Good....maybe it will chop a few inches off the pedastle some of the judges put themselves on......
Supreme Court ruling lets lawyers talk tough with judges
KIRK MAKIN — JUSTICE REPORTER Globe and Mail Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012
Article Link
The Supreme Court of Canada has given lawyers a green light to criticize judges with toughly worded passion, provided they do not veer into the sort of invective that would earn public disapproval.
In a decision that provides badly needed guidance to the legal profession, the court said lawyers enjoy a constitutional right to vent their spleen about judges or the justice system.
They will be subject to professional discipline only if they become unduly carried away with their invective.
In a 7-0 ruling, the court said judges are not fragile flowers unable to withstand withering critiques from the lawyers who argue before them. However, it said the public expects a certain amount of decorum.
“Lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs,” Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said. “They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained by their profession to do so with dignified restraint.”
The court said that when it comes to professional discipline, the yardstick used to measure harsh criticisms of judges or the justice system will be “the public’s reasonable expectations of a lawyer’s professionalism.”
“Lawyers potentially face criticisms and pressures on a daily basis,” Judge Abella said. “They are expected by the public, on whose behalf they serve, to endure them with civility and dignity. This is not always easy where the lawyer feels he or she has been unfairly provoked, as in this case. But it is precisely when a lawyer’s equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility.”
The question of civility in the courtroom is a major, ongoing issue within the legal profession.
The appellant in the case, Gilles Doré, was a Quebec lawyer who represented a client on June 21, 2001, at a proceeding presided over by Quebec Superior Court Judge Jean-Guy Boilard.
Justice Boilard took issue with some of Mr. Doré’s submissions during the proceeding, chiding him that, “an insolent lawyer is rarely of use to his client.”
The judge later dismissed Mr. Doré’s application as having been ridiculous, and took another shot at Mr. Doré for his “bombastic rhetoric and hyperbole.” Judge Boilard said Mr. Doré’s fixation on what he called a narrow vision of reality had not served his client well.
Mr. Doré responded with a private letter to Justice Boilard in which he stated: “I have just left the court. Just a few minutes ago, as you hid behind your status like a coward, you made comments about me that were both unjust and unjustified, scattering them here and there in a decision, the good faith of which will most likely be argued before our Court of Appeal.”
Mr. Doré accused Judge Boilard of ducking out of the courtroom before Mr. Doré could respond.
“If no one has ever told you the following, then it is high time someone did,” he wrote. “Your chronic inability to master any social skills (to use an expression in English, that language you love so much), which has caused you to become pedantic, aggressive and petty in your daily life, makes no difference to me; after all, it seems to suit you well.
“Your deliberate expression of these character traits while exercising your judicial functions, however, and your having made them your trademark concern me a great deal, and I feel that it is appropriate to tell you.”
Mr. Doré told Judge Boilard that his legal acumen was dubious and accused Judge Boilard of being prone to launching shamefully “ugly, vulgar, and mean personal attacks” on the unsuspecting.
More on link
Supreme Court ruling lets lawyers talk tough with judges
KIRK MAKIN — JUSTICE REPORTER Globe and Mail Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012
Article Link
The Supreme Court of Canada has given lawyers a green light to criticize judges with toughly worded passion, provided they do not veer into the sort of invective that would earn public disapproval.
In a decision that provides badly needed guidance to the legal profession, the court said lawyers enjoy a constitutional right to vent their spleen about judges or the justice system.
They will be subject to professional discipline only if they become unduly carried away with their invective.
In a 7-0 ruling, the court said judges are not fragile flowers unable to withstand withering critiques from the lawyers who argue before them. However, it said the public expects a certain amount of decorum.
“Lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs,” Madam Justice Rosalie Abella said. “They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained by their profession to do so with dignified restraint.”
The court said that when it comes to professional discipline, the yardstick used to measure harsh criticisms of judges or the justice system will be “the public’s reasonable expectations of a lawyer’s professionalism.”
“Lawyers potentially face criticisms and pressures on a daily basis,” Judge Abella said. “They are expected by the public, on whose behalf they serve, to endure them with civility and dignity. This is not always easy where the lawyer feels he or she has been unfairly provoked, as in this case. But it is precisely when a lawyer’s equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility.”
The question of civility in the courtroom is a major, ongoing issue within the legal profession.
The appellant in the case, Gilles Doré, was a Quebec lawyer who represented a client on June 21, 2001, at a proceeding presided over by Quebec Superior Court Judge Jean-Guy Boilard.
Justice Boilard took issue with some of Mr. Doré’s submissions during the proceeding, chiding him that, “an insolent lawyer is rarely of use to his client.”
The judge later dismissed Mr. Doré’s application as having been ridiculous, and took another shot at Mr. Doré for his “bombastic rhetoric and hyperbole.” Judge Boilard said Mr. Doré’s fixation on what he called a narrow vision of reality had not served his client well.
Mr. Doré responded with a private letter to Justice Boilard in which he stated: “I have just left the court. Just a few minutes ago, as you hid behind your status like a coward, you made comments about me that were both unjust and unjustified, scattering them here and there in a decision, the good faith of which will most likely be argued before our Court of Appeal.”
Mr. Doré accused Judge Boilard of ducking out of the courtroom before Mr. Doré could respond.
“If no one has ever told you the following, then it is high time someone did,” he wrote. “Your chronic inability to master any social skills (to use an expression in English, that language you love so much), which has caused you to become pedantic, aggressive and petty in your daily life, makes no difference to me; after all, it seems to suit you well.
“Your deliberate expression of these character traits while exercising your judicial functions, however, and your having made them your trademark concern me a great deal, and I feel that it is appropriate to tell you.”
Mr. Doré told Judge Boilard that his legal acumen was dubious and accused Judge Boilard of being prone to launching shamefully “ugly, vulgar, and mean personal attacks” on the unsuspecting.
More on link
