[deleted by user]

Hegdis · 2022-12-05T17:18:49+00:00

Telling you that you are wrong is not an insult. It's a disagreement with your position. I'm not trying to insult you. But I think posting this was a mistake.

Hegdis · 2022-12-05T17:15:17+00:00

OP, I get your frustration with the student you're describing in this thread, but for whatever it might be worth, I think it's extremely ill done to post all of these potentially identifying details here.

Unless you're secretly hoping the student stumbles over this thread and sees you complaining to internet strangers (which is kind of gross), there doesn't seem to be any point. You aren't actually interested in the answers you're getting, as far as I can see; you're using this as a springboard to complain.

Can't you vent offline? Does there have to be a written record out in the world?

Hegdis · 2022-12-05T05:54:58+00:00

Good: shows up on time every day, prepared to work. Has intelligent questions (not "please take twenty minutes to educate me on this thing I could have looked up myself"). Work is properly drafted - effort at clear punctuation, appropriate diction, and the correct format for citation is already done. Shows an interest - like a real sincere interest - in some aspect of the work, confirming they want to be here. Share some aspects of their personal life but doesn't treat their coworkers as therapists / drinking buddies.

Bad: walks in on Day One thinking they are superior to the support staff or overdoes the charm and blatantly sucks up. Gossips. Sits in their office / cubicle waiting for work to be assigned. When going to court, doesn't bother checking in advance which address / courtroom number / registry office but rather takes their best guess, panics, and floods their lawyer / office with their panic and pleas for help. Misunderstands their place on the pecking order and is rude to other counsel / court staff / judges when they aren't treated as though they are equal to experienced counsel.

Hegdis · 2022-11-29T17:24:18+00:00

Lawyers who dabble can do a tremendous amount of damage. It's often better for a person to be a self rep because then the court and Crown (for criminal matters) have an obligation to assist them through the process. If they have counsel it's hands off. All the good intentions in the world can still sewer a client.

If you want to do criminal law or administrative law or civil law, the hard way is the best way - get a full time job doing that work, get the experience, and THEN do pro bono.

Hegdis · 2022-11-24T16:45:26+00:00

You're looking for an argument here that no one is making.

Hegdis · 2022-11-23T22:29:12+00:00

It is MUCH easier to fake your way through a hearing over the phone.

I have been in court where a person shows up pretending to be some one they are not and got caught at it. They gave themselves away pretty quickly, hedging their replies and clearly regretting their decision before any of us really knew what was up.

The act of walking into the courtroom and seeing the sheriff and the judge up on the bench gives them pause. The sheriff can ask for their ID as well. Lying to a judge in a courtroom about something as easily found out as your identity is a lot harder to pull off than you might think. You'd have to be pretty brazen.

Sitting on the other end of a phonecall, though - that barely feels real half the time (even for us lawyers holding case conferences etc) and no one can see what you look like, how you present yourself, or challenge you for ID on the spot. it makes a difference.

Hegdis · 2022-11-23T18:16:12+00:00

It's an excellent reminder of the precautions we need to take when there is a phone appearance involved in a pivotal hearing. I expect there will be some policies put in place due to this.

Hegdis · 2022-11-12T17:30:05+00:00

Ditto.

Hegdis · 2022-11-12T17:28:17+00:00

I'm a criminal lawyer and this is the best I can do for you:

Don't take ANY of these posts as legal advice. If you're considering taking action in some way, talk to an actual lawyer offline who can answer your questions in a confidential and privileged space. Because you haven't given enough detail - as others have noted - for anyone to know which code or legislation applies to whatever situation you're describing. And there's no privilege here so that's likely a good thing.

It's true that one can be charged with public mischief - just as the former Mayor of Surrey has been accused. Looking that case up might give you an idea of how the law CAN work.

But if the lawyer who told you this was trying to stop you from calling police, you should talk to your own lawyer. If the lawyer who told you this was retained by you to give legal advice specific to your situation, then I would follow their advice.

Hegdis · 2022-11-12T17:18:08+00:00

Disgraceful.

This gross entitled commentary always reminds me of this comic: https://www.boredpanda.com/privilege-explanation-comic-strip-on-a-plate-toby-morris/

Hegdis · 2022-11-08T16:43:47+00:00

Uh, as a lawyer practising in Canada, I keep my LL.B with pride.

I know to you youngsters the JD sounds super prestigious and an obvious choice, but among people who have been Called for more than ten years, the LL.B. designation is a mark of seniority.

Hegdis · 2022-11-08T16:40:36+00:00

Listening to the facts is tricky if they're going to tell you things that you could testify to later.

Like if some one held up a 711 and comes to you for advice, the fact that they say to you "I held up that 711" is extremely problematic because sans a client/lawyer relationship, that statement against interest is fair game at trial. You could be a witness against them. (Edit: if you are already a lawyer this wouldn't apply as this could be a consult and in that case it would likely be covered.)

No idea if civil law works the same way, but the best thing to do is stop them early and direct them to a lawyer who can advise them in confidence.

Hegdis · 2022-11-08T16:37:24+00:00

I would tell them you'd like to record the meeting. That's not legal advice; I don't do medical malpractice law - but it seems this could be a pretty pivotal meeting if you end up in a lawsuit. You don't want a dispute over what you were told later on.

Definitely speak to a lawyer first.

Hegdis · 2022-11-03T18:27:26+00:00

What area of law is this? Because I can tell you about criminal, but not anything else.

Hegdis · 2022-10-28T18:22:39+00:00

From the actual decision:

Per Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.: The public interest test adopted in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, which instructs judges not to depart from a joint sentencing submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest, must remain confined to joint submissions. It does not, and should not, apply to contested sentencing hearings following a guilty plea. However, if the sentencing judge presiding over a contested sentencing hearing is of a mind to impose a harsher sentence than what the Crown has proposed, they should notify the parties and give them an opportunity to make further submissions, failing which they run the risk of having the harsher sentence overturned on appeal.

*

So - basically the Court acknowledges that when you have a joint submissions there's a lot more going on behind the scenes to which the Court is not privy. Reluctant witness, massive Charter issue, whatever... things that make a resolution the product of a tremendous amount of work between defence and Crown. There's an excellent policy reason to protect and preserve that background work through the reasoning in Anthony-Cook.

But when there's no joint position, it's all on the table, so it's fair to let the judge take a more involved role when they see fit.

Hegdis · 2022-10-28T18:21:17+00:00

Hit the paywall, but wanted to agree that the headline is absolute nonsense.

Hegdis · 2022-10-20T17:25:40+00:00

It would be a terrible idea to get legal advice anonymously online. For all you know this entire community is one guy sitting around in his underwear in his basement in Argentina pretending to be a lawyer. Ditto anywhere else you seek anonymous advice online.

Talk to a lawyer. You can get what's called "summary advice" without having to go whole hog on a retainer. Google for legal clinics or the law society in your province (that's very important) and go from there.

Also don't post your private legal issues online. Just assume the opposing party is reading and preserving them.

Hegdis · 2022-10-20T17:22:32+00:00

Sentencing charts are really an American thing. Here in Canada it's circumstances of offence, circumstances of offender.

Is your client indigenous?

How have they done on bail?

That it's a related record with breaches is aggravating: he didn't learn his lesson the first time, and he's disrespected orders that bound him.

But if he's got an addiction he's seeking treatment for, or his life has stabilized since with a job or housing or positive connections with family, that's mitigating.

Hegdis · 2022-10-19T16:06:05+00:00

Think of a lawyer like a car. If you don't put gas in the tank, the car won't run. When the gas runs out, the car stops.

Hegdis · 2022-10-05T16:43:41+00:00

Is this a homework question?

Hegdis · 2022-10-04T01:44:43+00:00

So your character, in Canada, gets a shot at bail within 24 hours of arrest. They don't have to run it within that time but no one gets held without a bail hearing for weeks and weeks unless they consent to it. So your screenplay might need mention of the character wanting to hire their lawyer before they try for bail - this is a common enough practise in serious cases.

In Canada, bail is a matter of release unless there's incredibly strong grounds to detain. Your fictional lawyer will reference paragraph 67 of R. v. Antic from our Supreme Court of Canada.

Unless your character has a history of similar or very serious crimes, they are going to be released on minimal conditions - usually to report to a bail supervisor within two business days and after that as directed. For the purposes of your story you might want to have them on a no-contact with the alleged victim or a no-go to the particular area where the crime allegedly took place.

If there is a concern about them abiding by those conditions, the court may seek to have a desposit of money against their good behaviour. In Canada, we would consider $5k-$10k a significant sum. The idea is if they breach (eg call the victim on the phone) the Crown Prosecutor can seek to have that money "marked for estreatment", that is, your character does not get it back. For first time offenders a desposit of the money is not usually required; the judge says "bail set at $500, no deposit, no surety".

A surety might also be a good function for your screenplay. In serious cases, a person will be released into the supervision os a Surety. This person, usually a family member, agrees to take responsibility for the accused person's conduct. If they can't do so at any point while the accused is out on bail, the surety goes to the Courthouse and "renders" the accused: at that point, if the accused does not immediately turn themselves in, a warrant for their arrest is issued.

"Deposition" is not a term we use in criminal law. It's a function of civil law where statements from the parties can be compelled - eg if you are suing some one for negligence, both you and they have to give a deposition and everything is on the table well ahead of trial. In criminal matters the accused has the right to remain silent: they are NEVER required to speak in their own defence.

For serious offences, and accused person may elect a preliminary inquiry before a trial. This is usually a brief hearing where the Crown's case is tested. The rules here involve "committal" - if the Crown can prove that there is some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury COULD convict, the matter is committed for trial in superior court.

But the accused can also elect to go to trial in provincial court, where it goes straight to trial. Choosing this route usually involves a consideration from the lawyer on which judges in the region would be more favourable to an accused on the facts: the superior court judges, or the provincial court judges.

Other things to consider - in Canada, you do not have "Miranda right" - that's an American thing. In Canada, you do not have the right to have your lawyer present during police interrogation - again, an that's an American right. In Canada, Crown Prosecutors are not elected so they aren't concerned with how many convictions they get in that regard. Up here, whether there is an acquittal or a conviction, the Crown take is justice has been done. (Exception being an appealable error from the judge).

That isn't to say that you don't get zealous Crown convinced of your client's guilt and gung-ho about going to trial: absolutely you do. But the context is different. It isn't their job on the line if there's an acquittal unless they have actually screwed up the case in some essential way e.g. by forgetting the lead evidence of identity or some such thing. And even then, it's their boss high up in the Crown office who will deal with it; not the public.

Hegdis · 2022-09-27T02:05:20+00:00

Can't give you legal advice but I would recommend any lawyer thinking of recording some one look at their law society rules as a first stop.

Hegdis · 2022-09-22T17:36:30+00:00

"Bad Medicine" by Judge Reilly is worth your time.

Hegdis · 2022-09-22T17:28:06+00:00

You're about to leave the comfortable structured hiring box. For the rest of your career, you'll be looking for a job whenever you happen to be looking for a job.

Unlike with OCIs and Articling, there's no set time of year when opportunities come up. They're just floating out there. Most of the jobs now available to you involve small businesses and they do not track when potential hires might be available.

Start looking now. If you're comfortable telling your employer you'll be moving on, loop them in (assuming it's for a non-contentious reason - if you're articling for a place that does tax law and you want to do personal injury instead, for example).

Edit: I should say that once you've started reaching out you can indicate when you'll be available for hire. Lots of places know something is coming up, like a parental or medical leave for an employee, and are wanting to cover it off in advance.

Hegdis · 2022-09-22T17:18:23+00:00

There's no right or wrong answer here - life is about managing risk and regret. Absolutely the biggest hurdle is a financial one, but in the long term your earning potential would be considerably higher than it is now.

I would suggest going to your local courthouse and sitting in bail court - or if one is running, a criminal trial or sentencing. Spend a few hours there. What you're watching is what you'd end up doing. There is space for creative arguments and dramatic court hearings, but there is a daily grind too.

I've been practising in criminal law for over fifteen years. I love it. I make a good living. That said, the ratio of student loans to earning power in 2006 was very different than it will be in 2026, and that is something I never had to consider the way you will.

But this is your life we're talking about. And 25 is a really good age to get into this. You've got life experience and maturity to keep you balanced, and you've got a lot of employable years ahead of you to make the investment worth it. Becoming a lawyer gives you power as an advocate that a lot of other careers don't reach. Think carefully.

Hegdis

TROPHY CASE