From Mao to mandatory training: Alberta lawyer challenges Law Society over compelled ideology
Roger Song was called to the Alberta bar in 2014, bringing with him years of experience as a law professor in Beijing. But his memories of life under Maoist China—marked by political indoctrination and government coercion—never faded. Those memories resurfaced in 2019, when the Law Society of Alberta required him to complete a “cultural competence” training course to keep his license to practise law in the province.
According to Mr. Song, this mandatory training reminded him of the ideological conformity he experienced under the Chinese regime.
Concerned by the direction of the Law Society of Alberta (Society), Mr. Song called on the Society to allow lawyers to vote on ending mandatory professional development training. That effort failed.
Challenging the Law Society of Alberta
Undeterred, Mr. Song launched a constitutional challenge in 2023 with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre.
At the centre of the challenge are a series of specific Society rules and codes:
- Rule 67.4 is being challenged for enabling the Society to impose a wide range of politicized requirements—not limited to Indigenous content.
- Rules 67.2 and 67.3 compel lawyers to submit annual Continuing Professional Development (CPD) plans tied to a new “Professional Development Profile,” which Mr. Song argues redefines legal competence as adherence to woke political beliefs.
- Part 6.3 of the Code of Professional Conduct, which addresses harassment and discrimination, is being challenged for seeking to redefine legal ethics and to suppress dissent.
- The Profile and the Code are further criticized for being so vague that they are impossible to navigate without adopting an approved ideological framework.
Together, these requirements form part of what the Society itself calls its “Political Objectives,” which Mr. Song argues constitute an abuse of regulatory power and a direct violation of the Society’s duty to shield the profession from political interference.
According to Mr. Song, the entire regime violates his Charter rights under sections 2(a) and 2(b), amounting to compelled speech, forced ideological conformity, and suppression of conscience and expression.
In court documents, the Society admits to “political” and “ideological” objectives, but refuses to define such terms. It claims that the court does not have the right to see evidence about, or review that conduct, to evaluate whether it is lawful or constitutional.
Mr. Song argues that lawyers in Canada must remain independent from politically motivated perspectives. According to Mr. Song, the Society is advancing policies under vague terms like “competence,” “ethics,” and “diversity,” without clearly defining them. He said these policies promote racial division and ideological conformity.
Mr. Song is asking the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to defend the rule of law and uphold the freedoms of all Alberta lawyers under the Charter.
“The Law Society’s actions threaten those foundations,” he concluded.
Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett emphasized the seriousness of the issue: “The Law Society effectively seeks to change Canada’s law by changing the way lawyers work – by changing their ‘culture.’ In a democracy, the legislature makes and changes laws, not law societies, not law firms.”
He added, “The Law Society is arguing that the Court is not allowed to even think about the Law Society’s political objectives. In essence, this is just asking the Court to abandon its duty to ensure that state power is exercised legally and constitutionally.”
Case to be heard by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta
The first hearing on this matter will take place at 10 AM MDT on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in Calgary, located at 601–5th Street, SW.
