How Do You Choose a Criminal Law Firm to Work For?

[SNAILS]

If anyone has advice or thoughts about choosing a criminal defense law form to work for, please share.

My preliminary thoughts are:

• a lot of people would think about salary and benefits (both to start and progressively over the next 5 or 10 years). This is not my main concern, personally.
• I suppose looking at the reputation of a firm or the amount of high profile cases the firm handles would be a good, but I am not sure how to effectively investigate that. Baystreet firms are frequently discussed on the internet; small criminal defense boutiques are not.  I am more interested in the characteristics of a good criminal defense form to work for, not a list of top criminal boutiques (Greenspan, Goldlist, etc)
• I would rather have a central role in a domestic assault defense handed well than have a peripheral role in a manslaughter trial handled poorly.
• Hours of work and duties of the job are a major concern, but I am not sure how one would go about establishing hours/duties in the early investigative stages of the job search (pre-interview).
• The link between the law firm and the possibility of going solo in a few years interests me (I know a firm want loyalty, not people that want to go solo, but I am hoping to pick up the required skills if I want to go that route later).

* Some people on this forum may know I already have ties to a criminal defense firm, but I am just exploring my options. I didn't take part in OCIs, and I needto create an at least somewhat mutually binding agreement for my articling. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by SNAILS

[CleanHands]

I firmly believe this is just something you get a feel for by working in criminal law and getting exposure to the players. Jumping into a firm without having that opportunity is a common situation that most students will find themselves in, but it's a crapshoot. 

12 hours ago, SNAILS said:

I suppose looking at the reputation of a firm or the amount of high profile cases the firm handles would be a good, but I am not sure how to effectively investigate that. Baystreet firms are frequently discussed on the internet; small criminal defense boutiques are not.  I am more interested in the characteristics of a good criminal defense form to work for, not a list of top criminal boutiques (Greenspan, Goldlist, etc)

It's a very small, niche field and you learn which lawyers and firms are good and which aren't through exposure.

If you regularly read criminal cases on canlii you can get some vague sense of who is doing complex, high-level work, but keep in mind that most files resolve without going to trial and there aren't published decisions out there to record most good work people are doing for posterity.

I don't think there really are common "characteristics" of good firms to work for. Some firms may do very high-profile, high-complexity work and might pay well but they might want to work you 80 hours a week, they might be unpleasant people to work with, and the work may be unfulfilling because it may involve just throwing everything including the kitchen sink at files where doctors are accused of sex assaults and perpetuate the problem in terms of the obscene imbalance in access to justice in this country. Some firms may be laid back with pleasant people to work with and good work/life balance, but they may be dump trucks who don't really add value for their clients. Some might involve extremely fulfilling work helping poor reserve kids out in the trenches but involve long hours and low pay.

This is all to say, this isn't something that can be answered in a broad sense because different people weigh different factors differently in terms of what constitutes a "good firm to work for," and those factors are often in conflict with each other.

12 hours ago, SNAILS said:

The link between the law firm and the possibility of going solo in a few years interests me (I know a firm want loyalty, not people that want to go solo, but I am hoping to pick up the required skills if I want to go that route later).

It is the norm in criminal defence to go solo after a few years at a firm so I don't think there is the same stigma or expectations attached as there is in other practice areas.

My advice would be this: I respect and appreciate that you are thinking about loyalty and long-term relationships right now. But be flexible, focused on building a reputation for yourself in the field, and willing to jump around. You aren't in a position to know all the answers you want in advance right now, so you shouldn't feel stuck if the situation ends up being different than you anticipated.

I was fortunate enough to build some relationships before I finished articles and I have options now, and that being the case I will never be applying to work for any firm where I'm not familiar with the lawyers involved and their work, at this point.

[SNAILS]

Thank you @CleanHands. That was a very insightful post, and my takeaway applied to my situation is this. To get exposure, I need to work in criminal law. Since I live in a fairly small community, I already have a great deal of exposure just from summering with a criminal defense firm (i.e. all the Crowns and judges know who I am; random defense lawyers from the community call me to adjourn their matters as a favor to them since I'm in court anyway).

Applying the "bird in hand" rule, I need to shake hands with my boss from last summer: "I won't apply to any other firms if you promise to let me article with you."

The exposure from doing this will guide what I do after articling. If I want to transfer to another firm or eventually (2 years call?) go solo after articling, that's fair game.

12 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Some firms may be laid back with pleasant people to work with and good work/life balance, but they may be dump trucks who don't really add value for their clients.

FYI, that one most closely fits my situation.  Ironically, it turns what could be a pleasant 9-5 into a hectic 60 hour week. 

Example: I get admonished by a judge for adjourning a matter for a fourth time that should have gone to trial months ago. Nobody at my firm has paid attention to that file. I discover the client has not met with anyone to review his disclosure or talk to anyone about his side of the story. I book a lengthy face-to-face meeting with just me and the client to go through everything. My written summary and subsequent discussion with my supervising lawyer leads to me booking a Crown meeting between the Crown and her. The matter is often promptly resolved by a plea if I decide I want to make that happen - or it could languish in limbo for a few more months.

(I'll be the first person to arrive and the last person to leave more often than not. I've seen files that have been adjourned since 2019 for defense delay. I've seen clients stay in jail a week or two longer because nobody bothered to do the leg work of creating a bail plan).

Edited November 6, 2022 by SNAILS

[CleanHands]

No worries, man. I don't think I was all that helpful unfortunately, but I'm glad you got some value out of it.

9 hours ago, SNAILS said:

Example: I get admonished by a judge for adjourning a matter for a fourth time that should have gone to trial months ago.

Also, FWIW this is basically the one thing Crown Prosecutors are FORCED to be dicks about and don't have any real discretion over. I hate holding defence lawyers' feet to the fire but our hands are tied thanks to Jordan and when delay is "your" (meaning defence's--in this case not your's personally but your firm's) fault we have to make a record about it.

So it's good you're doing what you can to make it so that the Crown doesn't have to!

[123]

9 hours ago, SNAILS said:

FYI, that one most closely fits my situation.  Ironically, it turns what could be a pleasant 9-5 into a hectic 60 hour week. 

Example: I get admonished by a judge for adjourning a matter for a fourth time that should have gone to trial months ago. Nobody at my firm has paid attention to that file. I discover the client has not met with anyone to review his disclosure or talk to anyone about his side of the story. I book a lengthy face-to-face meeting with just me and the client to go through everything. My written summary and subsequent discussion with my supervising lawyer leads to me booking a Crown meeting between the Crown and her. The matter is often promptly resolved by a plea if I decide I want to make that happen - or it could languish in limbo for a few more months.

(I'll be the first person to arrive and the last person to leave more often than not. I've seen files that have been adjourned since 2019 for defense delay. I've seen clients stay in jail a week or two longer because nobody bothered to do the leg work of creating a bail plan).

Just for clarification, are you describing delays that are (i) long enough to push the accused outside of the Jordan time frames, (ii) attributable to the defence, and (iii) attributable to the defence because of counsel's inaction?

If yes, that's ... uh, bad? I won't go through any specific legal problems arising from that, for either the client, you, or the firm, because we don't and shouldn't give legal advice here. But if I've read your post correctly, your firm is, at minimum, providing you with inadequate mentorship, meaning you're probably not going to be ready to go out on your own when you finish there. And it could impact you in worse ways than that.

[SNAILS]

@realpseudonym Only maybe 10% of the cases that are excessively delayed are sometimes delayed to the point of being outside the Jordan time frames. Half of these are cases where we were not that person's first lawyer. 

Usually, the delay is no more than 3 or 4 months. Still, a lot of these simple cases should have been resolved in 6 weeks with a plea.

I get the general gist of "problems" you are referring to. I'm trying to deal with it by being proactive.

[JustHereNotStaying]

1) I would definitely think about salary - you don’t want to work for free and unfortunately there are employers out there that will take advantage of cheap labour. It’s possible to make a killing in criminal law and make a decent salary starting off (possible to make 40-70k during articling - YOU just have to find the opportunity).

2) network - others know if a lawyer presents themselves in public as “nice and caring” but is an asshole behind closed doors.

3) are you at a legal aid mill? Most oftentimes will be long hours (60-90 hours a week) for shit pay and you’ll burn out. 

4) will you get trial time as a student? Lots of defence firm use students as set date monkeys and you won’t learn a lot just waiting for you name to be called.

5) always get everything in writing. If someone states after articling you have a job get it in writing. Lots of firms use this as a way to get work done only to dump you after wards.

6) do you even have a employer-employee relationship with your boss? In most smaller firms you work elbow to elbow in the trenches, oftentimes with the partner. Avoid partners who are “managing the business” and aren’t actually lawyers in a small firm - usually it’s a pyramid scheme where they simply bring in clients and profit of all your work.

few things I’ve learned from being at a bad criminal law firm - not applicable to all, but just what I learned. 

 

[SNAILS]

@JustHereNotStaying I looked at your points for about 10 minutes, thinking about your post.

(1) The pay range seems accurate. I'm not going to jump ship to make $5K more, but I'm not going to work for less than market value.

(2) One good thing about waiting in court for my name to be called is that I learn which other lawyers are prepared and competent, and which ones are less organized than our firm is. (I have not yet discovered what I'd call a "high end" criminal lawyer in my jurisdiction). 

(3) I have exceeded 60 hours per week before, but I refuse to do that going forward. There is a bit of the "legal aid mill" stuff going on, but I hope to be managing my own files my own way shortly after being called (meaning 2 years from now). And, in the long term, I hope to move up to clients who need and can afford to pay for a high quality criminal defense lawyer. In the short term, I think the legal aid and "$3500 + HST" cash clients deserve a better level of service than they are currently getting. (i.e. getting promptly an competently informed about their resolution or trial options; proper and prompt meetings with the Crown to negotiate a good resolution).

(4) I'm already starting to move up in the world. I did a Judicial Pre-trial by myself yesterday. The boss argued an involuntary confessions viore dire based on my research and factum on Monday.  But I'll be a "date monkey" for a while yet.

(5) Gotta work on that one.

(6) I have a great relationship with the criminal lawyer who works under the boss (the only "partner"). 

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, SNAILS said:

(2) One good thing about waiting in court for my name to be called is that I learn which other lawyers are prepared and competent, and which ones are less organized than our firm is. (I have not yet discovered what I'd call a "high end" criminal lawyer in my jurisdiction). 

Preparedness and organization in docket court, though certainly appreciated by Judges and Crowns, is not a very good indication of who is competent at all. You have to look at what sort of resolutions they can work out (granted, you do get some exposure to this in dockets), whether they are willing to run trials, and how well they run trials. There are some absolute killer lawyers out there who are really disorganized at the docket stage but formidable when it comes time for actual trials, prelims, written arguments, etc (actually, sometimes this goes hand in hand because they are reputable enough to generate a lot of a work and keep busy, and they are running a lot of trials, so docket prep is a really low priority). There are dump trunks who look great in docket because that's all they do and they resolve everything, so they can dedicate all of their attention there without being distracted by trials.

Not to mention competency is a distinct issue from personality and pleasantness to work under, which was what the point you were responding to was referring to.

Edited December 17, 2022 by CleanHands

[SNAILS]

 Personality and pleasantness is not a problem. So I guess I should count my blessings. (And this is probably the true reason I'm staying with them).

Trial ability seems to be how actual lawyers evaluate other lawyers (in criminal law anyway). So I'll keep that in mind. I'm usually "holding down the fort" at the office when there's a trial. lol. (i.e. not listening to the trial).