The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a pro se litigant who sued for bar failure to protect the public: 

 “professional orders are created primarily to protect the public...This case raises the question of civil liability for acts or omissions of the Barreau in relation to the performance of its duties and functions in respect of supervision of the profession of law, that is, the manner in which the complaints made by the respondent were handled…The conduct of the Barreau, when considered in its entirety, constitutes a  
 fault for which it cannot claim the immunity…the conduct of the Barreau was not up to the standards imposed by its fundamental mandate, which is to protect the public.  The virtually complete absence of the diligence called for in the situation amounted to a fault consisting of gross carelessness and serious negligence….the respondent claimed $975,000 in compensatory, material, moral and exemplary damages.  The respondent was initially seeking damages against the Barreau and certain of its senior officials for breach of their obligation to protect the public in their handling of the complaints made against Belhassen…the issue is clearly the question of civil liability for the acts or omissions of the Barreau in relation to the performance of its duties and functions in respect of supervision of the profession of law, that is, the manner in which the complaints made by McCullock-Finney and the cases involving Belhassen were handled…Gross or serious carelessness is incompatible with good faith.  It may therefore be concluded that, in the case of the exercise of these case management powers, the requirement that the performance or failure to perform an act have been committed in bad faith is not a bar to an action in damages against a professional order that is subject to the Professional Code…. In this case, the respondent represented herself until the case came before this Court, where a lawyer agreed to represent her.  The appellant’s appeal raised issues of general importance concerning the application of the legislation governing the professions in Quebec, the implications of which go beyond her particular case.  Given the situation, this Court is justified in awarding the respondent costs on a solicitor and client basis.” Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36