The JAG wouldn't personally write those reports; he would sign off on them. From what FJAG has said, the support staff is sadly lacking and unable to effectively compile those reports.
Each of DMP and DDCS is responsible for their own report.
For the overarching JAG report in my day the Director Law/Military justice, Policy and Research was responsible for the data work and much of the rest of the report. I note that since I have left DLaw/MJP&R has been broken into two offices DLaw/MJ-Strategic and DLaw/MJ-Operations. The former deals with the development of the overarching mil justice vision for the office while the later deals with day-to-day MJ matters - you should note that DLaw/MJ-Ops has specific responsibility for developing the annual report to the minister.
For Journeyman - you misread my comment. About 80% of the material "by volume" is easy to write boilerplate; about 20% of the material is statistical data that requires gathering, fact checking, collation, interpretation and presentation in a meaningful way. That 20% by volume is 95% of the work.
If you wish to understand priorities then consider the fact that one of the more important projects for the Mil Jus directorate is a way to come to grips with what has become a major systemic delay in bringing courts martial to trial. When I left I believe the average case took some 270 days from when the referral was received by DMP until the CM was completed (police investigation time and in-unit staffing would be on top of that time). Fixing this issue is not a simple matter as it includes stakeholders from the police, the prosecution, the defence and the judges all of whom have their own agendas and who need to protect the often opposing interests of the system and the accused. IMHO that is an output well worth spending time on.
But then again I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your moral outrage.
Just one further comment. I sat on the Manitoba Law Societies Complaints Investigation Committee for six years and have a pretty good idea how the NS Barristers' Society should handle this. (as an aside the NS Bar Association has nothing to do with this - its the Barristers' Society that handles complaints from the public - their complaints procedures are set out in their web site). In short I would be hard pressed to find that there was a breach of the Professional Code of Conduct here. Please look carefully at s. 9.3 of the NDA which merely requires that the JAG report annually to the Minister. The manner of the report is not specified.
The JAG speaks with the Minister very frequently and I would expect he has reported and been given waivers to delay the submission of the written reports by the previous Minister but now that it's an issue before a parliamentary committee I can see why the new Minister has asked for their production. I also expect that the JAG has told the Minister what other projects will now have to be put on hold until these reports get done.
I would expect that the Law Society of NS would consider this a matter as between the Minister and the JAG and outside their scope of enforcement and as already being dealt with by the parties - mediation of a resolution is always a priority for a law society and here it seems the matter is resolving itself. There is no need for NSBS intervention or action.
What I really wonder about is who is the member of the public or the NS legal profession who is registering the complaint with the NSBS or is Darrel doing this on his own motion and for what purpose?
Anyway, as I said before, I don't wish to stand in the way of anyone's moral outrage.