Ontario’s legal-aid program has struck back at boycotting defence lawyers by creating a novel, one-lawyer flying squad to travel the province defending murder cases.
In a flurry of moves to defeat the six-month-old boycott and move Legal Aid Ontario toward a public-defender system, the agency has also begun to put cases out to tender and offer $5,000 bonuses to non-boycotting lawyers across the country in the hope they will “strike break,” Criminal Lawyers’ Association president Frank Addario said Friday.
“This will mean increased expenses for travel and accommodation – which they don’t pay for now – and foisting counsel on a defendant even if he doesn’t think that particular lawyer is qualified,” Mr. Addario said. “Why don’t they just fund the program they originally designed?”
Mr. Addario said the bonus program is a first, and that he is unaware of any other province that has tried a legal-aid flying squad.
“They are advertising across Canada for lawyers to come to Ontario to break the boycott,” Mr. Addario said. “They would rather waste millions on inquiries and fact-finding reports which they ignore – and hundreds of thousands more on advertising, travel expenses and signing bonuses.”
Attorney-General Chris Bentley was stung last month when the striking lawyers rebuffed his attempt to end the fee boycott with an infusion of money into the program.
[More]
Notes:
Sounds like “McShifty” has another brawl on his hands. Should be interesting.
The streets of Ontario are not polluted with starving lawyers begging for food. Even the most inept lawyers usually manage to feed themselves without much effort. Those judges who ordered defense lawyers be paid at double the going rate should be defrocked and disbarred.
Lawyers are not unionized so the government can’t be accused of trying to ‘break’ their solidarity. It would appear the lawyers have forgotten that legal aid is one of those make-believe “rights” which special interests love to invent. One cannot opt out of real human rights. Even Trudeau’s flawed Constitution and Charter do not guarantee “legal aid” to anyone. The bitter reality is lawyers are unnecessary. Yes, you heard me right. Unnecessary.
Anyone can choose to represent themselves at trial. I’m not saying it’s a good idea but as long as such is the case, lawyers are unnecessary; a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have. Lawyers speak on behalf of the accused and provide legal advice but it is the accused who faces the court, not the lawyer.
When an accused chooses to self-represent, it is incumbent on the judge to ensure there is a fair trial or else the judgement could be overturned on appeal. Judges are disinterested in explaining the intricacies of the rules of evidence and testimony, let alone trial procedures, so they’re much happier when there is a defence lawyer. It makes things go more quickly and more smoothly.
The US has public prosecutors and public defenders. Those who cannot afford legal counsel don’t have the luxury of choosing whatever lawyer they like; the court assigns counsel. Hollyweird usually represents public defenders as being overworked and underpaid but, again, I don’t see the streets of America flooded with starving lawyers. As horrible as the thought might be (I hate myself for even suggesting it), perhaps the government should consider creating a new bureaucracy for public defenders, modeled after the US system?
Good comeback, Mac. When I read this my first thought was the UAW and a strike but of course it’s not because lawyers aren’t unionized so it couldn’t be that.
I decided to keep my big trap shut this time and wait for someone else to weigh in.
“Ya done good.”
The cost of a defence lawyer for a very simple case is simply outrageous. Many people pretend poverty to avoid real poverty. I know of a case of simple assault which was diverted (first instance with extenuating circumstances involving mental health) where it cost the accused’s family $5,000 for a simple meeting with the Crown to arrange diversion and subsequent dismissal of the charge. That’s a case that never went to trial; I can’t imagine the cost of a full trial on something substantive.
Lawyers taking legal aid cases look at that kind of money and feel sorry for themselves. Instead, they should feel ashamed of themselves but I suspect that’s a capacity they lack.
I’ve seen people virtually ruined because of the parasitic machinations of lawyers. Their shamelessness is unparalleled which must be why so many of them go into politics.
Although I would’ve valued it more if you included a relevant video or at least photos to back up the description, I still thought that your page quite valuable. It’s usually not easy to make a intricate matter look simple. I enjoy your weblog and will subscribe to your feed so I won’t miss out on anything. Fantastic articles
The credit loans suppose to be important for people, which would like to start their own career. In fact, this is not very hard to get a collateral loan.
…”perhaps the government should consider creating a new bureaucracy for public defenders, modeled after the US system?”
Agree. As a matter of fact a lot of people including cops have been suggesting exactly this option for years, make that decades. Another good reason, under current proceeds of crime legislation the government can seize and permanently confiscate money a criminal has earned via unlawful means, drug trafficking etc. But the good old liberals just couldn’t bring themselves to slam the door shut tight. So just as does the faint hope clause for murderers, in Liberal la la land it’s important to always ensure that there is a light left on at the end of the criminal justice tunnel for these predators. In proceeds of crime cases the accused can access the illegally obtained money that was just taken away from him by the government if he needs it to pay his defence lawyer. So even though he obtained the money via crime, the government will let him access his illegaly gotten gains to pay for his lawyer. Take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Just another form of money laundering only this time it’s government sanctioned. Public defenders (modelled on the US system) would be a great step forward.