The number of law librarians in public sector and academic roles has declined significantly in recent years, a trend that culminated in the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General eliminating all professional staff at its Toronto-based law library by 2025. The MAG library was reduced to the point that, as of sometime in 2025, it no longer has a professionally staffed law library. This deprofessionalization occurred quietly without public announcement or legislative discussion, leaving the ministry to rely on its remaining lawyers for tasks that typically require professional expertise.
Related: Lawyer Preaches Kindness
Annette Demers, a librarian at the University of Windsor Law Library, reported at the 2026 Canadian Association of Law Libraries conference that only nine of 23 academic law libraries in Canada now have full-time directors. This figure marks a sharp drop from 17 out of 20 libraries in 2003. In contrast, large Canadian law firms have maintained or even increased their staffing levels. A comparison of six of the largest Toronto-based firms shows that the total number of law librarians has slightly increased compared to 30 years ago, a trend that aligns with the number of lawyers employed at these firms. If the federal Department of Justice is considered Canada’s largest law firm, the Ontario MAG is easily the largest in the province, yet it has chosen to operate without any professional library staff.
The loss of professional library staff in a public institution of this size raises questions about how the ministry will handle complex legal research without the benefit of dedicated staff. Bob Berring, a legal librarian writing in 2005, described the soul of law libraries as consisting of the librarians themselves. This perspective remains relevant as the legal setting shifts toward digital sources and generative AI. The complexity of legal information—spanning jurisdictions, historical organization, and evolving publishing models—requires a skilled intermediary to handle effectively. Law librarians possess the broad understanding of all sources necessary to conduct complex research, particularly historical or interjurisdictional inquiries that standard search tools often cannot resolve. Without this expertise, the quality of research support for a large government body like the MAG may degrade over time.
Related: Self-Represented Litigants Seek New Courts
Librarians also play a critical role in training new lawyers, a responsibility that extends beyond what law schools can provide. Theresa Leach, writing in May 2026, noted that librarians helped lawyers articulate questions and provided context that made doctrine usable. This mentorship is difficult to replicate in an environment where the ministry has eliminated these positions.
Generative AI presents a new challenge to the necessity of these roles. The verification paradox highlights the difficulty of trusting AI outputs without checking them against traditional sources, a skill that requires deep legal knowledge. Librarians are uniquely qualified to evaluate and synthesize this information. As the law society emphasizes the need to understand the risks and legal implications of generative AI tools, the guidance provided by librarians becomes increasingly valuable. The large private firms that retain these staff members are better positioned to manage the ethical and practical risks of AI in legal research, a distinct advantage when competing against a public body that has removed its human oversight.
Related: Monday’s Mix Brings Fresh Beats to City
While the ministry asserts that the duty of competence can be met without a staffed library, the comparison with private firms suggests a different reality. Six large Ontario firms employ 26 librarians to support approximately 1700 lawyers, whereas MAG’s 1600 lawyers now have zero support. This disparity means that when MAG lawyers face their counterparts in these well-resourced firms, they may lack the same level of research depth and training. The ministry’s decision to eliminate these roles removes a layer of quality control that has historically characterized the legal profession’s approach to information management.
