30 November 2012
NSBS Skills Course And Beyond - A
Through November I was at the NSBS (NS Barristers' Society) office as part of a class taking the practical Skills Course (why this wasn't included in law school is beyond me, although it might have something to do with students of any Canadian law school being able to practise in Nova Scotia, and the skill set needing to be standardised somehow). Three weeks of lectures, videos, and interactive exercises passed very slowly, but it was a nice change of pace. We were given shared and private fact scenarios and told to negotiate or interview each other, depending on the day, and were evaluated by watching a videotaped session with a course instructor, on a pass/fail basis. It's no fun watching yourself do something that dry, and I found myself to be so boring I started losing focus as a spectator. The instructor however found I engaged the client competently and so I passed that component.
We had to do a couple negotiation exercises, one on one and in a group setting. There was one guy, a Brit who moved to PEI (PEIslanders take the NS course because there's too few of them to make it worth doing at home) who I worked with a couple times. He was funny and pleasant to interact with, but very hard-nosed at the bargaining table. Why can't disputes be settled with a good, clean poker game? At least there I'd have a fighting chance!
The weather was largely sunny and cool, so I'd be able to walk the 2.1km past the Citadel and Town Clock to the office (15 minutes, despite Google recommending 27). Even better, with the exception of a few days requiring I wear a suit, the dress code was back to dress like a student - comfortable and relaxed! A national heritage site overlooking the city and harbour as part of my daily commute? No traffic jams, bridge bottlenecks, or delays? No need for a jacket and tie to add heat while walking? Sign me up! Not only did I have a pleasant commute, I sometimes got to walk part of the way with classmates I hadn't seen in a while and catch up with them. It seems there was a rash of babies arriving after grad - our little JKLM was the only one to show up between exams and grad, though!
After the slow and occasionally boring pace of the Skills Course I go back to the DOJ, working in Solicitor Services for another month (likely to be very slow with people leaving for vacations), then I transfer to Civil Litigation (CivLit) in January where everything's always busy and happening, preparing court cases and reading files, making sure everything's ready to go. CivLit involves lawsuits against or by the government, and for example can cover slip and fall injuries or property damage from flooding or disputes regarding property sales. A specialised department of CivLit is Child Protection, where I'll be for my final month of articling. I'm told that Child Protection is like crim law - either you love it or hate it. I'm also told that in Child Protection you don't break up families (they're broken already) or take kids away, rather, you take them into care when there's no better option. We'll see how that goes. First I've got to get through the more mundane lawsuits and related workload. Whoever planned this articling assignment had it backwards - I'd much rather have 6 months of PPS and 9 weeks of CivLit, instead of vice versa. It would seem I'm one of the few articling clerks they've had who feels that way. However it goes, CivLit will be much more busy than Solicitor Services - I'd better rest up while I can!
Until next time,
A.
09 November 2012
End of PPS - A
My time at PPS is pretty much done. My last report wasn't exactly brief so I'll try cut down the stories to the more interesting stuff. It's not all court preparation and plea bargaining at PPS, there's research and memos to do as well. What law students might shrug off as a boring intellectual exercise comes to life when you realise the answer to this question could win or lose a case. If nothing else, a good memo can line up good references for future job applications. I've written two memos, had good feedback, and we'll see what I can make of the opportunities arising.
The memos here were for a murder case. I can't go into details, but suffice it to say a mentally ill man opened his door to find a shotgun pointing at his head...I wasn't involved in the courtroom action beyond being allowed to take notes and ask questions later, but I did get to see some evidence, including the crime scene and autopsy photos. Not exactly cheery, and definitely not for the weak of stomach.
This case was at the preliminary inquiry (PI) stage, where the Crown lays out enough evidence to have the accused committed to trial. Sometimes the accused can consent to committal, and just see what evidence the Crown has to decide whether or not to plead guilty, and figure out what kind of jail time is likely. PIs tend to be short and relatively straightforward, but can carry some of the drama of a full trial. Rather like a dress rehearsal in many ways for both sides.
One thing about criminal court is that expert witnesses not only know what they're talking about, but they tend to be able to clarify things and explain to the court what is going on. In this case one expert witness was the Chief Medical Examiner of Nova Scotia, and he walked us through the autopsy. I'll spare you the gory details but it really was fascinating to learn what he saw and what it all meant, and he presented it so simply that I don't think anyone in the room had any questions or confusion. I'm told I should enjoy this calibre of witnesses while I can, since in my Civil Litigation (CivLit) rotation the quality of witnesses drops off dramatically. Anyway, in this case the accused consented to committal and will stand trial in the New Year.
It's really hit or miss when an accused decides to represent himself. The judge has to explain the procedures and bend over background to make sure everything's understood, then the accused often takes the stand and torpedoes his own case one way or another. I got to sit in on the trial of a man who decided to go it alone, and while I only got to see him cross-examine the victim, it was a lesson in precision I won't soon forget. The accused was the victim's landlord, and one day a dispute arose that ended in threats of violence and some physical contact. The accused also happens to be a realtor and minor media figure here, and blamed the victim's interview with a certain magazine for the trial going as far as it did. But while the accused was clearly a man of some education and eloquence, he was not careful enough. As he asked the victim questions, it was obvious the traps and answers he was trying to get set. The victim was also educated, not very eloquent, but extremely precise. The accused would ask a question, and the victim would first answer the question as asked (completely missing the point the accused was trying to make), then rephrase the question to what the accused intended, then answer it to make the accused look stupid. The accused's choice of words used a lot of assumptions that the victim would clarify and refute with devastating precision. The accused here was found guilty, and I spoke with the victim afterwards to compliment him on his performance under cross-examination, and instead of being some kind of communications professional it turns out he's a mathematician. Go figure!
I'll end my PPS reports with my PPS principal's three rules for working as a prosecutor: 1-family comes first; 2-it is what it is; 3-make sure you're presentable going into court.
Until next time,
A.
The memos here were for a murder case. I can't go into details, but suffice it to say a mentally ill man opened his door to find a shotgun pointing at his head...I wasn't involved in the courtroom action beyond being allowed to take notes and ask questions later, but I did get to see some evidence, including the crime scene and autopsy photos. Not exactly cheery, and definitely not for the weak of stomach.
This case was at the preliminary inquiry (PI) stage, where the Crown lays out enough evidence to have the accused committed to trial. Sometimes the accused can consent to committal, and just see what evidence the Crown has to decide whether or not to plead guilty, and figure out what kind of jail time is likely. PIs tend to be short and relatively straightforward, but can carry some of the drama of a full trial. Rather like a dress rehearsal in many ways for both sides.
One thing about criminal court is that expert witnesses not only know what they're talking about, but they tend to be able to clarify things and explain to the court what is going on. In this case one expert witness was the Chief Medical Examiner of Nova Scotia, and he walked us through the autopsy. I'll spare you the gory details but it really was fascinating to learn what he saw and what it all meant, and he presented it so simply that I don't think anyone in the room had any questions or confusion. I'm told I should enjoy this calibre of witnesses while I can, since in my Civil Litigation (CivLit) rotation the quality of witnesses drops off dramatically. Anyway, in this case the accused consented to committal and will stand trial in the New Year.
It's really hit or miss when an accused decides to represent himself. The judge has to explain the procedures and bend over background to make sure everything's understood, then the accused often takes the stand and torpedoes his own case one way or another. I got to sit in on the trial of a man who decided to go it alone, and while I only got to see him cross-examine the victim, it was a lesson in precision I won't soon forget. The accused was the victim's landlord, and one day a dispute arose that ended in threats of violence and some physical contact. The accused also happens to be a realtor and minor media figure here, and blamed the victim's interview with a certain magazine for the trial going as far as it did. But while the accused was clearly a man of some education and eloquence, he was not careful enough. As he asked the victim questions, it was obvious the traps and answers he was trying to get set. The victim was also educated, not very eloquent, but extremely precise. The accused would ask a question, and the victim would first answer the question as asked (completely missing the point the accused was trying to make), then rephrase the question to what the accused intended, then answer it to make the accused look stupid. The accused's choice of words used a lot of assumptions that the victim would clarify and refute with devastating precision. The accused here was found guilty, and I spoke with the victim afterwards to compliment him on his performance under cross-examination, and instead of being some kind of communications professional it turns out he's a mathematician. Go figure!
I'll end my PPS reports with my PPS principal's three rules for working as a prosecutor: 1-family comes first; 2-it is what it is; 3-make sure you're presentable going into court.
Until next time,
A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)