their financial throats. But this hardly seems like an appropriate measure of success.
(…)
If mandatory CPD were accomplishing these goals, I would expect the success to be reflected in two measurable results. First, complaints to the Law Society about professional misconduct should be declining. The report makes no mention of this at all. Second, negligence claims against lawyers and paralegals should be declining. Again, the report does not provide any such evidence.
Qu’en pensez-vous? Est-ce un succès retentissant ou non?
