Lawyers: justice-based work?

[Lulu_spector]

Hello Lawyers! 
 

What are the most justice-based legal streams? So, if one would like to seek, get, and win justice for someone or a business  and/or legally protect people or a business, what realms of law do this? I want to experience the sweet taste of victory of justice for a victim or business. I know this is rare. 

Criminal is one stream but even with criminal which side of the fence is more about justice? Defence or prosecution? Why? 
 

Also, the stream(s) you will discuss, are they 100 hour weeks? Or could one practice in these areas 9-5? 
 

[Snax]

It depends what you consider to be the most worthwhile justice, or, maybe more accurately, the type of justice you consider to be most worthwhile pursuing. 
 

Criminal law is definitely one area, but one could say that employment law and certain other types of administrative law focusing on tribunal work are just as “justice-based”. 
 

As for the business side of it, you’d be looking at commercial litigation. I’ve been working on something that’s been going on since I started articling where some very wealthy guys are just trying to get what they bargained for from some other very wealthy guys. Is this justice-based?  I don’t think so, but the litigators on the file might, and you might, too. 
 

All this is a long way of saying that the answer to your question is quite personal and you’re probably the only one who can answer it for you. 

[Aureliuse]

Family law. Some typical and recent examples:

1. Hunting delinquent support payors

2. Protecting children from abusers

3. Defending your client against "crazy ex"

4. Vaccinating children despite anti-vaxxer parent's protests

5. Ensuring your client won't end up on the street following separation

[Lulu_spector]

23 hours ago, Aureliuse said:

Family law. Some typical and recent examples:

1. Hunting delinquent support payors

2. Protecting children from abusers

3. Defending your client against "crazy ex"

4. Vaccinating children despite anti-vaxxer parent's protests

5. Ensuring your client won't end up on the street following separation

Thank you! Do cases like #2 (protecting children from abusers) happen or come across your desk often? If so, are the results fair for the children or is it a cycle of abuse in some way on all levels .. from parents, to courts, to child welfare system. 

[Ruthless4Life]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:43 AM, Snax said:

It depends what you consider to be the most worthwhile justice, or, maybe more accurately, the type of justice you consider to be most worthwhile pursuing. 
 

Criminal law is definitely one area, but one could say that employment law and certain other types of administrative law focusing on tribunal work are just as “justice-based”. 
 

As for the business side of it, you’d be looking at commercial litigation. I’ve been working on something that’s been going on since I started articling where some very wealthy guys are just trying to get what they bargained for from some other very wealthy guys. Is this justice-based?  I don’t think so, but the litigators on the file might, and you might, too. 
 

All this is a long way of saying that the answer to your question is quite personal and you’re probably the only one who can answer it for you. 

Commercial litigation often involve minority shareholders rights, which involve concepts like unfair prejudice, fraud on minority, derivative actions which very much draw on concepts of justice from the courts of equity - which is, well, very much “justice based.”  And breach of directors duties which obviously involves fiduciaries which are also concepts of equity. 
 

So these very rich guys suing other very rich guys definitely tell the court (or one might say the courts of equity where one must come to court with “clean hands”) justice is on their side.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Ruthless4Life

[Aureliuse]

22 hours ago, Lulu_spector said:

Thank you! Do cases like #2 (protecting children from abusers) happen or come across your desk often? If so, are the results fair for the children or is it a cycle of abuse in some way on all levels .. from parents, to courts, to child welfare system. 

It does happen with some depressing frequency, most of the times, both parents are less than perfect role models. I do get a few cases where a parent is severely deficient in parenting abilities and insight - drug use, religious zealot, anti-vaxxer, alcoholism, neglect, anger management, alienation, cycle of violence etc.

[Snax]

On 4/11/2022 at 8:33 AM, Ruthless4Life said:

Commercial litigation often involve minority shareholders rights, which involve concepts like unfair prejudice, fraud on minority, derivative actions which very much draw on concepts of justice from the courts of equity - which is, well, very much “justice based.”  And breach of directors duties which obviously involves fiduciaries which are also concepts of equity. 
 

So these very rich guys suing other very rich guys definitely tell the court (or one might say the courts of equity where one must come to court with “clean hands”) justice is on their side.

I agree with all of that, but when I think of “justice-based” work, I think of helping vulnerable people. I don’t think of helping guys with an eight or nine figure net worth get a little bit more wealthy because their agreement that’s not being honoured by one side says that they should. Like you say, in a strictly legal sense, commercial litigation is very much based on justice and aimed at achieving a just outcome. Personally, I just think this is different than what someone imagines when they say they practice in an area of law that is justice-based. 
 

It’s probably obvious from my posts, but I’m not coming at this from the perspective of someone working in one of these areas of law that I consider to be “justice-based”. It’s all just personal opinion, and in reality, you could probably reasonably argue that every area of law is “justice-based” in one way or another because the law itself is “justice-based”, but at that point it’s probably going a bit too far. 

[Lulu_spector]

13 hours ago, Aureliuse said:

It does happen with some depressing frequency, most of the times, both parents are less than perfect role models. I do get a few cases where a parent is severely deficient in parenting abilities and insight - drug use, religious zealot, anti-vaxxer, alcoholism, neglect, anger management, alienation, cycle of violence etc.

Thank your sharing. So do the children essentially go into foster care and/or to another parent and you’re the person who legally makes this happen? I’d love to know what a day in your shoes would be with #2. 

[123]

This is just me, but in terms of practice, I generally think of justice as social justice. There are things you can do to put yourself in a position to work towards a more just society. Generally, practicing retail law (criminal, family, employment, immigration, etc) affords you opportunity to help those in need. Those areas of law tend to have vulnerable, disenfranchised, or disadvantaged persons. And representing vulnerable, disenfranchised, or disadvantaged persons puts you in a position to advocate for their interests, help them achieve better outcomes, and hopefully push the law to better account for the vulnerable or the marginalized.

I've phrased it as an "opportunity" or being in a position to do social justice work for a couple of reasons. First, within a more social justice oriented practice area, some cases are more in the public interest than others. You can spend all day doing impaireds for private clients or uncontested divorces for rich couples in Rosedale or on the Bridal Path,  and you've got yourself a nice little niche. But I'm not sure how much juster the world is for it. Picking a social justicey practice area increases the likelihood that you're helping. But you still make choices within your area or niche, and those choices shape the kind of impact you're having. 

Second, in addition to what you're doing, competence is still a factor in how much fairer and better you make the world. Obviously, I'm not implying anything about @Lulu_spector in particular. But I have seen lawyers, who, for whatever reason, were working on high-stakes cases, and not doing a very good job. Everyone makes mistakes. But if someone is routinely fucking up lives because they're burnt-out, don't like the work, or just don't have the ability to hack it in their given field, then that doesn't help anyone. It's something to think about. There are certain kinds of legal work I'm just not good at or interested in. I try to stay as far away as possible from those, because to do good, I have to be good at my work. 

I think ultimately, if you choose to represent vulnerable individuals in a retail area of law, and you're competent, principled, and compassionate in your practice, you're probably doing quite a bit of good. Beyond that, I'm not really sure you can compare the different roles and determine which is objectively most just. Like, who is to say whether child protection work or refugee claims produce more justice? And honestly, that's probably not how you'll choose. Usually, social justice oriented students/new calls do some clinic work during law school, get more exposure during articles, and more still during your first couple of years of practice. At some point during that time, you'll start to figure out which kind of work makes sense when considered together with your own preferences, skills, and attributes. I applaud OP for thinking about this. But as long you continue to be introspective and considered throughout law school, you'll be able to make decisions with a lot more information relatively shortly 

Edited April 12, 2022 by realpseudonym

[CleanHands]

On 3/27/2022 at 10:01 PM, Lulu_spector said:

Criminal is one stream but even with criminal which side of the fence is more about justice? Defence or prosecution? Why? 

Nobody touched this and I can understand why, because there's a reason I had left it for two weeks hoping someone else would. There is a cliché that the system works best when everyone involved in the criminal justice system does their job well, but it's true.

Crown Prosecutors have been described as "Ministers of Justice," the role has been described as "quasi-judicial," their mandate is to ensure that justice is done rather than seeking convictions, etc. This is embedded in SCC jurisprudence, Law Society Rules specific to Crowns, etc. Whereas in defence the duties and loyalties are owed to their client (with some qualifications involving obligations to the Court, opposing counsel, etc). And those clients can be admitted rapists, pedophiles and killers. So if you take the narrow view of being "about justice" in the sense of having the ability to exercise personal discretion to do "the right thing" (to the extent the law permits) in every case (including the ability to withdraw charges or decide not to proceed with them in the first place), the answer would seem to be the Crown (assuming one works for a good office that properly empowers Crowns to do so).

But that's the narrow view. Broadly, clearly not every Crown will do a great job of exercising their discretion on every file. Sometimes they will simply be wrong. And sometimes, reasonable people can disagree about whether elements of an offence are made out or about what an appropriate sentence should be. Defence lawyers are positioned to represent the interests of people that the institutions of our society are otherwise aligned against. They fight to hold the state accountable. And by doing so while representing even the worst offenders who have committed the worst offences, they are defending everyone's rights and protections from state interference broadly. Not to mention, if one fundamentally disagrees with either our criminal justice system as a whole or specific aspects of it, while defence lawyers still need to play by the established rules they can attempt to fight the system, while Crowns by necessity uphold it (again with limited caveats re: appeal Crowns getting to advocate for certain changes).

At best, Crowns are problem-solvers ensuring the proper administration of justice, and defence lawyers are defenders of civil rights. At worst, Crowns are state thugs and defence lawyers are mercenaries. Nobody answered this question yet because there isn't an answer to it. It's entirely dependent upon one's ideological leanings and temperament. But then, "justice" is a very ambiguous term.

Edited April 12, 2022 by CleanHands

[Lulu_spector]

4 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

This is just me, but in terms of practice, I generally think of justice as social justice. There are things you can do to put yourself in a position to work towards a more just society. Generally, practicing retail law (criminal, family, employment, immigration, etc) affords you opportunity to help those in need. Those areas of law tend to have vulnerable, disenfranchised, or disadvantaged persons. And representing vulnerable, disenfranchised, or disadvantaged persons puts you in a position to advocate for their interests, help them achieve better outcomes, and hopefully push the law to better account for the vulnerable or the marginalized.

I've phrased it as an "opportunity" or being in a position to do social justice work for a couple of reasons. First, within a more social justice oriented practice area, some cases are more in the public interest than others. You can spend all day doing impaireds for private clients or uncontested divorces for rich couples in Rosedale or on the Bridal Path,  and you've got yourself a nice little niche. But I'm not sure how much juster the world is for it. Picking a social justicey practice area increases the likelihood that you're helping. But you still make choices within your area or niche, and those choices shape the kind of impact you're having. 

Second, in addition to what you're doing, competence is still a factor in how much fairer and better you make the world. Obviously, I'm not implying anything about @Lulu_spector in particular. But I have seen lawyers, who, for whatever reason, were working on high-stakes cases, and not doing a very good job. Everyone makes mistakes. But if someone is routinely fucking up lives because they're burnt-out, don't like the work, or just don't have the ability to hack it in their given field, then that doesn't help anyone. It's something to think about. There are certain kinds of legal work I'm just not good at or interested in. I try to stay as far away as possible from those, because to do good, I have to be good at my work. 

I think ultimately, if you choose to represent vulnerable individuals in a retail area of law, and you're competent, principled, and compassionate in your practice, you're probably doing quite a bit of good. Beyond that, I'm not really sure you can compare the different roles and determine which is objectively most just. Like, who is to say whether child protection work or refugee claims produce more justice? And honestly, that's probably not how you'll choose. Usually, social justice oriented students/new calls do some clinic work during law school, get more exposure during articles, and more still during your first couple of years of practice. At some point during that time, you'll start to figure out which kind of work makes sense when considered together with your own preferences, skills, and attributes. I applaud OP for thinking about this. But as long you continue to be introspective and considered throughout law school, you'll be able to make decisions with a lot more information relatively shortly 

I am so grateful for your response. Makes a lot of sense, thank you!

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

Nobody touched this and I can understand why, because there's a reason I had left it for two weeks hoping someone else would. There is a cliché that the system works best when everyone involved in the criminal justice system does their job well, but it's true.

Crown Prosecutors have been described as "Ministers of Justice," the role has been described as "quasi-judicial," their mandate is to ensure that justice is done rather than seeking convictions, etc. This is embedded in SCC jurisprudence, Law Society Rules specific to Crowns, etc. Whereas in defence the duties and loyalties are owed to their client (with some qualifications involving obligations to the Court, opposing counsel, etc). And those clients can be admitted rapists, pedophiles and killers. So if you take the narrow view of being "about justice" in the sense of having the ability to exercise personal discretion to do "the right thing" (to the extent the law permits) in every case (including the ability to withdraw charges or decide not to proceed with them in the first place), the answer would seem to be the Crown (assuming one works for a good office that properly empowers Crowns to do so).

But that's the narrow view. Broadly, clearly not every Crown will do a great job of exercising their discretion on every file. Sometimes they will simply be wrong. And sometimes, reasonable people can disagree about whether elements of an offence are made out or about what an appropriate sentence should be. Defence lawyers are positioned to represent the interests of people that the institutions of our society are otherwise aligned against. They fight to hold the state accountable. And by doing so while representing even the worst offenders who have committed the worst offences, they are defending everyone's rights and protections from state interference broadly. Not to mention, if one fundamentally disagrees with either our criminal justice system as a whole or specific aspects of it, while defence lawyers still need to play by the established rules they can attempt to fight the system, while Crowns by necessity uphold it (again with limited caveats re: appeal Crowns getting to advocate for certain changes).

At best, Crowns are problem-solvers ensuring the proper administration of justice, and defence lawyers are defenders of civil rights. At worst, Crowns are state thugs and defence lawyers are mercenaries. Nobody answered this question yet because there isn't an answer to it. It's entirely dependent upon one's ideological leanings and temperament. But then, "justice" is a very ambiguous term.

Wow … I am so lucky to have received an answer from you!! Thank you. I just want to make sure I align my legal goals realistically so as to have a practical idea of this journey rather than one based on fantasy. 

[Aureliuse]

9 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Second, in addition to what you're doing, competence is still a factor in how much fairer and better you make the world. Obviously, I'm not implying anything about @Lulu_spector in particular. But I have seen lawyers, who, for whatever reason, were working on high-stakes cases, and not doing a very good job. Everyone makes mistakes. But if someone is routinely fucking up lives because they're burnt-out, don't like the work, or just don't have the ability to hack it in their given field, then that doesn't help anyone. It's something to think about. There are certain kinds of legal work I'm just not good at or interested in. I try to stay as far away as possible from those, because to do good, I have to be good at my work. 

SO. MUCH. THIS. in family law.

It's one thing to have occasional typos, misspoke during submissions, caught off guard by a judge's question, forgot to make extra copies of a document, make inadvertent errors on Financial Statements etc....

It's another to come to Conferences, pre-trials, motions unprepared; missed limitation periods, making up facts at trial, setting up clients for failure by pushing them to agree to the most draconian of terms, acting like a hired gun to ramp up conflict to 110...

Ultimately, the parents and the children pay the price in various forms - costs, delays, suffering.

10 hours ago, Lulu_spector said:

Thank your sharing. So do the children essentially go into foster care and/or to another parent and you’re the person who legally makes this happen? I’d love to know what a day in your shoes would be with #2. 

I think you are mixing up general family law practice with Society side Child Protection practice. Even in children's aid society practice, extended care arrangements (where a child is removed from home and sent to live with a foster home) are exceptionally rare. It is reserved for the most egregious and serious child abuse, typically when there has been a pattern of abuse/neglect with no future improvement in sight.

In general family law practice, we protect kids by having the children's voices heard in court through various means - Office of the Children's Lawyer, Voice of the Child report, Judicial Interviews, expert testimony, S.30 assessments... This way, judges can make decisions knowing what the children's preferences and views are; commensurate with the children's age and maturity.

I think the most effective way to help children is through helping the parents settle their high conflict family law dispute. Often when the children were caught in an abusive spousal relationship, removing the abusive parent (via separation or a court order) from the equation would be the first step on the road to healing and reconciliation. When the children can live full time with a non-abuser and see the former abuser on a supervised/controlled basis, there can be significant de-escalation of conflict. 

Exposing children to adult conflict can lead to a host of mental health issues, even drug abuse. If we can minimize parental conflict from the litigation through settlement and alternative dispute resolution, then we are indirectly protecting children.

[Byzantine]

I’m only just finishing 1L but if you’re interested in this kinda career I’d really suggest getting involved in your schools legal clinic asap if it has one. I was able to volunteer all year and got to immediately get experience in assisting low income clients with their legal issues. It makes you feel like you’re making a positive impact and also helps you figure out what areas of law you’re interested in going forward. Can be difficult to balance with school work at times but I think it’s 100% worth it.