How to irritate a judge
By Vicki Schmolka
Here are ten easy ways to annoy, aggravate, or otherwise get on the wrong side of a judge. Make sure you don’t bring these bad habits into the courtroom.
It seemed so straightforward. Talk to a few judges and make a list of the "wish-they-wouldn’t-do-that" habits of the nation’s litigators.
We expected to hear about gum-chewing advocates who forget to turn off their pagers and cellphones, or jingle change in their pockets, or sip store-bought lattes as they prepare to question a witness. We thought we’d hear about shouters and whisperers, ranters and demagogues. We were ready to produce The Ten Habits of Highly Ineffective Litigators.
Instead, we heard from retired B.C. Chief Justice Allan MacEachern that in 21 years on the bench, he never witnessed any shouting or emotional outbursts. And in his 23 years on the job, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice William Gerein has never seen a lawyer eat in court and remembers someone chewing gum only once.
What’s more, we were continually told that even if counsel do annoying things such as endlessly tap their water glass with their pen, it won’t affect the outcome of their case.
"Notwithstanding conduct that may be unbecoming, it does not factor into the decision," Ontario Superior Court Justice Emile Kruzick says bluntly. And Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Justice Thomas Cromwell affirms: "We render judgments; we don’t have to be judgmental about counsel behaviour. It’s wrong to take out our impatience on counsel."
In fact, in our decidedly unscientific survey of nine judges, we discovered that they feel a profound sense of responsibility for the justice system, and are keenly aware of the need to rise above the petty. Several told us they have a personal rule never to put down counsel in front of clients, and never to criticize counsel in a written judgment.
But it would be a mistake to think that anything goes: Alberta Provincial Court Judge Sandra Hunt McDonald makes it clear that there are limits. "I keep people fairly well in control," she says. "If I don’t like what I’m seeing, I’ll say so."
So does Cour du Québec Associate Chief Judge François Doyon, who believes it’s his duty to intervene when he senses a lack of respect in his courtroom for the judicial process or the people involved in it.
Associate Chief Judge Doyon’s approach is to have a quiet, private conversation in Chambers – a method also employed by Ontario Court Justice David Stone, Chief Justice Gerein and Justice Kruzick. And while these private chats would certainly be very civilized, nonetheless we’re pretty sure we’d rather not be on the receiving end of one.
It became clear through these interviews that while judges try hard not to be distracted by personal mannerisms, they are very concerned about what happens in their courtrooms and by how counsel act. Their issues, though, are all about substance, not form. Or as Justice Cromwell advises counsel who appear before the Court of Appeal: "Don’t worry about style. If the content is there, the rest will look after itself."
Top Ten Ways to Irritate a Judge
1. Come to court unprepared.
In litigation, Associate Chief Judge Doyon says, "the golden rule is to be prepared." Preparation is the most important factor affecting the outcome of a case. Know your file, the facts, the law, your strategy – and maybe most important of all, where to find things.
"It’s obvious counsel haven’t prepared when they spend a lot of time looking for documents and going through their notes," Chief Justice Gerein points out. "Really good counsel are prepared. They don’t waste their client’s time or money," adds Prince Edward Island Provincial Court Judge Nancy Orr.
2. Carry on a debate directly with opposing counsel.
The role of a lawyer is to bring information to the court, not to try to debate with opposing counsel TV-style. Forgetting that the judge is there is a bad move. "When you are in the courtroom, you are addressing the court. It is not appropriate for counsel to break into conversation," advises Justice Kruzick.
For Associate Chief Judge Doyon, the worst courtroom situation is two aggressive lawyers who dislike each other for whatever reason, and have decided to use the trial as a way to settle the score. He also emphasizes that they should be speaking to the court, not to each other.
3. Argue with a judge after a ruling.
You win some, you lose some. Counsel should accept a ruling with good grace and carry on in either case. This means accepting a decision during a hearing and not trying to re-try a case after a decision has been made – for instance, by rearguing guilt or innocence at a sentencing hearing. The matter is closed. Move on.
4. Badger a witness.
It’s acceptable, of course, to make a fair attack on the credibility of a witness; it is "offensive," in the words of Chief Justice Gerein, to badger and berate a witness. "The media perpetuate the image of lawyers who seem to be successful by being belligerent and bullying," Justice Kruzick notes with regret.
Judges are especially concerned about counsel who try to take advantage of people whose first language is neither English nor French, or who try to intimidate or throw procedural curves at unrepresented litigants. Maybe these lawyers think they’re impressing their clients or the gallery, but they’re sure not impressing the judge.
5. Bluff.
Here’s a good career-limiting move: make up a case result. Give the court incomplete information about the evidence. Believe it or not, some lawyers panic under pressure and fudge the facts. It might seem obvious that this really isn’t a great idea.
Judges prefer counsel who are straightforward about the facts and don’t try to twist them to suit their purposes. Judges want to know if a trial division judgment from which counsel is quoting has been appealed, and if so, the results of that appeal. They want all the relevant jurisprudence, not just the best cases from one point of view. Honesty remains the best policy.
6. Come up with as many arguments as possible, regardless of their worth.
Judges value counsel who are brief and to the point. They don’t want to hear arguments on six different points when only two have merit. Retired Chief Justice MacEachern believes that lawyers are becoming "too careful," leaving "no stone unturned." But the downside of that approach is that when some of the arguments are clearly borderline, the judge may start to question the worth of all the arguments put forward.
Far better to face boldly the difficulties in the case. "There’s no point in burying your problem and hoping that no one will notice," observes Justice Cromwell. "The most effective counsel come up with an answer to the problem, rather than trying to avoid it."
7. Contact a judge about a case in progress.
Follow the rules of court: don’t communicate with the judge outside the courtroom while a case is underway, for any reason. Scheduling issues and administrative matters should be taken up with appropriate court personnel or the judge’s secretary.
Justice Kruzick’s number-one pet peeve is correspondence sent to him that has not been copied to opposing counsel. Unless the rules of practice say otherwise, only communicate with a judge about a case outside the courtroom when invited to do so by the judge.
8. Waste the court’s time.
"Double-booking drives us all crazy," says Justice Stone. If you have a timing problem or a conflict, Associate Chief Justice Doyon advises you to get in touch with the court and try to work things out. That way, at least arrangements can be made to do something else until counsel is ready.
Senseless questions are another unwelcome time-waster. Courts of Appeal in particular do not appreciate frivolous appeals that were filed not on the merits but for tactical reasons, perhaps as an instrument of delay or to increase costs. They’ll let you know about it, too.
9. Treat people rudely.
"We’re all officers of the court," says Judge Hunt McDonald. "Show respect to the court and all the people in it." Her words were echoed by other judges. There was particular concern about counsel who treat court staff as doormats. The message is clear and simple: Be polite.
10. Show disrespect for the court and the judicial process.
In many ways, this category covers all the points already listed, and then some. If you want to really test a judge’s patience, try some of these antics:
• Whisper with colleagues or witnesses when other people are speaking.
• Make faces or gestures in reaction to testimony or counsel’s questions.
• Remain seated when the judge comes into the courtroom.
• Remain seated while you’re speaking.
• Interrupt people.
• Offer no explanation for being late.
• Never extend a professional courtesy.
• Never apologize.
Judges appreciate counsel who understand and practise the principles of civility.
To conclude, the judges with whom we spoke try hard to overlook personal quirks and nervous habits, unless they interfere with the orderly running of the court. They do care, however, about counsel who are rude to court staff or disrespectful of the court process. And counsel who stretch the truth and play games are really pushing it.
"Counsel’s job is not to make us happy," reminds Justice Cromwell. "It is their job to present their client’s position in the best light, consistent with being honest and forthright." In Canada’s courtrooms, it’s still the substance of the case that matters.
Vicki Schmolka is a writer and editor based in Kingston, Ontario.
Illustration: Peter Ferguson / Three In a Box Inc.
|
english
Comment irriter un juge
Voici dix habitudes qui irriteront, à coup sûr, un tribunal.
Cela semblait facile. Rencontrer quelques juges et, et le tour serait joué. Nous aurions rapidement notre liste des dix comportements les plus irritants des avocats en cour. Les magistrats, croyions-nous, se plaindraient d’avocats qui mâchent de la gomme, qui oublient leurs documents ou négligent de fermer leur téléphone cellulaire, de plaideurs qui crient ou qui chuchotent, de juristes hystériques ou démagogues.
À la place, nous avons entendu le juge en chef de la Colombie-Britannique, Allan MacEachern, affirmer qu’en 20 ans de magistrature, il n’avait jamais entendu un avocat crier dans le feu de l’émotion. En 23 ans, le juge en chef de la Cour du banc de la Reine de la Saskatchewan, William Gerein, n’a jamais vu d’avocat manger en cour et se souvient d’un seul mâcheur de gomme.
Cela ne signifie pas, toutefois, que rien ne les irrite. Les juges interviennent au besoin pour mettre fin à tout comportement inopportun et convoqueront au besoin des avocats pour un seul-à-seul. Voici donc, pour notre groupe de magistrats, le « top 10 » des irritants :
1. Arriver mal préparé. « Il est évident que les avocats se sont mal préparés quand ils passent beaucoup de temps à fouiller dans leurs documents et dans leurs notes », dit M. le juge Gerein. « Les bons avocats sont préparés. Ils ne gaspillent pas le temps ou l’argent de leurs clients », ajoute la juge Nancy Orr, de la Cour provinciale de l’Île-du-Prince Édouard.
2. Engager un débat avec l’avocat de la partie adverse. Pour le juge en chef associé de la Cour du Québec, François Doyon, il n’y a rien de pire en cour que deux avocats qui se prennent en grippe et qui utilisent un procès pour régler leurs comptes. Ils doivent s’adresser à la cour, et non l’un à l’autre.
3. Discuter avec un juge après une décision. Parfois vous gagnez, parfois pas. Acceptez la décision en salle d’audience et n’essayez pas de refaire le procès après le jugement. Ne remettez pas en question l’innocence ou la culpabilité à une audience sur la peine.
4. Harceler un témoin. Il est acceptable, dit le juge Gerein, d’attaquer de manière raisonnable la crédibilité d’un témoin, mais il est « offensant » de le harceler ou de l’humilier.
5. Bluffer. Les juges préfèrent des avocats qui abordent les faits avec franchise, sans essayer de les dénaturer pour en tirer un avantage. Ils veulent toute la jurisprudence pertinente, et non seulement celle qui appuie le point de vue d’une partie.
6. Multiplier les arguments, peu importe leur valeur. Les juges aiment la concision. Ils ne veulent pas entendre six arguments quand seulement deux sont pertinents.
7. Communiquer avec un juge avant le règlement de la cause. Respectez les règles de la cour : ne communiquez pas avec le juge à l’extérieur du tribunal pendant qu’une cause est entendue.
8. Gaspiller le temps de la cour. Réglez vote les conflits d’horaires et évitez les questions inutiles.
9. Rudoyer les gens. Le message, ici, est clair et net : soyez poli.
10. Manquer de respect envers la cour ou le processus judiciaire. Une foule de comportements – y compris chuchoter, rester assis à l’entrée du juge, faire des grimaces, interrompre les gens, ne jamais s’excuser, etc. – testent la patience des juges. |
