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.
Table of contents
The Problem with the Law Society’s CEO Contract
Diana Miles’s salary increase which was negotiated by former LSO Treasurer Jacqueline Horvat has sparked concern. Many LSO board members say they were never consulted.
A 50% raise without board approval raises serious governance concerns. If leadership can approve major contracts in secret, what else is happening behind closed doors?
One former Law Society bencher put it bluntly: “The secrecy surrounding this decision is deeply troubling. Benchers were kept in the dark, and that’s unacceptable.”
In response to the backlash, the Law Society hired a retired judge to investigate. But that move reveals a deeper issue, which is a lack of internal accountability. This moment underscores a broader need for transparency in how the Law Society handles both finances and leadership.
The CanLII Connection: A Broader Pattern?
The controversy over Diana Miles is serious. However, it points to a much larger problem within the Law Society.
Across Canada, Law Societies, which includes Ontario’s, control CanLII. This platform is supposed to offer free access to legal information. But behind the scenes, questions are growing.
Critics say CanLII may be leveraging its public mandate to cut side deals with private AI firms. These moves could be stifling competition.
In November 2024, CanLII filed a lawsuit against Caseway, an AI legal research company. It alleged unauthorized data scraping. Media covered the case widely, but many experts saw something else: an effort to protect CanLII’s control over legal data, and is not a genuine copyright claim.
Meanwhile, CanLII has partnered with private AI firms like Lexum and Jurisage. Both are led by former CanLII executives. That overlap raises serious ethical concerns.
Alistair Vigier, CEO of Caseway, pushed back. “This is about control. CanLII is happy to work with private AI companies run by former insiders while suing real competition that threatens their monopoly.”
So if CanLII is truly a public resource, why is it locking out independent companies? If money changes hands in these partnerships, where does it go? Is any of it returning to the Law Society, or benefiting individuals directly?
These are the questions the public deserves answers to. For instance, how did the CEO of the Ontario Law Society end up with a $1 million annual salary? More importantly, where did that money come from?
The “Lawfia”: A System Designed to Protect Insiders
The close ties between the Law Societies, CanLII, and a handful of affiliated AI companies reveal a troubling pattern. Financial self-interest is often masked as public service. Yet those who control legal information also control access to justice. When that control serves insiders rather than the broader legal community, it raises serious ethical concerns.
Legal AI consultant Colin Lachance, who is a former CanLII CEO, has acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining bulk legal data in Canada. “There is no other way for anybody to get bulk case law unless they have a relationship with the courts to receive it,” he wrote in a LinkedIn post discussing the lawsuit.
By contrast, legal data in the U.S.A. is broadly available, fueling a competitive and innovative legal tech sector. In Canada, access remains limited to those who can afford it—likely a direct result of the choices made by the Law Society and CanLII.
Ontario Law Society CEO – The Need for Reform
The investigation into Diana Miles’s compensation should be only the beginning. The legal community must push for full accountability. Not just for executive pay, but across every level of the Law Society’s operations. If major salary increases can be approved behind closed doors, what else might be hidden?
Fairness, justice, and transparency are meant to be the cornerstones of the legal profession. The Law Society appears to operate by a different set of rules, ones that benefit a select few while sidelining lawyers and the public.
It’s time to dismantle the “Lawfia” and demand real reform. Independent audits of both CanLII and the Law Society’s finances are essential. In addition, legal data partnerships must be subject to public oversight, and access to legal information must become open and equitable.
If the Ontario Law Society’s leadership truly wants to serve the public, secrecy must give way to transparency. The future of legal innovation, and access to justice in Canada.
Author: James Caldwell, investigative reporter, Ottawa.
Editor: Al Vigier
What triggered the controversy over the Law Society of Ontario’s CEO pay?
In 2024, former CEO Diana Miles saw her salary jump roughly 50 percent to about $936,800—approved without informing benchers. That raised serious governance concerns and led to her departure in early 2025 amid widespread public criticism.
Who investigated the salary increase and with what outcome?
The LSO commissioned retired Associate Chief Justice Dennis O’Connor to conduct an independent review. He concluded the pay hike lacked proper oversight and governance, and Convocation voted to release his report and implement recommended reforms.
Why didn’t the LSO release the O’Connor report immediately to the public?
Initially, the LSO withheld it citing legal privilege and confidentiality tied to the employment matter. After mounting pressure, Convocation reversed course and voted in March 2025 to release the report for transparency.
What governance reforms has the LSO pledged following the scandal?
Convocation has committed to reforms—executive compensation oversight, better board processes, and structural accountability. A governance review task force, led by the Treasurer, is working to implement changes swiftly to restore public and professional trust.
Can legal professionals expect accountability for benchers involved in approving the pay hike?
Yes. A former bencher filed code-of-conduct complaints against two benchers who participated in the compensation committee. That process is underway under internal conduct protocols and may result in public findings.