Thank you both for coming.
I'm a member of the bar. I don't practice in this area, but soon after getting elected, I had an array of immigration lawyers come to me to complain about this. I had never actually realized the severity of this issue for certain members until seeing their cases and cases like the ones you brought up, for over two years.
I might sound like I'm going backwards, so just bear with me. In terms of the interview and complaint process—and you say there was no interview when you complained—in a normal law society complaint process there's usually, at a bare minimum, an interview with the complainant. I haven't been through it exactly, but I think there then potentially is an interview with the person being complained about, which would be the lawyer in that case.
What that does is at least make it appear to the accused and to the complainant that they are being heard, as opposed to what I've just heard from you, which is that the person being accused never even knows that they are being investigated and that the complainant feels they've just given a paper file that yields nothing back.
Ms. Hirji, what's your opinion? Do you think, as a bare minimum, an interview with the complainant as well as with the accused should be done?