Defence Lawyer in Sole Practice - Ask Me Anything

[Judgelight]

On 7/6/2022 at 2:16 PM, pinotgrigio said:

Thanks! That's basically what I was wondering, how much time it takes up compared to other fields.

From seeing my friends that do def work - its a business. You eat what you kill.

If you only want to work part time, you can make that work, but don’t expect to make a killing.  One of my buddies does this - no complex trials, just bail, pleas, etc. He only works a few hours a day.

I know lawyers that make as much money doing 1 trial than I make in a year. 

You could do trials for 6 months and then take the rest of the year off if you want.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Judgelight

[123]

2 hours ago, Judgelight said:

I know lawyers that make as much money doing 1 trial than I make in a year. 

For the purpose of setting student expectations, this strikes me as unusual. I don't know very many sole defence lawyers who I imagine are earning six figures in fees from a single trial. Especially not the more junior members of the defence bar.

[Jaggers]

I think Judgelight was comparing it to civil litigation? And you can easily bill over $100K for a trial, though that would be pretty rare. I've been doing employment law for 14 years now, and have never been at a trial, other than in small claims court (lots of human rights, labour arbitration, etc. stuff, but no actual trials).

[Diplock]

I don't want to dismiss @Judgelight's experience in general terms, or his/her opportunities to observe peers in defence practice. But some of the comments here are difficult to reconcile with reality as I understand it. It's possible to choose to take less work, yes, when you are self-employed. Though the forces that press against that are strong and persistent. I could talk more about that, but that's an advanced version of this topic when right now I feel like I'm correcting some very, very basic stuff.

I won't even reply to the "one trial" stuff. I can imagine seeing certain lawyers in just one major trial during a calendar year - if it's a murder, or Meng Wanzhou's extradition hearing or something. But it's extraordinarily rare.

I can't make any sense at all of the suggestion that you could work six months of the year and take the other six off. That's got to be Candyland thinking from someone who (no offence) has never experienced the reality of self-employed private practice. How in the hell are you supposed to take cases and organize your calendar based on the plan that nothing is going to happen in your cases within the half of the year you choose not to work? Even if the finances somehow made sense - and they almost never could - the notion that you have that kind of control over your scheduling is complete fantasy.

The initial question was oddly phrased, and when you ask an odd question you're likely to get odd answers in reply. So I don't fault anyone for trying. But in broad terms, self-employment means that you're always anxious about having enough work, which means you're always taking everything you can get, and if you're lucky you're busier than you want to be, because the alternative is worse. You're always conscious of the fact that your boss (which is you) is looking over your shoulder at all times, and you're worried about your overhead and expenses, and anxious any time your major saleable asset (which is your own time) isn't being used well. And that isn't to say it's a bad way to live or practice, once you manage to strike a balance, but listening to a lawyer who doesn't actually practice this way go on about it like it's the promised land is a little hard to swallow.

Put it this way. I wouldn't call myself one of those few, truly top-end successful lawyers in crim - the kind who are able to command big firm hourly rates while working for themselves. But I know and interact with several of them, and have the opportunity to see their work habits. They're still working as much or more than I am. I don't doubt they take home far more than I do, but at this point I am confident in saying there is no point in time where any sole practitioner in crim - however successful - has the kind of freedom @Judgelight is describing. There are many rewards and compensations, yes. But it's never that.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Diplock

[Diplock]

6 hours ago, Judgelight said:

If you only want to work part time, you can make that work, but don’t expect to make a killing.  One of my buddies does this - no complex trials, just bail, pleas, etc. He only works a few hours a day.

I want to reply to this specifically. It helps I don't know who you're talking about, and it's at some remove.

Your friend is a dump truck. I'm sure he has a fairly relaxing practice, but in addition to working a limited amount in exchange for a lesser income, he's also a shit lawyer. I know that's a hell of a claim to make based on limited information, but believe it or not you've already told me all I need to know.

You cannot know - you absolutely cannot know - that a case will not turn into a complex trial when you take on a client. So the only way to arrange your practice in a way that you are never running trials, and only doing bails, pleas, etc. is if you simply refuse to run trials even when you should run trials. In other words, when you prioritize your fundamental laziness over the merits of your client's situation, whatever it turns out to be. And let me reiterate, because you cannot possibly know what defences your client might have, or what Charter issues could be raised by their situation, when you take on the client...you can't even tell me that your friend (or any lawyer) is screening out those cases at the start. It literally isn't possible.

If all of your friend's cases turn out to be pleas, it isn't because they all should be pleas. It's only because that's all your friend can be God damn bothered to do for his clients. And frankly, it's embarrassing to see anyone recommend that as a practice that any student should aspire to.

[CleanHands]

@Judgelight is a guy who, by his own admission, stumbled into a Crown job after he "didn't do anything in law school" to prepare or market himself for a Crown (or any sort of crim law) job. And all he ever does here is complain about it and how he makes less money than BigLaw lawyers (a complaint I have never heard from any other Crown because most of us made a deliberate choice about the kind of work we want to do, prioritizing non-monetary factors that clearly simply have no appeal to him).

He's also written that he's "never encountered a dump truck lawyer" while going on to describe his friend who, by his own account, doesn't run "complex trials" and just pleads people out. And he's even characterizing this as an aspirational way of doing things. Because he doesn't recognize what good and bad crim law work is, because he has no interest and doesn't care.

Crown or not, he's the last guy anyone should take any advice about crim law careers from.

Edited July 18, 2022 by CleanHands

[Judgelight]

34 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

@Judgelight is a guy who, by his own admission, stumbled into a Crown job after he "didn't do anything in law school" to prepare or market himself for a Crown (or any sort of crim law) job. And all he ever does here is complain about it and how he makes less money than BigLaw lawyers (a complaint I have never heard from any other Crown because most of us made a deliberate choice about the kind of work we want to do, prioritizing non-monetary factors that clearly simply have no appeal to him).

He's also written that he's "never encountered a dump truck lawyer" while going on to describe his friend who, by his own account, doesn't run "complex trials" and just pleads people out. And he's even characterizing this as an aspirational way of doing things. Because he doesn't recognize what good and bad crim law work is, because he has no interest and doesn't care.

Crown or not, he's the last guy anyone should take any advice about crim law careers from.

When you are stuck running trials week after week after week without any sort of prep time, you’ll get why I complain all the time about the salaries we get - especially after the recent bumps in the private sector.

Wanting to do a job for the sake of passion is great. But you can’t put food on your table with passion alone.

EDIT:

And I’m the last person to take advice from because…? I don’t share the same view as you on how peachy our job is? 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Judgelight

[CleanHands]

Just now, Judgelight said:

You’ve clearly got a chip on your shoulder - when you are stuck running trials week after week after week without any sort of prep time, you’ll get why I complain all the time about the salaries we get - especially after the recent bumps in the private sector.

Wanting to do a job for the sake of passion is great. But you can’t put food on your table with passion alone.

Right, because Crowns are unable to "put food on their table." 🙄

I look forward to your future announcement here about leaving the Crown and crim law altogether and getting some cushy civil lit job with a $30k pay raise. Not for your sake, but for the sake of the profession and everyone impacted by your files.

[123]

1 minute ago, Judgelight said:

Wanting to do a job for the sake of passion is great. But you can’t put food on your table with passion alone.

Yeah, but Crowns make enough to put food on their tables. They just don’t make as much as the richest lawyers in Canada. 

[Judgelight]

2 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

Yeah, but Crowns make enough to put food on their tables. They just don’t make as much as the richest lawyers in Canada. 

???

Between paying back private locs for law school, OSAP, rent, how much do you think I take home out of my 4K a month pay cheque?

EDIT: I’m not going to get into a shit slinging competition in this thread, feel free to PM me if you want to continue this exchange, but I’m not going to pollute this thread.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Judgelight

[GreyDude]

[deleted]

Edited September 19, 2022 by GreyDude
Thought better of it.

[CleanHands]

23 minutes ago, GreyDude said:

Thought better of it.

C'mon, don't tease us like that.

[Jaggers]

You revive a two month old thread and then delete it? That's uncivil!

[GreyDude]

Yeah, I replied, and only then realized it was months old. Reviving it (at least as I was doing so) would have been more uncivil. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by GreyDude

[krokatron]

How much do you earn, and what percentage of that is from legal aid vs independantly sourced clients? 

[Diplock]

On 1/14/2024 at 10:19 AM, krokatron said:

How much do you earn, and what percentage of that is from legal aid vs independantly sourced clients? 

Hi @krokatron. I did see this question posed some days ago and I'm sorry it took me a bit to reply.

First off, let me address a couple assumptions and answer some questions you didn't ask but probably need to have answered.

Legal Aid is different in every province. It's a provincial responsibility and implemented differently province by province. I'm in Ontario and that's all I can speak to. I don't know if you're asking about Ontario here or realize that matters, but frankly I just scanned your post history and I see you go to Osgoode so let's assume you're asking about Ontario.

Second, it's important to realize that Legal Aid does essentially two things in Ontario - neither of which look like what I think you're expecting. First, Legal Aid employers some full-time staff lawyers to assist people who show up in Court without lawyers of their own so the whole system doesn't degenerate into a giant mess. They also do some other things, but that's basically it. These are either full-time positions or else sometimes per diem (meaning essentially shift work where the lawyer is paid by the day) and for lawyers who actually do this it would be either their entire job or sometimes an occasional side gig. But that would be the answer to your question if you were asking about this kind of work - which I think is not the case.

The other thing Legal Aid does (and this is most of the Legal Aid work in the province) is that it issues certificates so that people who qualify for legal help who have no resources of their own (and you basically have to be dirt broke to qualify, btw) can retain a lawyer and Legal Aid will pay that lawyer a set amount to assist them. I'll leave off discussion of how much that's actually worth for now. Just let's agree that what Legal Aid pays is probably a reasonable income in ordinary terms if you're looking at average incomes generally, but it's a pretty poor living for a well-credentialed professional if you're forced to rely on it extensively. Anyway. The point is, Legal Aid gives the client what is essentially a voucher, and they are able to take it to any lawyer who agrees to accept it and work for what Legal Aid is willing to pay.

I believe, based on the way you've asked the question, that you think Legal Aid provides clients directly to the lawyer and that really isn't the case. Legal Aid does maintain a list of counsel and has a sort of referral service (so does the Law Society) and it provides at best a trickle of leads that can lead to a client every now and then. But it doesn't assign Legal Aid cases to a specific lawyer at all. It just provides a voucher. So in the way you've phrased your question, the reality is that 100% of clients are independently sourced. It's just that some of them some with a voucher in hand to get the lawyer paid by Legal Aid, while some of them are paying out of pocket.

Now that I've answered in literal terms, let me add a few more things you would probably want to ask if you thought of it, or may have made assumptions about already.

The very large majority of the time, private clients (and that's the usual term for someone paying their own way, vs. Legal Aid) are the better clients in terms of what you get paid. Almost all lawyers want private clients as opposed to Legal Aid. That said, it isn't a mortal guarantee a private client is better. Sometimes someone can't get Legal Aid but they are still dirt broke and you may, if you choose to take them on, end up working for peanuts anyway. And some Legal Aid cases aren't really that bad. Generally speaking, a long trial even on Legal Aid rates pays pretty well. It's the nickle and dime stuff that's rarely worth the bother - though sometimes even there you'll have something wrap up very quickly and get paid okay for minimal work. On average though, Legal Aid is a poorly paid pain in the ass.

So the real issue, then, is obtaining enough work to stay busy as an entrepreneur. And it's probably worth saying that's an issue even for lawyers who are willing to work for Legal Aid. You still need to hustle, you still need to find and obtain a client base, and they still need to want you to be their lawyer over and above other lawyers who are potentially available to them.

This all leads around to questions about entrepreneurship, operating a small business, etc. I have addressed those questions in part in this thread and even though those posts are now dated I really wouldn't change that information. The bottom line is, if you want to serve your clients well you'll want to make sure you're a good lawyer and you know your stuff. If you want to succeed as a business person and make a decent income as an entrepreneur, you'll want to make sure you have the appropriate skills to do that also. And those are almost completely different skill sets. It's possible to be a good lawyer and simply not be very busy with clients because you don't know how to find them, keep them happy, etc. And it's also possible, quite frankly, to be a bad lawyer but still stay busy with a steady stream of clients simply because you're a good entrepreneur.

Hope that helps. I'm happy enough to answer follow up questions if you have any.

 

[SNAILS]

Can someone explain "Kill what you eat" to me as it applies to defense work? Is it an arrangement with a criminal law firm where your salary varies depending on how many files you have within that firm and how much income they generate?

[BlockedQuebecois]

The saying is "eat what you kill", and it means that your income is directly tied to the amount you bill and collect. There is obviously a range of ways in which that can be accomplished, dependent on the firm and how busy it is.

A true "eat what you kill" system would mean you keep some percentage of your billed and collected time but have no guaranteed income nor would anyone else be funnelling you work. Many, if not most, firms will deviate from that system. 

[Letsgo]

@Diplock Thank you so much for doing this AMA. I read it before I got into law school many years ago, and it was quite eye-opening then. I know it will be an invaluable reference moving forward for me and I'm sure many others. I truly cannot thank you enough, and I hope you know you're doing God's work.

 

I'm pretty set on criminal defence work, and have been for awhile. I also really would like to do a clerkship to get some keen insight into the judicial decision making process. That's my primary (read: only) motivator for wanting to do a clerkship. I know how competitive it is, and I think I will be a competitive applicant next year, at least for trial courts, certainly. Now that I've got my bragging out of the way, on to my questions:

 

1. Do you know any criminal defence lawyers who did a clerkship? Can you speak to the specific benefits of doing one with respect to criminal defence work?

 

2. I very much would like to go out on my own. What are the pros and cons of going immediately into solo practice versus working for a reputable (or really any firm for that matter) criminal defence and litigation firm (Civil, family, PI - all areas I could see myself working in alongside my criminal work) for 1-3 years to get a better idea of what it all entails? Would you recommend this to somebody who is dead set on setting up their own practice?

 

3. Following up on the second question, what do you think of the idea of working in those aforementioned areas alongside criminal defence? I find them all fascinating, although they're not nearly as intriguing to me as criminal defence work. Is it feasible? Wise?

 

4. This is more of a marketing/business question, but what would you say, broadly, is the best way to attract HNW clients and to make a name for yourself in the field?

 

5. Do you do any pro bono work? If so, can you speak to how many files per year you take and how you make the choice of whether you will take on a client pro bono?

 

6. Perhaps a silly question, but I've seen a few high powered US defence attorneys advertise the fact that they never have worked as a DA as a matter of principle. What do you think of this? Is this good marketing? Have you seen this in Canada? They were all older attorneys with decades of experience.

 

Thanks for your time!

[CleanHands]

2 hours ago, Letsgo said:

6. Perhaps a silly question, but I've seen a few high powered US defence attorneys advertise the fact that they never have worked as a DA as a matter of principle. What do you think of this? Is this good marketing? Have you seen this in Canada? They were all older attorneys with decades of experience.

I'm not @Diplock. And he's a much more experienced lawyer than me that you should defer to over me on most things, and he's far more qualified than me to answer most of your questions. But he had invited others to chime in and I do believe I have a perspective to contribute with respect to this question that @Diplock wouldn't be able to speak to as directly.

I summered, articled, and continued with a provincial Crown prosecution service prior to going into defence work. I had planned on doing defence since the time I applied to law school and I was concerned about how criminally accused clients would perceive this. It turned out to be an entirely unfounded concern. On the contrary, even as a very junior lawyer, I found that having Crown experience gave me more confidence, made me better able to assess how Crowns would view my files, and helped me establish rapport and build trust with clients. When discussing their matters, I could draw from direct experience in explaining what I expected the Crown perspective to be. I was up front with them that I had Crown experience.

I only ever once had a client react negatively to this, and in retrospect that was my fault for not properly reading that this person had outright conspiratorial beliefs about the state and adjusting how I discussed matters accordingly. I had numerous repeat clients requesting me when facing new informations, and even had spouses of clients mention that the client told them I was a former Crown. Generally speaking, my clients seemed to view my Crown experience as a positive thing leading to me being more up the task of defending against charges, and an indication that I knew what I was doing and met the baseline level of competence/qualifications to have been hired as a Crown.

Scott Hutchison was a Crown for 16 years, so clearly one can go from being a Crown to being one of the most successful criminal defence lawyers in the country. Doctors and lawyers who get charged with sexual assault, who have money and have never been in the system, are not going to view Crown experience as a negative. My practice was exclusively legal aid, and my clients generally had very good reasons to be distrustful of the state and all aspects of our criminal justice system, but (to my surprise) they almost never seemed to view Crown experience negatively either.

Lastly, I will add that I think there is a significant cultural difference in prosecutions in the US versus Canada that probably helps explain why you've seen this in the US. In the US, DAs are elected and there are all sorts of unfortunate political considerations that get mixed in with prosecutions. In Canada, (although there are bad prosecutors out there) it is clearly supposed to be a quasi-judicial role and staying or withdrawing charges that don't meet the charge approval standard is just as much the job of a prosecutor as is proceeding with charges where the standard is met. I don't have US experience but my impression is that things are way more adversarial and contentious there, generally speaking.

Edited April 2 by CleanHands

[Diplock]

Hi @Letsgo. Glad my AMA has been useful to you over time. Probably most of what I've written here isn't all that obscure or revelatory to anyone who has access to practicing lawyers, but as has been observed by Hegdis in the past (I think that's who I borrowed this idea from - it's been in my mind for a while) this forum as a resource doesn't primarily serve "legacy" law students who have lawyers in their family, social circles, etc. to answer questions. It serves students who (like myself, really) come from a background where we don't have that. So I'm glad to help.

Here are some answers to stuff you've asked.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

1. Do you know any criminal defence lawyers who did a clerkship? Can you speak to the specific benefits of doing one with respect to criminal defence work?

  You know, I probably do know lawyers who've done clerkships but it isn't something that would come up routinely in discussion if I did. You had some additional information outside this question about how you hoped it would help with learning about judicial decision-making. I wonder if it would, really. I mean, I won't dismiss the chance it could give you some varied experience. Probably the best advantages would be to expose you to a range of courtroom approaches and practical realities. I could see it being valuable, but I have a hard time pinning down exactly where the value would be.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

2. I very much would like to go out on my own. What are the pros and cons of going immediately into solo practice versus working for a reputable (or really any firm for that matter) criminal defence and litigation firm (Civil, family, PI - all areas I could see myself working in alongside my criminal work) for 1-3 years to get a better idea of what it all entails? Would you recommend this to somebody who is dead set on setting up their own practice?

  Look, I'm a willful hypocrite on this topic at this point. Which is to say, I preach "do as I say not as I did." If you have access to valuable experience and mentorship in a decent associate position at a firm where you can learn, you should gain that experience before setting out on your own. You'll gain connections, maybe have the opportunity to take at least some clients with you (the ones the firm doesn't really want, let's be clear, but those are the files you'll be working on anyway as a new associate) and you'll have some support in the future simply by association.

There's an argument to be made you're better off building your own practice right away if you can. For me, it probably worked out better that way. But it was mostly through dumb luck and some kind lawyers who provided me with safety nets that I avoided harming any clients while I figured out what the hell I was actually doing for real. The further I get from where I started, and the more I look back, the more horrified I am that I started that way.

It's possible to start right away, if you are diligent, cultivate a support system, if you are very careful not to bite off more than you can chew, etc. But for many new lawyers - the large majority - I'd say it's probably a mistake. It's potentially a mistake that could lead to serious consequences that could complicate your career for years to come as well as messing up clients' lives in the process.

Related note. You mention criminal law as well as other litigation in this question. Counter-intuitively, because the stakes are so high in criminal law, the guardrails are also significant. In other words, the Court itself, through procedural protections and obligations placed on the Crown, can prevent you from fucking up easily. This probably saves many new lawyers and it probably saved me at times. In situations like family law and civil, where we are talking about two equal sides represented by counsel with equal rights and protections, you don't have that same safety new. You miss a filing deadline, you've got an eager lawyer on the other side who's going to make sure your client pays the price. I'd actually say you're safer starting out in pure crim rather than anything else.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

3. Following up on the second question, what do you think of the idea of working in those aforementioned areas alongside criminal defence? I find them all fascinating, although they're not nearly as intriguing to me as criminal defence work. Is it feasible? Wise?

  Leaving aside the greater danger of diving into sole practice immediately in other areas of law, I've certainly seen lawyers who have practices outside of crim. Personally, I find it hard to be really good at even one thing and I'm constantly worried about what I don't know, so trying to do multiple things while at the same time trying to be good at them all (assuming being good is important to you) would drive me crazy. I've seen lawyers who do criminal law and family, criminal and immigration, etc. When you're starting out you'll probably have more time than clients so that's a good time to work out dabbling if you want to.

Note, I don't know where you're located, but lawyers in smaller communities tend to be generalists more than specialists whereas in big cities it's the opposite. For fairly obvious reasons.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

4. This is more of a marketing/business question, but what would you say, broadly, is the best way to attract HNW clients and to make a name for yourself in the field?

  There's a lot to unpack from this question, but let me lead with the first admission. I don't really know. This is a question many lawyers would love to crack the code on, but few do. So I'm going to give you a few related ideas to work with.

Firstly, my own success (and I would call myself broadly successful) is based on a happy accident that started early in my career. Though I will add that most accidents are also the product of doing other things right, so I'm not saying it's only dumb luck. I became specialized in a very specific thing so much so that I barely consider myself a general criminal defence lawyer at all anymore. I haven't talked about this much here because it's highly identifying. As a result of being known as the guy who does X I get quite a lot of referrals from colleagues who never do X and certainly don't want to. And that's how I get almost all my "good" clients. By "good" I mean anything other than legal aid.

Second, any time someone says "high net worth" (and let me unpack the acronym in case anyone missed it) when referring to clients in criminal defence I feel like that's a third category of clients we almost never talk about. And it's a very small category. So, let's be clear. The first large group of criminal defence clients are those who rely on Legal Aid. In terms of overall volume of work available...I could be wrong but I suspect this alone might be more than half the total. The second group are private clients who are paying their own money. As noted above these are generally the  better clients that most lawyers want to attract. And that's normally the way the question gets asked - how do I get more private clients instead of only clients on Legal Aid?

Clients who are genuinely high net worth (I'm not sure what definition we'd be applying here, but let's just saying significantly more money than the base of clients who are simply not completely broke) are absolutely a small minority of the whole. And to begin with, let's state the obvious. Everyone wants those clients and they have the ability to hire any lawyer they may wish. So these clients are going to go almost exclusively to established big name lawyers like Alan Gold, Marie Heinen, and others. You may not recognize all the names I'd drop here, but there's a limited number of places these clients go. If you want to compete for these clients, you'd want to consider what you can offer that they cannot. And if your answer is nothing you can really think of, I wouldn't be surprised. I don't have a better answer than that either.

To answer the better question (which is private clients vs. legal aid) there's some advantage to be had by specializing in those crimes that people with money tend to commit. That's why impaired is such a competitive field, also financial crimes, sexual offences (mainly a middle-class offence, though you might not expect it), etc. Beyond that, simply do the job well, serve the clients you have, and the bootstrap that (as you're able to) into better clients.

I will say that some lawyers who I wouldn't put on the list of the top 200 lawyers I know personally (which is to say, in a polite way, lawyers I have no particular respect for) do sometimes manage to craft a persona for themselves with advertising, media hits, etc. I can't easily recommend how to do that. I've never spent a dollar on advertising personally. I'll just say being good at the job is its own marketing.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

5. Do you do any pro bono work? If so, can you speak to how many files per year you take and how you make the choice of whether you will take on a client pro bono?

  Just speaking personally, my pro bono work comes in the form of trying to sort out problems before anyone has retained me and sometimes never getting paid for it, working out additional things for clients beyond my retainer, taking on pissy Legal Aid files I should say no to because they are way more trouble than they are worth, etc. It's rare to have a client show up and you say "this will be a pro bono case." It's more about doing the job properly even when no one is paying you or paying you adequately. Lots of Legal Aid falls in that bucket. But then, if you're in an area of practice where you take Legal Aid at all, most clients will at least get that and so you have some retainer and you can't call it a pure pro bono file.

On 4/2/2024 at 1:14 AM, Letsgo said:

6. Perhaps a silly question, but I've seen a few high powered US defence attorneys advertise the fact that they never have worked as a DA as a matter of principle. What do you think of this? Is this good marketing? Have you seen this in Canada? They were all older attorneys with decades of experience.

I have very little I'd add to the answer you already have from @CleanHands. It was a very good answer. In addition to politics being very different in Canada, advertising rules in the U.S. are also far more permissive so you see crazier things. Also, on a practical level, there are many defence lawyers in private practice who would kill for a Crown job but they work for themselves because no one else - and certainly not the government - wants to employ them. So it isn't much of a badge of honour to wear. That's like me boasting about how I'll never play professional baseball because only sellouts play for money. While it's possible I may actually be someone who could have had a professional career, unless I'm talking to someone who knows that's the case it would be a pretty strange thing to cite as a point of pride.

You mentioned in the cases you've seen they were "high powered" attorneys. I suppose in those cases it's arguably obvious they could find work for the state if they wanted it. My real answer, then, would be that you should become so prominent it's obvious you could be a Crown if you wanted to be and then reevaluate if you need to leverage your refusal for marketing purposes. I'd guess not.

Hope that helps.