Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hegdis

So You Want To Do Criminal Defence: Hegdis's Tips and Tricks From The Other Side

Recommended Posts

I've handled those mom-and-pop type files where the client had too much to drink, punched a guy out, was found in possession, maybe abused his wife, etc.

 

Good question, but as an aside, I'm a little disturbed that you consider domestic abuse to be a "mom-and-pop" crime.

 

(Yes, I know it literally happens between mothers and fathers, but I'm talking about the connotation of the term.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My only question is with regards to how you (any defence lawyers here?) mentally deal with having to handle "those" files.  The ones where someone gets killed or raped, or ones involving child porn, and your client admits to you he did it. 

 

This is going to take a bit of context to answer properly and to add to Uriel's excellent answer in the first page of this thread, so apologies in advance for the long-winded post. (As ever, this is just my own view, so if anyone else wants to add or critique something, please do...)

 

First, I have never done a trial where the accused flat out agreed with the complainant's or police version of events, without any additional information that opens up a defence - or a defence already available on the face of the particulars.

 

Obviously you have a duty to realistically assess a file and advise your client as to the likelihood he will be convicted. If it really is an overwhelming case for the Crown, and the instructions you're getting aren't opening up any defences, then well before trial you have a conversation about a plea. In that situation it's likely a plea is in your client's best interest since it usually involves a lower sentence than would be sought after a trial.

 

If your client is actually saying he did it, exactly how it's laid out in the disclosure, and yet he still wants to go to trial, then you get those instructions in writing because even though this is his right, he is only hurting himself, and he'll blame you when gets sentenced to fifteen years rather than the Crown's earlier offer of ten. This kind of situation is quite rare.

 

If a client refuses to admit guilt, you go to trial. Always.

 

I can't over-emphasize how important your client's instructions are. And they are the part that no one gets to hear about - so this is the gap where people assume the defence lawyer is just morally corrupt. But every defence lawyer eventually has an experience where they personally didn't believe their client, and were convinced deep down that he was guilty, and felt like crap about it, and then - boom! - at trial, the case begins to unravel, and it turns out that something completely different was going on, and then there's an acquittal. After you have that experience - and you will - you stop worrying so much about what your personal opinion is and you focus on doing your job.

 

In short, if you judge your client ahead of time you aren't doing yourself or your client or the system any favours.

 

As for looking a victim in the eye after "knowing" a guilty client was acquitted. If you are asking about the literal moment when the verdict is read, you stand up, the judge leaves, you turn around, and there she is staring right at you - it doesn't happen like that. In that period of time, your only focus is getting your client out of the courtroom and to a neutral area where you can give him some final instructions and answer any questions he may have. You aren't looking around to engage with anyone else in the courtroom - certainly not the complainant. In my experience, the Crown usually have that covered: like you, they are trying to whisk the parties out and away from any possible confrontation.

 

Afterwards. I'm not going to lie and say you feel great about every win. But if it's a question of moral judgment it's important to consider why you won. Did the police screw up? Did the Crown fumble during their direct examination? Did the complainant take the stand and start exaggerating or outright lying about certain details? Did your client hold up well under cross? Was it just a weak case to begin with? And did you point all of that out to the judge or to the jury?

 

Ask yourself this: Should you have kept quiet and let your client go to jail on an unstable conviction because you personally believed he was guilty, even though the Crown had failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

If the answer to that last one is yes, then you shouldn't be a defence lawyer. You have to be able to put your integrity over your feelings. It's hard. You might have some sleepless nights. You might have a few too many drinks. You might hate what you do on occasion. But would you feel better if you betrayed your client, who trusts you, who is absolutely reliant on you to protect him, and who is totally vulnerable to you on that point? (- if you do, you'd better be prepared for the law society to come knocking!)

 

Emotionally, in those kinds of cases, it's really a lose-lose situation for you either way.

 

But for me at least, it will always comes down to this: Selling out a client just to feel better or to apply your personal version of what is "just" is never going to be acceptable. The justice system is bigger than you. It needs you to fulfill your role to be able to do its work, and you cannot turn around and frustrate that process or attempt to override it by shirking your duty to your client. You can never really know what happened until the trial is over (and often not even then). If you're going to be a defence lawyer, you cannot be a judge and a prosecutor and a victim's advocate too. (I hate the ending to Devil's Advocate for that exact reason.)

 

Perhaps that's cold comfort. As I keep saying, criminal defence work is not for everybody.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hegdis, that's a great reply.

 

I understand that the police version of events is not gospel, and in almost all cases is not entirely true.  There will be gaps that can only be filled in once you discuss the case with your client.  I understand that defences may arise, maybe a Charter defence for unreasonable search. I understand the greater policy reasons for why Charter defences are available.  I agree with the way the system works, so that's not an issue for me.  I am absolutely not questioning the system.  In fact, it's because I believe in the system that makes me want to switch over to criminal defence.

 

And I would never suggest shirking my duty as a defence lawyer, or selling my client out.  It's also not about whether I personally believed my client was guilty.  It's when my client tells me straight out that he DID commit the offence, but wants me to get him an acquittal or a stay by preparing for trial.  When my client has been involved in rape of the worst kind, and only I as the defence counsel know of it, of course I will prepare my best for trial if the client wishes to go to trial.  Of course, there's always the option of referring the client to another lawyer when this arises, but I don't think that's what a criminal lawyer should be doing.  I believe a criminal lawyer should take the good cases with the bad.

 

What I really wanted to know (and you've touched on this already) is would it eventually get to me (or the average defence lawyer) that I had gone to trial for a client I knew (because he told me) was guilty of murder/rape/child porn etc and had done everything I can to defend him to the best of my abilities, as is my duty.  If you win, there is a victim out there just as important as your client accused, who did not see justice done (despite what the judge has ruled, despite any technicalities, as the defence lawyer, you KNOW that "justice", if not legally, was still not served in some way or another).  If you lose, was fighting for this case worth it on an individual level?  Even if someone had to do it, was it worth it for you to personally do it?  You mentioned sleepless nights, and drinking.  I suppose the bottom line is in knowing the system is bigger than you, like you said.

 

I would be interested in knowing if it is common for criminal lawyers to eventually switch over to non-criminal work because they couldn't personally deal with their work.  You are right in that criminal defence work is not for everybody- this is exactly what I'm trying to figure out right now and it's that 10% uncertainty as of now that prevents me from making the switch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I really wanted to know (and you've touched on this already) is would it eventually get to me (or the average defence lawyer) that I had gone to trial for a client I knew (because he told me) was guilty of murder/rape/child porn etc and had done everything I can to defend him to the best of my abilities, as is my duty.  If you win, there is a victim out there just as important as your client accused, who did not see justice done (despite what the judge has ruled, despite any technicalities, as the defence lawyer, you KNOW that "justice", if not legally, was still not served in some way or another).  If you lose, was fighting for this case worth it on an individual level?  Even if someone had to do it, was it worth it for you to personally do it?

 

That's a question you won't know the answer to until you're there in the middle of it. As you've pointed out, it's a very personal thing.

 

If it helps, the situation you have described is not that common for most defence counsel. The odds of you getting a caseload that's heavy on murder and serious sexual assaults, all with clients who confess their guilt to you, is slim. You may get a handful over your career. The rest of your cases are much more likely to be less serious, or to be serious cases where your client maintains his innocence and you're going after various defences (identification, consent, self defence, etc.).

 

Your mindset during the actual case is not going to be agonizing over whether what you are doing is "right" or not. It's focusing on the job at hand - what does the law say, what does the client say, what did the witnesses say: is there a defence here?

 

If you win a case because your client's confession to the police about raping the little girl was thrown out due to a Charter breach, you're not going to rejoice over it. If you're like me, you're going to be pretty pissed off at the police for a long time for screwing up something so essential. Being a defence lawyer doesn't mean you give up the outrage any citizen would feel over something so clearly unfair. But being a defence lawyer does mean you understand why the system has to work that way, and that sometimes that you take part in it working that way.

 

Defence counsel do burn out and they do leave, yes. Much of that has to do with them reaching a personal limit of some kind. But as to what that is, and why some stick around and some don't, it's hard to say. My only observation is that the people who seem to stick around are the ones who seem to have an almost religious faith in the system and believe it's structured in such a way as to be a just as possible given all of the competing interests at play. I am probably one of those people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a question you won't know the answer to until you're there in the middle of it. As you've pointed out, it's a very personal thing.

 

If it helps, the situation you have described is not that common for most defence counsel. The odds of you getting a caseload that's heavy on murder and serious sexual assaults, all with clients who confess their guilt to you, is slim. You may get a handful over your career. The rest of your cases are much more likely to be less serious, or to be serious cases where your client maintains his innocence and you're going after various defences (identification, consent, self defence, etc.).

 

Your mindset during the actual case is not going to be agonizing over whether what you are doing is "right" or not. It's focusing on the job at hand - what does the law say, what does the client say, what did the witnesses say: is there a defence here?

 

If you win a case because your client's confession to the police about raping the little girl was thrown out due to a Charter breach, you're not going to rejoice over it. If you're like me, you're going to be pretty pissed off at the police for a long time for screwing up something so essential. Being a defence lawyer doesn't mean you give up the outrage any citizen would feel over something so clearly unfair. But being a defence lawyer does mean you understand why the system has to work that way, and that sometimes that you take part in it working that way.

 

Defence counsel do burn out and they do leave, yes. Much of that has to do with them reaching a personal limit of some kind. But as to what that is, and why some stick around and some don't, it's hard to say. My only observation is that the people who seem to stick around are the ones who seem to have an almost religious faith in the system and believe it's structured in such a way as to be a just as possible given all of the competing interests at play. I am probably one of those people.

 

 

That's an incredibly eye-opening point, thank you for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really great thread - that religious faith point just made above makes sense, and so does Uriel's point at the beginning about people who need help and who are in a shit spot, regardless of guilt.  I think that's the attitude I'd have as a defense attorney. 

 

Questions for experienced defense attorneys:

 

Have you ever won an acquittal for someone that by the end of the trial you believed to be guilty of something serious and who shouldn't be out on the streets?  I mean like a gang murderer, chronic domestic abuser, repeat rapist, child molester etc.

 

Regardless of your general philosophical stance on the importance of doing that work, how did you feel about it?

 

Have you ever had a client whom you strongly felt was innocent when you took them on, and then changed your mind during the trial?

 

Conversely have you ever had a client whom you felt was guilty when you took them on, and then changed your mind during the trial?

 

Even if you have religious faith in the structure of our system, I imagine those situations must make you really uncomfortable.  If not, why not?

 

I'd ask mirror questions to Crown prosecutors if they're reading

 

Remember that you're talking to someone who hasn't even started law school yet and doesn't know the practical ins and outs of how the system actually works in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my clients are not guilty when we start the trial. At the end of the trial, the trier of fact tells me if my client is guilty or not.

 

That's the only guilt I'm professionally concerned about. What I might personally believe I deal with on my own time, and it does not affect my work.

 

I know that answer sounds like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned it's the only answer. I think once you've gone through law school it will make more sense to you. And to be honest, I think at this point there's nothing more to be said that hasn't already been said - you've asked essentially the same question about four times in various threads. I'm really just repeating myself now. If others have something more or different to add, perhaps they will.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of my clients are not guilty when we start the trial. At the end of the trial, the trier of fact tells me if my client is guilty or not.

 

That's the only guilt I'm professionally concerned about. What I might personally believe I deal with on my own time, and it does not affect my work.

 

I know that answer sounds like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned it's the only answer. I think once you've gone through law school it will make more sense to you. And to be honest, I think at this point there's nothing more to be said that hasn't already been said - you've asked essentially the same question about four times in various threads. I'm really just repeating myself now. If others have something more or different to add, perhaps they will.

No, this question was about your feelings and how that affects your work, not about the philosophy of the system etc.  And if it doesn't affect your work, and/or your feelings square with the philosophy of the system, then that's my answer.

 

The reason I asked the same thing over and over is because in general, not just here, people assume that the person they're talking to has all sorts of knowledge that they don't have, and thus they give weak answers.  In my experience, you keep arguing, until someone says something new or convincing and that's what I did, and that's what happened.  Eventually you and others starting giving what I felt like are strong answers.  My original point was I wouldn't feel comfortable defending someone that I thought was guilty, and I'd rather pass that case on to someone else.  You guys eventually got around to saying that I might think they're innocent at first and then change my mind half way through the trial, or the other way around, and that actually is a great argument to my precise point, and after that I stopped arguing. 

 

I actually take offense to the way some people responded, all these attacks about watching me too much TV or not understanding the legal system... well duh - like I said from the start, I haven't even started law school.  I can only imagine that before all of you started law school, your ideas about how the legal system worked also came mostly from TV or news media, unless your parents were lawyers. 

 

Now that I understand the arguments, I had new questions which are related, but not the same - it's how you deal with it when it happens, not why you do it or agree with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually take offense to the way some people responded, all these attacks about watching me too much TV or not understanding the legal system... well duh - like I said from the start, I haven't even started law school.  I can only imagine that before all of you started law school, your ideas about how the legal system worked also came mostly from TV or news media, unless your parents were lawyers. 

 

I also have not started law school, and no, my parents are not lawyers. But I do not share your views on the criminal justice system. This is not because I have had any exposure to it. It is simply because the black-and-white morality you seem to espouse is self-evidently flawed and does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

Many people, Hegdis included, have generously given up their time to write long posts to you about how your vantage point is flawed. They have explained that your conception of "guilty" and "innocent" does not accord with how those terms are used in a court of law, and that personal hunches about a client's character are irrelevant to the work that they do — in fact, that indulging those personal hunches would be unfair to their clients and would impede the administration of justice. 

 

Yet you persist in asking questions that are rooted in these flawed ideas about guilt and innocence. People have already explained to you why your viewpoints are faulty, but it seems you don't understand what they're saying on a deeper level. So they have said, "Go to law school and you'll come out understanding this better."

 

Perhaps you should remember that it is not the job of anyone around here to disabuse you of flawed notions. Because they are generous with their time, they have tried really hard and have patiently explained things to you. But at the end of the day, it's up to you to scrutinize your own thinking and expose yourself to experiences that would give you a deeper, more nuanced view of criminal justice. They say "go to law school" because it's your job to think about these issues more deeply. People have already gone above and beyond the call of duty. They've said their piece — now it's up to you to make sense of everything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus condescending Christ - one thing I do know about lawyers is that laws are written text and therefore lawyers are supposed to know how to read. Go re-read the post you're reponding to and the one Hedgis responded to just above. I do understand all the points people have made, and I appreciate the time everyone to took to make them.

I have actually asked a whole new set of questions about a very different albeit related topic - how one deals with situations emotionally. My earlier posts were basically asking people to justify the way the system works. The new ones ask how people deal with those situations emotionally. They're related, but there's a huge difference.  It's like asking a surgeon "why is it ok to cut people up" and then afterwards asking "when you cut people up, how do you handle all the blood and guts".

Not only have you totally missed that, but I actually anticipated that people would react this way before asking the new questions so I actually emphasized this specific point in the post where I asked the new questions,and you missed that too. You may know the legal system better than I do, but I would never hire anyone to defend me if they had those kinds of reading habits. Talk about judging people without having had access to all the evidence...

Edited by johnnyhaggis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You may know the legal system better than I do, but I would never hire anyone to defend me if they had those kinds of reading habits.

I also have not started law school, and no, my parents are not lawyers.

 

Go re-read the post you're reponding to

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, mass fail buddy.  I think that's called the "I know you are, but what am I?" argument.

 

Anyhow, I can see how someone who followed the earlier discussion might read my new questions quickly and miss the point of them - and to correct what I just said, I clarified what I was doing after Hedgis' response, not in the original post with the questions, but either way, all of the reactions to these and the earlier questions are really revealing and not in the ways that I was looking for...

Edited by johnnyhaggis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you know what - reading the threads on criminal defense make me think that maybe people are so hyper-defensive (and seem to have been taking things personally) right from the getgo because society tends to treat defense attorneys like the scum of the earth.  I think it's Hedgis who gave some colourful examples of this attitude at weddings, parties, etc.  So let me emphasize that I don't feel that way at all.  I actually have more qualms about the work prosecutors do.  I respect defense lawyers enormously (I respect prosecutors as well btw - and moreso after reading some of them explain what they do on here). 

 

But anyhow, in case it wasn't clear, the point of my questions three posts up were not to ask people to defend the system, or why they take on certain cases - we already had that (unecessarily tense and defensive) discussion.  I just want to know how people deal with the situations that come up, as I imagine that it must be hard.  Again the analogy is the earlier debate was asking a surgeon why it's ok to cut people up, and these questions are the equivalent of how you deal with the blood and guts, and how you deal with losing patients etc.

 

I can't for the life of me believe that you guys and ladies don't deal with these issues.  I'm sure that surgeons have basic ways they deal with or think about things in order to get past the guts, the responsibility for another person's life etc, and so must all of you. 

 

So if anyone feels like talking about it, that'd be nice... otherwise, oh well, it's been informative reading these threads and even participating in them, even if that part has been less pleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I asked the same thing over and over is because in general, not just here, people assume that the person they're talking to has all sorts of knowledge that they don't have, and thus they give weak answers.  In my experience, you keep arguing, until someone says something new or convincing and that's what I did, and that's what happened.  Eventually you and others starting giving what I felt like are strong answers. 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJlV49RDlLE

 

PS. Fuck you, eat your French fries you little shit, god damn't.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't for the life of me believe that you guys and ladies don't deal with these issues.  I'm sure that surgeons have basic ways they deal with or think about things in order to get past the guts, the responsibility for another person's life etc, and so must all of you. 

 

 

Look.  I'm going to give you a very general bit of advice here.  And I hope that you'll think carefully about it because that's what's been getting in the way of you getting more from this discussion.  People could be saying a lot to you that you might find illuminating, but you have to take the time to digest what you've heard before you repeat your questions.  Whether you believe it or not, there ARE deep assumptions buried in your questions.  You keep asking about situations where someone is "guilty" without even acknowledging the distinction between legal and factual guilt.  You've been told about it several times, but you keep using "guilty" as a throw-away concept like it's easy to know.  That's primarily what's pissing people off.  That we spend a lot of effort explaining difficult concepts, and then you blow past them like you haven't heard a thing.

 

Anyway, here's my contribution.  You've actually asked a great question here, but you're getting in the way of your question with too-specific hypotheticals and with blithe assumptions about guilt, innocence etc.  How do lawyers deal with responsibility?  That is one fuck of a good question.  But why are you confining yourself to criminal law?  (Sorry, but obvious answer - because you haven't thought about things very much).  Ask a lawyer working for the Children's Aid Society about what it means to have hardcore responsibility for someone's future.  Ask an immigration lawyer who is making arguments about whether someone does or does not face the risk of imminent death if they are returned to their country of origin.  Hell, just ask any old personal injury litigator.  It's easy to call them ambulance chasers, but sometimes they really are representing someone who's life has been severely fucked by an accident and they need the money to have any kind of hope left.

 

Being a lawyer involves taking a lot of responsibility for shit.  It is not a feature particular to criminal law, as you seem to believe.  And yes, the way that people cope with this responsibility (or sometimes fail to cope with it) IS an interesting topic.  The reasons your questions stop making sense, however, is because you think you've narrowed the problem down to a few special problems around guilt and innocence and you can't understand why people aren't more fussed about it.  Meanwhile, these problems actually seem rather ordinary to people who practice criminal law (and even lawyers who don't) because dealing with serious responsibility and major consequences is a feature of legal practice for almost all lawyers. 

 

Again and again, the answer is the same.  We accept that we operate as part of a system and that the system bears responsibility for the outcomes because that IS the way to cope, AND it has the merit of being true.  The hard part isn't feeling personally responsible for the bad outcomes of a legal system that didn't happen to work properly at some point.  The hard part is just being in close proximity to people who's lives have been severely messed up day in and day out, if that's an area of law that you work in.  You keep asking about criminal law, but the area of law where you really need a stomach is family law.  Imagine when everyone you work with is going through one of the worst experiences of their lives.  Win or lose, you think it's easy to show up to work every morning?  I sure as hell couldn't do that for a living.

 

Accept there's a hell of a lot you don't know and haven't thought of yet.  You are making a lot of assumptions that are just leading you in the wrong direction.  Avoid that pitfall, and you'll do better.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't for the life of me believe that you guys and ladies don't deal with these issues.  I'm sure that surgeons have basic ways they deal with or think about things in order to get past the guts, the responsibility for another person's life etc, and so must all of you. 

The problem is that the world is not black and white. In every area of law, not just criminal law, there exists the potential for emotionally challenging situations. None of the practitioners who have responded in this thread, whether its Hegdis, Diplock, myself, or others, are oblivious to these realities, despite what you seem to think. We have a professional responsibility to set our emotions aside though and be zealous advocates for our clients, because that's what the system expects and requires. We find different justifications for ourselves to allow us to do that, for some it is belief in the system, for others in the understanding that almost any issue has at least some perspective that can be meritorious, or for more still that it is not as simple as guilt or innocence / right or wrong, and for even more still, something else entirely. 

 

I cannot speak for Hegdis, and I would not presume to do so in an area where his years of experience vastly exceeds mine, particularly in the area of criminal law. I can tell you that, while I am not a criminal lawyer, it was not because I was worried I would have to defend those who had committed heinous acts; I believe strongly in the idea that even the worst offender who has committed the most inhumane acts, is entitled to a vigorous defence, because that is how I have confidence that our society is a just one. Where even the worst are entitled to rights and protections, I have confidence that those who are wrongfully accused or whom actually have mitigating factors, the system will hear, consider, and treat accordingly. I am certain it would be difficult to know that your brilliant advocacy lead to a murderer being released, but I believe that we would find the justifications to keep doing it, because we have to for the system to work.

 

The thing is though, Diplock is right that it's not limited to criminal law. Family lawyers must live with the fact that their advocacy will sometimes lead to broken homes, and often their best case scenario is working out an arrangement that makes everyone only somewhat less miserable. Commercial lawyers must ask themselves the implications of the asset purchase or commercial closing, which will lead to the elimination of twenty-five thousand jobs, putting countless blue collar workers out of work. Labour and employment lawyers must often deal with challenges in the human rights context, or justify terminating an employee for cause, despite knowing that you are taking away that person's livelihood and their ability to take care of their family. Intellectual property lawyers must often defend copyright and patents, resulting in driving smaller companies without legions of lawyers at their disposal out of business. It could be continued ad nauseam

 

If we are being honest and have any empathy whatsoever, no matter the area of law, there are undoubtedly some days where we hate our jobs. It's not just the emotional and ethical strains, it's that those strains come in addition to the fact that law is a taxing profession, where you are often required to work long hours and late nights in pursuit of your client's goals. It is no mystery why the legal profession has some of the highest rates of substance abuse, alcohol abuse, depression, mental illness, and other such things, when all careers are compared and examined. The reality is lawyers are grappling with the issues you identify, on a level far more complicated than you realize, and not everyone succeeds in coping.

 

The thing is though, for all everything I just said is true, there are so many times where being a lawyer, in any of those fields, lets you do tremendous good. To be frank, it is these days that are truly what gives us the strength to face the darkest days. The day when you successfully acquit the kid who made a mistake one night, or when you help an estranged couple work through their difficulties, or where you are able to advise your client on how to minimize the job losses from the acquisition, or win reinstatement for the disabled employee, or work out a license agreement for the smaller company... The system that creates the emotionally challenging situations is as much responsible for the tremendous good it can create as those hurdles. 

 

I return to my initial proposition, it really is not black and white. The system is not black and white, none of us could be defined as "good" or "evil" on the basis of our jobs, and the challenges we face are part of what allows us to do the good we do. It's the bargain we struck, not because we are not prepared to face the emotional challenges that bargain necessitates, but because we've accepted that to do the good we wish to do, we must be prepared to sometimes swallow the bad with it.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to "Like" Pyke's post about a thousand times but alas, lack the ability to do it more than once.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I am going to be articling soon so I just wanted to get some pointers on what is expected and how to handle salary negotiations in criminal defence.  I was wondering if people from the forum can provide some guidance or insight on their experience articling for a defence firm.

 

What was your experience as an articling student in terms of the kind of work you were expected to do and how many hours you put in?  

 

I know there's a thread suggesting students got paid around $20,000 but I'd like to hear from others to figure out if this is the norm for crim defence.

 

Would it be unreasonable to negotiate for gas?  I heard some lawyers make their students drive them to and from court.  Is this common?

 

What qualities would you look for in a good articling principal?

 

What was the most challenging aspect of your experience?

 

Any recommendations or tips on preparing for articles in this field that may help ease the transition?

 

Thanks for your time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...