Fun times and faceplants in Court

[razraini]

I vaguely recall a similar thread on ls.ca so I thought I would get the ball rolling again with a standout courtroom moment.

Judge: Ok Mr. Defendant…you’re at the remand…you have three counts before the Court…are you getting a lawyer? What do you want to do with this today?

Mr. Defendant: I was thinking I could plead guilty to one count…Hey, Mr. Prosecutor…what do you think of 90 days on this?

Me: *review record*…uh…that actually sounds exactly right.

Mr. Defendant: I think I got about 60 days in so that puts me at time served, right?

Me: *doing mental math* uh…yeah…it would.

Mr. Defendant: Alright, cool. Awesome.

Judge: …Mr. Prosecutor…do you even wanna read in facts on this?

Me: I mean, yeah, I should… I don’t think we can really do a summary guilty plea [still amazed I was asked this]

Mr. Defendant: Yeah, you should read in some facts. Don’t worry about 606. I know what’s up. [For the non-crim practitioners, this is the provision of the Criminal Code that lays out the conditions upon which a guilty plea can be accepted]

Judge: …ok…will the Crown need an order for forfeiture?

Mr. Defendant: Yes. The cops took some stuff when they arrested me. It ain’t mine.

Me: …Yes.

Anyway, it turned out Mr. Defendant he already arranged for his ride to pick him up that afternoon from the remand.

[Aureliuse]

I practice family law.

Some fun tidbits during trial, when even the judge smiled or had to suppress a chuckle:

 

Context: Direct Examination - Wife had suspected the husband was cheating on her.

Me: [Asking my witness to describe a fight on a specific morning]

Wife: ....When he said that, I was so angry. I grabbed what was close to me and cracked him across the face.

Me: What did you grab?

Wife: A bedside lamp.

Me: What did he say that made you so angry?

Wife: 'Louise, what time is it?' [fictional name]

Me: That made you upset?

Wife: Yes, because my name is Sharon! [fictional name]

(guess the name of the other woman the husband was cheating with...)

[Trial judge had to suppress a chuckle, opposing counsel was laughing]

[Jaggers]

I've seen this one circulated a bunch of times. Is it still relevant in family law in the 21st century whether someone is having sex with someone else?

[Aureliuse]

22 hours ago, Jaggers said:

I've seen this one circulated a bunch of times. Is it still relevant in family law in the 21st century whether someone is having sex with someone else?

Yes, for paternity issues and in some rare cases, repeated infidelity (lyin, cheatin, and denyin about it) amounts to abuse within the purview of the amended Divorce Act.

[123]

I had one of my first true faceplants in a hearing last week. I submitted a bunch of evidence, and made lengthy submissions based upon that evidence during the hearing. 

There's an appellate case which says that evidence is inadmissible. I did know of the case in the past, but had forgotten about it, because I'd run a bunch of hearings like this before for clients who are not captured by the particular rule. Opposing counsel cites the case in response. There's not really any prejudice to the client, because I still submitted evidence to support my other arguments. But I obviously look like an idiot, because I very clearly didn't know a black and white rule. 

I've had at least one mistake before this. Like I once filed a notice that was deficient because it didn't include a requirement set-out in a new set of rules. And there have been times where I wish I'd better prepped a client or witness for a line of questioning. But one of those was pretty technical inadvertence, that was easily fixed with a motion for an extension on consent. The other times weren't really clear mistakes, just wishing I'd done more in hindsight. This is the first time that I've very clearly been wrong. It doesn't feel great, but it is a good reminder not to start getting too comfortable. 

[CleanHands]

Had a self-rep accused individual who was a rather pleasant fellow actually but was accused of a number of breaches of probation orders. At trial he admitted to breaching reporting conditions but testified to confusion with respect to his condition to attend counselling.

He was acquitted of that charge on the basis of a reasonable doubt with respect to mens rea, and what I found amusing was that the judge explicitly pointed to his evident and sincere confusion at all stages of the court proceedings that day as bolstering that defence. Basically, ironically he had such a hard time defending himself (note: he was a blue collar guy, I don't fault him at all since he had no experience with this and I really don't think it's reasonable to expect lay people to be able to effectively defend themselves) that it actually resulted in him getting an acquittal. 4D chess.

[Vizslaw]

This one falls under fun times for sure. It was my first jury trial, which I did with one of the more senior crowns at our office (at the time). He was essentially there for fun and apart from some guidance, he wanted to handle one or two of the witnesses. This was a month-long trial with about a dozen witnesses, experts, and was pretty complex so I was happy to have the help. There were in camera hearings re: CI files. Lots of fun. Anyway, senior crown tells me my opening to the jury has to be straight fire, and that the jury should know this guy is guilty and that if I don't at least provoke a mistrial application, my opening wasn't good enough.

I knew that was obviously bad advice. Anyway, I did my opening, which I thought was fair and actually pretty tame looking back. It was a pretty standard opening address. But defence counsel brings a mistrial application right after my opening and the senior crown leans over and is like, okay, I put you up to this, I'm going to respond to the mistrial application and make the oral arguments. So defence makes their arguments and then the trial judge looks to me and says, your reply? And so I look over to my senior crown, and I shit you not, he says: "it's your mistrial application, what are you looking at me for..."

So I dealt with it, but I learned a lesson that day that some people just want to watch the world burn. He was otherwise a spectacular mentor and I can only assume he did that knowing that I could handle myself and the case. We had a good laugh after but I learned to trust him the way you trust a cat not to knock something on the floor when it's looking at you dead in the eyes.

The defence also made about 5-6 other mistrial applications over the course of this trial and it became a running joke, because there was really no merit to them and the court of appeal agreed, so that was nice. 🙂

I've often told this story to juniors and joked that one day I could return the favour to someone, which has resulted in everyone always being over-prepared. 

[Ryn]

2 hours ago, Vizslaw said:

We had a good laugh after but I learned to trust him the way you trust a cat not to knock something on the floor when it's looking at you dead in the eyes.

ouch

[Vizslaw]

I will say it was all in good fun in hindsight. He was a great mentor, just a little lot old school. We're still quite close 🙂

[Jaggers]

I had a really good mentor who one day phoned me at 8 p.m and said "how would you like to do a discovery tomorrow?" I said "I've never done one. How would you like to do a discovery tomorrow?"

And he did it, and I sat with him and watched. Luckily I had a really good relationship with my mentor, because that could have gone badly. In hindsight, he was probably right that I could have handled it, but it was too soon for my own comfort.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Jaggers

[SNAILS]

Me: "I am prepared to confirm trial dates in the Supreme Court."

Justice of the Peace: "I don't think I am authorized to do that."

Me: "I'm sorry Your Worship, I would like to set trial dates in the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario)."

[theroaringbadger]

1L here and suits fan did anyone try pulling a Harvey spectre and fail miserably cause it’s not real life lol 

[Rashabon]

I have no idea what that question even means.

[CleanHands]

 

[Lawstudents20202020]

17 hours ago, theroaringbadger said:

1L here and suits fan did anyone try pulling a Harvey spectre and fail miserably cause it’s not real life lol 

Which one of the numerous ethical violations committed on that show are we defining as a Harvey spectre? 

[123]

10 minutes ago, Lawstudents20202020 said:

Which one of the numerous ethical violations committed on that show are we defining as a Harvey spectre? 

I only watched a few episodes, but their litigation practice seems to be largely limited to yelling at witnesses. To answer what I think the question means, no, I have never tried to emulate Harvey Spectre by yelling at a witness.

[Lawstudents20202020]

9 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

I only watched a few episodes, but their litigation practice seems to be largely limited to yelling at witnesses. To answer what I think the question means, no, I have never tried to emulate Harvey Spectre by yelling at a witness.

A lawyer in BC tried this and I believe it resulted in law society citations 

[Ryn]

I think it's also worth noting that American legal practice and Canadian legal practice differ substantially with respect to how counsel deal with each other. There's generally a desire to be respectful or at least professional with other lawyers, even in litigation matters. Also, if you've ever read American pleadings vs. Canadian pleadings, you'll quickly realize how different things are even in that arena.

[123]

29 minutes ago, Ryn said:

I think it's also worth noting that American legal practice and Canadian legal practice differ substantially with respect to how counsel deal with each other. There's generally a desire to be respectful or at least professional with other lawyers, even in litigation matters. Also, if you've ever read American pleadings vs. Canadian pleadings, you'll quickly realize how different things are even in that arena.

Yeah, turning away from the amusing aspect of this question, the serious answer is that many students' primary exposure to the law will have been through American television. Even if you obviously know that Suits, Law and Order, the Good Wife etc isn't real life practice, it's not absurd to allow some of that to subconsciously shape your expectations about how litigation, law firm culture, etc works. I don't really understand what solicitors do, so I can't comment on that. But if law students or applicants want to see what real litigation looks like, you can. We have an open court principle, so most legal proceedings are public by default in Canada. You can go watch in-person (or ask for  link and watch online, depending) and see what actual courtroom advocacy looks like. And I would urge people to do so. You should watch chambers, trials, bail hearings, etc. while you have time. Before people have to start doing this work in clinics, articling, etc., I think it's important to have greater insight on practice than can be provided by Harvey Spectre.

Okay, that's my buzzkill public service announcement. Carry on.

[LMP]

It isn't exactly a courtroom but I had "opposing counsel" in a trial advocacy class model his cross and closing on a suits episode. Including lots of table pounding. He's a nice guy but he's got a twisted idea of what impeaching the witness is. 

[CleanHands]

I swear this is an accurate depiction of many, many witnesses.

[TheScientist101]

In patent land - when a generic tries to come onto the market they have to file a Notice of Allegation and serve it on the brand. The brand then has 45 days to serve a Statement of Claim (in the old days before September 2017 - a Notice of Application). It is a hard deadline. If the brand misses that deadline, the generic automatically comes onto the market. 

A partner at a major firm missed that deadline. Cost the client hundreds of millions of dollars. That dude is still highly respected in the field. Goes to show, no matter how big the mistake - you're still going to be fine. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by TheScientist101

[Cool_name]

On 9/28/2022 at 8:04 PM, theroaringbadger said:

1L here and suits fan did anyone try pulling a Harvey spectre and fail miserably cause it’s not real life lol 

There have definitely been moments where I feel like I channeled my inner Harvey. 
 

Not by table smashing, blackmailing or yelling at witnesses (which as noted above, isn’t a good idea), but by finding that perfect fact, clause in an agreement, or legal argument and using it to pull the other side’s entire cases apart. To me that is the epitome of Harvey, finding the overlooked fact or legal argument and using it to calmly set out exactly why the others position can’t succeed… and being right. 
 

There have been far more times when I think I’ve reached such an argument only to realize it doesn’t apply or is far more nuanced, but that is litigation.

 

[Chewy]

20 minutes ago, Cool_name said:

There have definitely been moments where I feel like I channeled my inner Harvey. 
 

Not by table smashing, blackmailing or yelling at witnesses (which as noted above, isn’t a good idea), but by finding that perfect fact, clause in an agreement, or legal argument and using it to pull the other side’s entire cases apart. To me that is the epitome of Harvey, finding the overlooked fact or legal argument and using it to calmly set out exactly why the others position can’t succeed… and being right. 
 

There have been far more times when I think I’ve reached such an argument only to realize it doesn’t apply or is far more nuanced, but that is litigation.

 

So you’re telling me that you have never persuaded someone to do something unethical and illegal for you by firmly telling that that “you owe me!”?

[Cool_name]

12 minutes ago, Chewy said:

So you’re telling me that you have never persuaded someone to do something unethical and illegal for you by firmly telling that that “you owe me!”?

No, but I’ve firmly told clients not to do unethical or illegal things, which is kinda the same.