Jump to content

Malicious Prosecutor

Members
  • Content Count

    3517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Malicious Prosecutor last won the day on January 14

Malicious Prosecutor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3500 Good People

5 Followers

About Malicious Prosecutor

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4309 profile views
  1. No, I think you've identified the three main issues. Your contract may well state you are not to engage in outside work. EVen if the contract doesn't state it, managing conflicts would be a nightmare. And your liability insurance may not cover you for outside work if paid for by your employer. I know that's my issue as a government lawyer. Government self-insures, so I have no liability insurance for anything I would do outside the scope of my employment.
  2. Thankfully, when asked about how to fight their ticket, I just say "I'm a Crown Prosecutor, not a defence lawyer. My advice is to pay your damn ticket!"
  3. They're not necessarily wrong. My in-laws are not noticeably any poorer than my family and they work in the oilpatch / trades.
  4. It depends very much on the context. For one example, a couple of years ago I was chatting with some of the other dads on my kids soccer team. It turned out that over half of us were lawyers. I guess I just live in that kind of community. My being a lawyer was unremarkable, except to the extent we compared our practices. When I first met my future in-laws, they were a little apprehensive, I think I made them feel somehow inadequate (they're all good, hardworking people who have done well for themselves, but no post-secondary educations). To this day my sister-in-law, when she's drinking, will accuse me of thinking that I'm "too good" for her family - which I think says everything about her own feelings, and not of mine. I joined a hockey team last year. Wide range of backgrounds: we have several blue collar types, but also a teacher and an pharmacist. It was half way through the year before my job ever came up, to which a couple of guys said "Holy shit!" I think they were more impressed/intimidated by the Crown Prosecutor part. And since that day for the rest of the year, my job never came up again. I've gotten disdain a few times - but usually from people I've prosecuted. Back in university, it does get you a bit of respect when dealing with undergrads. That was kind of nice. I represented the Faculty of Law one year in the wider student government. The outgoing law rep said a lot of the undergrads will look to you for some guidance, and suggested the various committees to be on. Almost immediately, just on the strength of being a law student, I chaired committee meetings and had a lot of clout. That being said though, for most people when you're in law school you're kind of in that law school bubble, and most of the people you associate with will be other law students.
  5. My work is endlessly flexible. Sure, go ahead and take off early on Friday if you're caught up. Go work from home on Tuesday because your kid is sick. For an entire year I even worked 7:30 so I could pick my kid up from daycare sooner. The huge catch though is: as long as I don't have court. And I have court 3-4 days per week. Then, you are at the whim of the court schedule. I have reasonably good success in saying at one point "Your Honour, my child care commitments are such that I have to pick up my children by 6pm at the latest, which means I am not available to sit past approx. 5:15. I am more than willing to cut short any lunch breaks to try and get through", and even "Your Honour I am supposed to take my children to swimming lessons today. In order to make it I would have to leave here by 4:30. If I can not take them they will not be able to go this week. They can miss swimming if necessary, but I would like to be able to take them if possible". As long as your request is reasonable (and the Accused is out of custody!), accomodations can be made. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of "flexibility" @Johnappleseed was asking about - he sounded more concerned that he'd be working 80 hours plus per week (not that there aren't firms where that happens). There's probably no legal job with 100% flexibility. You're always going to have firm court or client commitments you have to make. But once past articling there is often room for at least some flexibility - lawyers aren't working on a factory floor with a time card to punch every day.
  6. I just wanted to chime in to say that not every legal job requires insane hours. As a public servant I don't know that I would describe my job necessarily as "flexible", but I generally do 8-4, Monday to Friday.
  7. The entire point, the entire justification, for searches at points of entry is to prevent illegal material from coming into Canada. Cloning the cell phone, then seeking some kind of warrant, defeats the entire purpose. That allows the illegal material to come into Canada, and then days or weeks later somehow police (because CBSA no longer have authority, because not at a port of entry) have to try and chase down the offender who has long left the port of entry with their cellphone?
  8. I'm familiar with analogies. And that's a bad analogy. Just as one should be very careful making Hitler analogies, so should care be given to comparing anything to rape. CBSA officers don't need multiple suspicious indicators. They just need a suspicion. Look - you're free to say the law should change, and articulate why. But it's inaccurate and wrong to say the CBSA violates the law when they are in fact clearly operating within it.
  9. And again - CBSA agents looking through your electronic devices at the border is a part of their job. They have the power to do this, and it's well recognized by the courts.
  10. I'm very uncomfortable equating in any way a search of your cell phone at the border with rape. I know you didn't intend it to sound that way, but that's what you did.
  11. You're a lawyer, right? CBSA officers actions are fairly regularly reviewed by the courts. Their discretion is not unfettered, and there is lots of oversight.
  12. I want to strongly dispute the notion that your income as a lawyer goes up every year. Legal salaries will typically increase quite a bit per year your first few years, but will then level off. Odds are your 30th year you earn just as much as your 29th year. In fact if you go far enough out your income will start to decrease over time, either because you choose to slow down, or as your clients themselves start to retire and refer you less work.
  13. I do, but... Yes, I said earlier on there probably are instances when you do need to be hyper-vigilant. If I am Julian Assange's lawyer I'm going to be incredibly careful about electronic devices. But the huge majority of lawyers aren't in that situation. And let's be honest about what the border guard is looking for: he's not looking for evidence of unrelated crimes. He (or she) is looking for some reason to suspect that guns or drugs are coming into the country, with a side interest in whether there is any child porn. In the real world, the easiest way for a lawyer to deal with this situation (other than just having a burner phone) is assert privilege (bringing it up to the supervisor is a good idea), having an officer glance through the phone, confirm there's nothing about smuggling guns or drugs (and not copying anything), then be given back the phone and sent on their way. This being the internet, I think people can get caught up in ideological hypotheticals like this, when the reality is if your emails are being searched you've already done more damage to your solicitor-client privilege by discussing privileged materials via unsecure email anyways.
  14. This is a useful clarification. I think we (myself included) are tending to confuse what is being searched (the electronic device) with what is being protected (solicitor-client information). Just because your electronic device is has protected material on it (whether solicitor-client, informant privilege, or whatever), doesn't mean the entire electronic device can not be searched. It can be - it's just any specific, protected material that can not. This contains some good and useful suggestions:
  15. Just saw this: First, I try to avoid discussing anything that would identify a CI over email in the first place, as email is not terribly secure. Second, it would depend on which country's border I am crossing. On returning to Canada I would not be concerned. Third, I get what you're trying to do here, but it's probably not a fair question. I'm fairly confident that CBSA officers would treat my assertion of CI informant privilege with even more respect than a defence lawyer's SC privilege. But I do think they would still respect SC privilege.
×
×
  • Create New...