Violence and threats against lawyers practising in Vancouver, Canada.

• Author: Brown, Karen N.

Introduction

Are lawyers becoming casualties of their profession? Violence, threats, and abuse against practising lawyers have been investigated with little, if any, frequency in Canada. Although some research does exist on this subject, no significant statistics have been compiled in Canada on the forces surrounding violent acts against legal practitioners. Much of the research in this vein has focused on violence against members of the judiciary. Sometimes such research also addresses violence against other courtroom personnel. It cannot be assumed that the phenomenon of violence against the judiciary is similar to that which prevails against lawyers. For example, the primary focus of studies on judiciary violence is the prevalence, severity, and location of the violence, in order to monitor, amend, or improve procedures and protocols for courthouse security. In addition, the dynamics of violence against judges may also be difficult to compare with violence perpetrated solely against lawyers. That is, although some of the tenets of violence may be similar, judiciary violence may be quite different and diverse, thereby leading to erroneous assumptions about violence against lawyers. Take, for instance, the location of judiciary violence. It can be assumed that a good percentage of incidents occur inside a courtroom (Calhoun 1998), whereas violent acts against lawyers likely vary in the number of occurrences, as well as the severity and location of incidents.

In both Canada and the United States, there is no established system for reporting threats or violence against lawyers to their respective professional associations--the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association. If there were such a process, analysis of the phenomenon might be facilitated. Reports of violent or threatening incidents to the police are lost into the uniform crime-reporting system, which does not permit analysis of incidents based on the occupation of the victim. Since there are no statistics readily available to facilitate analysis of how insidious the problem may be, or to determine whether such violent incidents are on the rise (Brady 1998), researchers are left to collect their own data directly from those working in the legal profession.

Accordingly, using survey data from Vancouver, BC, and its surrounding suburbs, this research will address the extent to which lawyers are affected by threats and/or violence.

Nature of work-related violence

The terms workplace and work-related violence have varied meanings in the context of this article. In a manner consonant with that of Wynne, Clarkin, Cox, and Griffiths (1996), "work-related" violence is defined as "incidents where persons are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work [italics added], involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well-being and health" (1).

Accordingly, there can be numerous differences between what is considered workplace and work-related violence. Workplace violence occurs usually when aggressive disputes take place between employers and employees, or contentious issues arise between personnel. Furthermore, although the construction of workplace often conjures images of predetermined physical locations where individuals usually work, it may not take into account "mobile or geographically diverse occupations" where workers are not fixed in one location but travel or move in diverse directions in the course of their occupation (Martino 2003: 886). Those with jobs that require them to travel while working may experience violence that does not occur in their immediate workplace, yet the violent incidents may still be work-related. Accordingly, lawyers may often practise law in various sites--from their business offices to courthouses or other government institutions, in or about which threatening or violent incidents may occur. For that reason, it is important to distinguish between workplace and work-related violence in relation to this topic, because it is imperative to understand that work-related violence pertaining to lawyers can encompass varied scenarios in numerous locations--that is, in or around courthouses or other judicial buildings, at or near their businesses or residences, on the street, and so forth.

What is also equally important to establish is that any threats, abuse, or violence that does occur within the definitional confines of work-related violence, must pertain exclusively to a lawyer discharging his or her legal obligations. As set out in the Law Society of British Columbia Professional Conduct Handbook, these duties include acting as a "minister of justice, officer of the courts, client's advocates, and a member of an ancient, honourable and learned profession" (2004: chap. 1, para. 2).

Violence against lawyers can also take myriad forms. For instance, it can range from inappropriate communications, to threatening messages or confrontations, to physical assault and murder. Abuse, for instance, may indicate any and all behaviours that "depart from reasonable conduct and involve the misuse of physical or psychological strength." Threats may include the peril of death, or some form of communique representing an aim to harm a person or damage his or her personal property. Assault, on the other hand, could include any effort to inflict physical damage on an individual or cause harm to his or her property. Additionally, there are specific forms of nonphysical violence, such as mobbing and bullying (Martino 2003: 885).

General context of work-related risk

Numerous studies conducted in the past decade on work-related violence in North America and Europe indicate that certain occupations have higher risks for work-related violence. For example, Professor Neil Boyd of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC, examined Workers' Compensation Board claims relating to "acts of force or violence" between 1982 and 1992 (1995: 493). The study concluded that workers in the health care sector were more prone to work-related violence than those in other employment sectors. For instance, residents suffering from Alzheimer's or vascular dementia in intermediate and long-term care facilities often strike out at care workers because of frustration and/or confusion. Consequently, health care workers reported approximately 600 claims to the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board in 1992 alone. Overall, the study revealed that 90 percent of all 1992 Workers' Compensation Board claims were received from workers in the health care sector and those in the following employment spheres: clerks and cashiers (65 claims); correctional officers (40 claims); police officers (40 claims); private security workers (40 claims); doormen and bouncers (35 claims); bartenders and wait staff (30 claims); bus drivers (30 claims); taxi drivers (25 claims); and teachers' aides (15 claims) (1995: 493). Further, Waddington, Badger, and Bull (2005), in a research project on high-risk occupations, identified four occupational groups that were more likely to surfer victimization than other professions. First and foremost, individuals engaged in the "security and protective services" industry, such as police or security officers, were particularly at higher risk for violence (p. 142). Additionally, employees in the caring professions, such as nursing, mental health, and social worker, were liable to be at higher risk for violence and threats.

Other international experts provide a useful framework for analysing work-related violence. For example, seven interactions are defined as the most likely to explain why some occupations may be at more risk for aggression than others: providing a service; healthcare assistance and caring; teaching; money exchange and/or transactions; delivery of passengers and collection of money; public control; and inspecting (Wynne et al. 1996). Therefore, using claims from Boyd's (1995) Workers' Compensation Board study, we can correlate these interactions with the study's high-risk groups (see Table 1).

Further, although evidence from available literature confirms that work-related violence may be increasing, it is restricted principally to workers who deal primarily with the public (Wynne et al. 1996). Thus, taken into the context of the legal profession, it can be assumed that legal practitioners, whose primary client foundation is the public to whom they provide legal services, might be vulnerable to aggressive behaviours.

However, there is no universal tracking system in British Columbia for work-related claims. The Workers' Compensation Board covers only certain occupations for work-related claims, enabling them to accurately maintain an index of violence at work over a limited range of occupations. Unfortunately, the Workers' Compensation Board does not cover many other professions, such as RCMP officers, bank tellers, and other personnel who are employed in federally regulated financial institutions. Most importantly, only a few claims are considered by victims to warrant either reporting to the police or submitting a claim to the Workers' Compensation Board. Therefore, there are no accurate data available to pinpoint the quantity and severity of violence in work-related activities (Boyd 1995).

Recent studies

There have been only a few notable studies conducted in the United States, ranging from the United States Marshals Service's 13-year report, to small surveys of judges and lawyers. The Marshals Service report is by far the most comprehensive survey conducted thus far on violence in this specific area of concern. The Marshals Service became involved in courthouse security after the brutal slaying of Superior Court Judge Harold J. Haley on 7 August 1970. Just three months after Judge Haley's death, Deputy Director Caspar Weinberger, Office of Management and Budget, approved a policy that allowed the Marshals Service to bolster security in all federal courtrooms where legal...