Sometimes a trial can be a real trial, even if it doesn't go ahead. And a practice note: if you want to Petition for Divorce on the grounds of marital breakdown by reason that "the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year immediately preceding the determination of the divorce proceeding and were living separate and apart at the commencement of the proceeding", make sure you have a very clear understanding, if not consent, with respect to the separation date.
If you get into a proceeding and some doubt comes to light over the precise date of separation, you may be faced with a failed petition and a loss of jurisdiction - even if both parties have decided to consent to the corollary relief. A very uncomfortable turn of events.
On the whole, the one-year "no fault" divorce is convenient if the parties agree, but as unpleasant as it might be to watch, a "fault" divorce can be very satisfying to a client who feels wronged.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Finding Dates
It continually astonishes me that scheduling Court matters is so difficult and time-consuming. Every Court has its own schedule, and every judge has a great deal of control of her/his docket - and sometimes every clerk/recorder, too. And yet, most lawyers appear in several Courts and therefore scheduling conflicts are common.
Today, I tried to schedule a one-day trial for a man in custody. Every date the Court had was a date I had another matter in another Court. The Crown suggested breaking the trial into half-days and we slotted it in.
As a 2008 Call with only a few dozen clients, it's only going to get worse.
Today, I tried to schedule a one-day trial for a man in custody. Every date the Court had was a date I had another matter in another Court. The Crown suggested breaking the trial into half-days and we slotted it in.
As a 2008 Call with only a few dozen clients, it's only going to get worse.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Lesson #1 - Always ask for time to pay a fine
The very first person I spoke on behalf of was a retired woman who entered guilty plea to an impaired driving charge.
I forgot to give the Crown prosecutor time to withdraw the Over 80 charge, but that was easily remedied. The Crown summarized the facts: a weaving car, obvious signs of impairment, a high reading. I described a retired woman who had cared for her disabled older siblings for decades dealing with a death in the family. She was in tears, and embarrassed. The judge imposed the minimum fine. And asked how much time she needed to pay. She insisted on paying it immediately. The judge was a little taken aback, but agreed.
After Court, word came around of some advice: don't play the sympathy card if your client can pay the fine immediately. Look at it from the judge's perspective: hearing a sympathetic story is essentially asking for mercy from the Court. If a judge doesn't give someone a break who has a good story the judge looks cold-hearted. But if a judge listens to the story, and accepts it, and expresses mercy but then finds out it was unnecessary, it looks like a waste of sympathy and a waste of court time.
If your client can pay, but has a sympathetic story do not insist on a fine to be due forthwith unless you want to risk the judge's favour. Ask for a month. Everybody feels better.
Thing was, I understood why the woman wanted to pay immediately. To her, the fine was an embarrassment and paying it quickly ended it quickly. In my opinion, this very natural reaction is perhaps the most difficult barrier to effective representation. A client who wants to "get it over with" often wants to rush ahead against good advice.
Another lawyer offered me this tidbit: "Do you want it done quickly, or do you want it done right?" Easy to say, and sound advice, but sometimes it's difficult to convince a client that drawing something out is better than getting it over with.
I forgot to give the Crown prosecutor time to withdraw the Over 80 charge, but that was easily remedied. The Crown summarized the facts: a weaving car, obvious signs of impairment, a high reading. I described a retired woman who had cared for her disabled older siblings for decades dealing with a death in the family. She was in tears, and embarrassed. The judge imposed the minimum fine. And asked how much time she needed to pay. She insisted on paying it immediately. The judge was a little taken aback, but agreed.
After Court, word came around of some advice: don't play the sympathy card if your client can pay the fine immediately. Look at it from the judge's perspective: hearing a sympathetic story is essentially asking for mercy from the Court. If a judge doesn't give someone a break who has a good story the judge looks cold-hearted. But if a judge listens to the story, and accepts it, and expresses mercy but then finds out it was unnecessary, it looks like a waste of sympathy and a waste of court time.
If your client can pay, but has a sympathetic story do not insist on a fine to be due forthwith unless you want to risk the judge's favour. Ask for a month. Everybody feels better.
Thing was, I understood why the woman wanted to pay immediately. To her, the fine was an embarrassment and paying it quickly ended it quickly. In my opinion, this very natural reaction is perhaps the most difficult barrier to effective representation. A client who wants to "get it over with" often wants to rush ahead against good advice.
Another lawyer offered me this tidbit: "Do you want it done quickly, or do you want it done right?" Easy to say, and sound advice, but sometimes it's difficult to convince a client that drawing something out is better than getting it over with.
My shingle - a new beginning
After 7 years of university, a year of articles, and nearly 5 months in public practice, I will open my private practice on October 1, 2008.
I'll be in a modest office located in the Ryan Building of downtown Fredericton at 57 Carleton Street. My practice will focus (initially at least) on criminal and family law.
I'll be in a modest office located in the Ryan Building of downtown Fredericton at 57 Carleton Street. My practice will focus (initially at least) on criminal and family law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)