Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EMP

Articling & Associate Salaries at Top Tier Crim Firms

Recommended Posts

The relevant cases that I cited there were R. v. Langlois (regulatory search becoming used for criminal purpose), R. v. Rogers and R. v. Spencer (warrantless tower information, R. v. Plant (hydro metres), R. v. Tessling (overhead FLIR), and R. v. Vu or R. v. Fearon (computer/cellphone). And I would add that 11(b) wasn't part of the substantive exam, so there would have been no reason for the interviewers to inform themselves of R. v. Cody. And I would say that both were 15-year plus Crowns, so they were highly qualified. :D

As for 11(b) being a legal fiction, if you believe that most accused persons are guilty and those accused persons are willing to use every frivolous Charter application possible to delay their trial, in the vein of Moldaver's lecture comments, then it's not hard to acknowledge that it's a legitimate point of view. I share that opinion with respect to high-level criminals engaged in something like a conspiracy, but not in a circumstance involving a domestic assault between two aboriginal persons -- so, it's complicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adVenture said:

The relevant cases that I cited there were R. v. Langlois (regulatory search becoming used for criminal purpose), R. v. Rogers and R. v. Spencer (warrantless tower information, R. v. Plant (hydro metres), R. v. Tessling (overhead FLIR), and R. v. Vu or R. v. Fearon (computer/cellphone). And I would add that 11(b) wasn't part of the substantive exam, so there would have been no reason for the interviewers to inform themselves of R. v. Cody. And I would say that both were 15-year plus Crowns, so they were highly qualified.

As for 11(b) being a legal fiction, if you believe that most accused persons are guilty and those accused persons are willing to use every frivolous Charter application possible to delay their trial, in the vein of Moldaver's lecture comments, then it's not hard to acknowledge that it's a legitimate point of view. I share that opinion with respect to high-level criminals engaged in something like a conspiracy, but not in a circumstance involving a domestic assault between two aboriginal persons -- so, it's complicated. 

The point being that they should know about it just because they are Crowns, regardless of what they intended to interview applicants on (and they should be discussing delay with applicants anyway as it is so important to the proper functioning of the justice system. You may not have a case with an infra-red search or a cell phone search right away but delay will always be a live issue.) 

Well, I would hope that no informed person holds those views that are bolded.

I would hope you would agree that there are times when the delay of a trial substantially prejudices an accused who is in custody and/or has the stigma of charges hanging over their head, evidence is lost or destroyed, etc. And if the Crown or the system cause such delay without a good reason, how can there be a fair trial? 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providence I don't have an informed opinion over whether 11(b) is working as intended and whether the good intentions associated with 11(b) are all that good. And for better or for worse I do know at least some Crowns openly believe that accused persons are willing to game 11(b) applications, from having spoken to 12-15 Crowns as a law student and being friends with people that are currently articling with the Crown. 

And yeah, it would be trite to state that accused persons can be prejudiced when witnesses no-show due to delay and etc. I personally have never found criminal stigma to be a convincing argument and it would appear that the Courts have moved away from a Lamer-esque stigma analysis because it's a little artificial (at least according to one of my professors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, adVenture said:

Providence I don't have an informed opinion over whether 11(b) is working as intended and whether the good intentions associated with 11(b) are all that good. And for better or for worse I do know at least some Crowns openly believe that accused persons are willing to game 11(b) applications, from having spoken to 12-15 Crowns as a law student and being friends with people that are currently articling with the Crown. 

And yeah, it would be trite to state that accused persons can be prejudiced when witnesses no-show due to delay and etc. I personally have never found criminal stigma to be a convincing argument and it would appear that the Courts have moved away from a Lamer-esque stigma analysis because it's a little artificial (at least according to one of my professors).

"Game the system." Jesus. And you're citing for authority the fact that some Crowns believe that happens? Here's a truth bomb for you. There's no way to "game" the system when the Crown and the police simply do their fucking jobs to a minimal degree of competence. I have file right now where it turns entirely on security video footage which I know is in the hands of the police, and we haven't received this disclosure after five months. We can't do anything until we do. And there's no reason at all we don't have it other than the fact that the police are some combination of busy, lazy, and incompetent.

At absolute best, you can put this down to not enough resources in the system. But that's still not my client's fault. It is a reasonable expectation that if the state is going to charge someone with a crime and propose to take away their liberty on conviction, then at very least the state should devote enough resources to that effort to get the fuck on with it in a timely fashion. And failing that, yes, there should be a consequence. Since no other consequence is meaningful, we end up with 11(b) stays.

It's not a game. It's never been a game. At the end of some long fucking road, literally years later, Crown and Defence hammer at each other assigning blame, arguing over the attribution of this delay or that delay. And yes, the particular arguments over a particular period of delay may sound weak and stupid on both sides. Sometimes you hear Defence making weak sauce excuses. And sometimes I hear Crowns essentially say "this period of delay is your fault because you weren't sufficiently diligent in reminding me again and again and a-fucking-gain to do my job." Seriously. Crowns make that argument.

The bottom line is this. The state is prosecuting my client. Not the other way around. The state initiated the proceeding. Not the other way around. The state has entire police forces, Crown lawyers by the dozen, the the ability to allocate more funds out of its massive annual budget (or to gather more funds by raising taxes) at will. It may choose not to use those resources fully, but it has access to them. My client has me. Little old me. And that's it.

There is no 11(b) "game" that creates an application out of thin air if the state simply does its fucking job. Laying the blame at the feet of a single defence lawyer, or a single accused person, who is up against the resources of the entire province or the entire country, is ludicrous.

Edited by Diplock
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Diplock said:

"Game the system." Jesus. And you're citing for authority the fact that some Crowns believe that happens? Here's a truth bomb for you. There's no way to "game" the system when the Crown and the police simply do their fucking jobs to a minimal degree of competence. I have file right now where it turns entirely on security video footage which I know is in the hands of the police, and we haven't received this disclosure after five months. We can't do anything until we do. And there's no reason at all we don't have it other than the fact that the police are some combination of busy, lazy, and incompetent.

At absolute best, you can put this down to not enough resources in the system. But that's still not my client's fault. It is a reasonable expectation that if the state is going to charge someone with a crime and propose to take away their liberty on conviction, then at very least the state should devote enough resources to that effort to get the fuck on with it in a timely fashion. And failing that, yes, there should be a consequence. Since no other consequence is meaningful, we end up with 11(b) stays.

It's not a game. It's never been a game. At the end of some long fucking road, literally years later, Crown and Defence hammer at each other assigning blame, arguing over the attribution of this delay or that delay. And yes, the particular arguments over a particular period of delay may sound weak and stupid on both sides. Sometimes you hear Defence making weak sauce excuses. And sometimes I hear Crowns essentially say "this period of delay is your fault because you weren't sufficiently diligent in reminding me again and again and a-fucking-gain to do my job." Seriously. Crowns make that argument.

The bottom line is this. The state is prosecuting my client. Not the other way around. The state initiated the proceeding. Not the other way around. The state has entire police forces, Crown lawyers by the dozen, the the ability to allocate more funds out of its massive annual budget (or to gather more funds by raising taxes) at will. It may choose not to use those resources fully, but it has access to them. My client has me. Little old me. And that's it.

There is no 11(b) "game" that creates an application out of thin air if the state simply does its fucking job. Laying the blame at the feet of a single defence lawyer, or a single accused person, who is up against the resources of the entire province or the entire country, is ludicrous.

I have the exact same scenario right now too, except it's been 6 months and no video. Post Jordan. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, adVenture said:

Providence I don't have an informed opinion over whether 11(b) is working as intended and whether the good intentions associated with 11(b) are all that good. And for better or for worse I do know at least some Crowns openly believe that accused persons are willing to game 11(b) applications, from having spoken to 12-15 Crowns as a law student and being friends with people that are currently articling with the Crown. 

And yeah, it would be trite to state that accused persons can be prejudiced when witnesses no-show due to delay and etc. I personally have never found criminal stigma to be a convincing argument and it would appear that the Courts have moved away from a Lamer-esque stigma analysis because it's a little artificial (at least according to one of my professors).

Some Crowns are that ridiculous, yes. Just like the ones who think clients routinely sat in custody to get 2:1 credit rather than apply for bail. Yes, there probably are some limited examples of people who want to drag out their time in custody and some limited times where it does make sense (ie. for very strong cases on very serious charges) but it's not the norm and it's not a justification to take away 2:1 or not have consequences for delay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Diplock said:

"Game the system." Jesus. And you're citing for authority the fact that some Crowns believe that happens? Here's a truth bomb for you. There's no way to "game" the system when the Crown and the police simply do their fucking jobs to a minimal degree of competence. I have file right now where it turns entirely on security video footage which I know is in the hands of the police, and we haven't received this disclosure after five months. We can't do anything until we do. And there's no reason at all we don't have it other than the fact that the police are some combination of busy, lazy, and incompetent.

At absolute best, you can put this down to not enough resources in the system. But that's still not my client's fault. It is a reasonable expectation that if the state is going to charge someone with a crime and propose to take away their liberty on conviction, then at very least the state should devote enough resources to that effort to get the fuck on with it in a timely fashion. And failing that, yes, there should be a consequence. Since no other consequence is meaningful, we end up with 11(b) stays.

It's not a game. It's never been a game. At the end of some long fucking road, literally years later, Crown and Defence hammer at each other assigning blame, arguing over the attribution of this delay or that delay. And yes, the particular arguments over a particular period of delay may sound weak and stupid on both sides. Sometimes you hear Defence making weak sauce excuses. And sometimes I hear Crowns essentially say "this period of delay is your fault because you weren't sufficiently diligent in reminding me again and again and a-fucking-gain to do my job." Seriously. Crowns make that argument.

The bottom line is this. The state is prosecuting my client. Not the other way around. The state initiated the proceeding. Not the other way around. The state has entire police forces, Crown lawyers by the dozen, the the ability to allocate more funds out of its massive annual budget (or to gather more funds by raising taxes) at will. It may choose not to use those resources fully, but it has access to them. My client has me. Little old me. And that's it.

There is no 11(b) "game" that creates an application out of thin air if the state simply does its fucking job. Laying the blame at the feet of a single defence lawyer, or a single accused person, who is up against the resources of the entire province or the entire country, is ludicrous.

I'm not citing any authority or fully endorsing that line of thinking, and am just relating what I've been told. (maybe 11(b) is game theory but not a game)

Although with all due respect I would take off your defence lawyer goggles and see that although the state is prosecuting your client, unlike your client, the state can only be accused of being incompetent rather than criminal. I grew up in a high crime neighbourhood and have -- for all my adult life -- volunteered with victims of addiction or violence or any combination of aggression-induced suffering. I can fully appreciate that people are willing to ruin the lives of entire families to make a quick buck and so I feel zero compassion for whatever behemoth is moving against them to provide them with their just desserts.

It's also worth reiterating that I am just a law student that was responding to how hard it is to get hired by the Crown and know very little. :D Besides, a client should be lucky to have you; all the resources of the state can't even figure out how to implement a computer-based payment system. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adVenture said:

I'm not citing any authority or fully endorsing that line of thinking, and am just relating what I've been told. (maybe 11(b) is game theory but not a game)

Although with all due respect I would take off your defence lawyer goggles and see that although the state is prosecuting your client, unlike your client, the state can only be accused of being incompetent rather than criminal. I grew up in a high crime neighbourhood and have -- for all my adult life -- volunteered with victims of addiction or violence or any combination of aggression-induced suffering. I can fully appreciate that people are willing to ruin the lives of entire families to make a quick buck and so I feel zero compassion for whatever behemoth is moving against them to provide them with their just desserts.

It's also worth reiterating that I am just a law student that was responding to how hard it is to get hired by the Crown and know very little.  Besides, a client should be lucky to have you; all the resources of the state can't even figure out how to implement a computer-based payment system. 

Look. You're a law student and I'm not going to beat you up on this and I respect where your perspective is coming from. But before you drink the koolaid entirely, try to remember this. The behemoth moves against the innocent (who do exist, and who are caught up in the same system, whatever you may believe) as well as the guilty. And we treat people who are at the mercy of the state carefully, and with an appreciation for their rights, not because we enjoy violence or abuse, but because it's the hallmark of a civilized society. it's fine for you to have faith in authority and to believe that we know who we really want to "get" and if they get gotten good then we call that a day's work well done. But the truth is, no society gets it right all the time, and the more authority we vest in the hands of individuals, and leave that authority unchecked, the more it becomes prone to inevitable abuse.

You can believe that prosecuting accused people is better than defending them. You can enjoy arguing on that side more. That's all fine. But if you really don't believe that people are innocent until they are proven guilty, and if you are really comfortable with fucking over people's lives first, and then deciding if they are guilty second, and you have no problem with a system that operates that way without consequence ... don't become a Crown. And don't learn from any Crown who feels similarly.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, adVenture said:

I'm not citing any authority or fully endorsing that line of thinking, and am just relating what I've been told. (maybe 11(b) is game theory but not a game)

Although with all due respect I would take off your defence lawyer goggles and see that although the state is prosecuting your client, unlike your client, the state can only be accused of being incompetent rather than criminal. I grew up in a high crime neighbourhood and have -- for all my adult life -- volunteered with victims of addiction or violence or any combination of aggression-induced suffering. I can fully appreciate that people are willing to ruin the lives of entire families to make a quick buck and so I feel zero compassion for whatever behemoth is moving against them to provide them with their just desserts.

It's also worth reiterating that I am just a law student that was responding to how hard it is to get hired by the Crown and know very little.  Besides, a client should be lucky to have you; all the resources of the state can't even figure out how to implement a computer-based payment system. 

The state cannot be criminal, but individual state actors can, ie. a cop who beats up a suspect.

Plus, guilt and innocence are not as black and white as you say. I too grew up around crime, and many of the people closest to me are, or have been, incarcerated. And many of them are ALSO addicts and are ALSO victimized.

And as Diplock already covered, it is dangerous to say we don't care how the state gets them as long as they get them because they do bad things. Sometimes the innocent are caught, and sometimes the overreaching of law enforcement negatively impacts us all - fly anywhere lately?

I think every law student, regardless of where they come from or what area of law they want to go into, should know this or we are really in trouble as a society. I am continually amazed at the number of law students who honestly believe things like what you wrote. Even and especially if you want to be a Crown, that's wrong!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-14 at 11:32 PM, Queensberry said:

TL;DR: Crown applications consist of a lot of highly qualified people doing 30-60 minute oral exams on up to 5 different criminal law topics where only the top grade gets the job, which then for all intents and purposes shuts that particular office out for articling and first year call. There is not much room to overemphasize how competitive that process is.

Thank you for this - I wanted to make the same post, and am glad you beat me to it.

With that said, in light of the posts following - adVenture's discussion more mirrors mine. I have average grades and had 8 interviews scheduled for articling at the Crown's office. I have a good resume and cover letter, and I worked my ass off for the interviews. I ended up getting articling before needing to go to half the interviews. But to your point, more than one of the offices I interviewed at decided to give it to their summer student.

Edited by benschnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, benschnell said:

But to your point, more than one of the offices I interviewed at decided to give it to their summer student.

I've seen this in (non-law) government positions, where the external posting is just a 'cover-all-the-bases' type move and the hiring manager(s) really had only one person in mind.

 

I was hoping the MAG Crown offices would just be able to offer it to summer students without opening it up for an external competition.

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...