It’s not every day you get called a misogynist and a white supremacist by another lawyer, but I guess we should probably get used to the fact that social media is the best solvent for rational discussion since the invention of road rage. It all began innocently enough — as these things do — with a rather curious Twitter post from Atrisha Lewis (@atrishalewis), a bencher of the Ontario Law Society, apparently complaining about how hard it is to be a bencher when others have other views than you do (see below). It shocks me that there are members of the legal profession, including some o ..read more

Can a 1957 black-and-white movie tell us anything about how to have tough conversations in 2020? It’s a testament to 12 Angry Men that it is considered one of the finest courtroom dramas ever made, despite showing the inside of a courtroom for about 15 seconds. Apart from the raw drama, however, the events depicted in the movie (and the play which preceded it, which continues to be staged) is a treasure trove for lovers of persuasive technique and human psychology. Henry Fonda told you no cream in his coffeeThe background is well known. Twelve male jurors are sequestered following a crim ..read more

The Martin Luther King of Trans Rights, Jessica Yaniv The legal community, like every community, has a diverse range of opinions on important issues. Some of those opinions are good, some bad, and some unbelievably stupid. In the November issue of Canadian Lawyer Magazine we were all treated to an opinion that falls into this last category. In an article that has already aged very badly (link below) Adrienne Smith, identified as a Vancouver lawyer and “transgender human rights advocate”, asserts that the problem with the human rights tribunal’s decision in the Jessica Yaniv complaint ..read more

The legal profession is one of the few jobs left where your role is to unapologetically fight. And fighting means throwing punches, taking punches, and having the courage of your convictions. We now find ourselves at a legal and societal crossroad, where the social pressure to conform to social justice initiatives is set to undermine the independence of lawyers and rob them of their greatest skill — the ability to fight. To fight without fear, without favour, and without wondering whether there will be repercussions for taking an unpopular stance. Since I wrote a post on the danger of t ..read more

The British Columbia Law Society has traded self-governance for political re-education, compromising the ability of its lawyers to act independent of politics, and ensuring a revolt among members It’s not often you see a self-governing profession torch it’s own credibility and throw its members’ independence into the trash bin in the name of ideology, but the Benchers of B.C.’s Law Society have elected to do just that. The 25 Benchers of the Law Society comprise the board of directors for lawyers in the Province (along with six non-lawyers). The Benchers have now “determined” that all lawye ..read more

The Quebec Court of Appeal decides that hurt feelings are now a human right Mike Ward, seen here wondering why judges seem to hate himHot on the heels of BC’s Jessica Yaniv case, another instance of human rights abuse — that is, the use of human rights legislation to punish others — comes to us courtesy of the Quebec Court of Appeal. In Ward v. Human Rights Commission released November 28, 2019, two of three appeal judges upheld a human rights commission award against the comedian for $35,000 for “moral and punitive damages”, to be paid to Jeremy Gabriel, who suffers from congenital conditio ..read more

Well that’s not too hard to identify, actually. Jessica YanivIn August 2016, the B.C. government amended the Human Rights Code to add “gender identity or expression” to all aspects of the Code. This was a significant departure. Prior to that time, these were the enumerated groups protected from human rights violations: “race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation” Okay, so what’s the difference? Well, these “protected grounds” were developed and recognized over time and they are, for the mo ..read more

The Grand Canyon ProblemOne of the most common problems I have with clients is their inability to consider their circumstances without emotion. It’s the Grand Canyon Problem — everything looks too big, too overwhelming. And the normal reaction is fear. As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune, fear is the mind-killer. For clients (and indeed, for most of us) conflict or even uncertainty leads to an emotional response. This emotional response effectively blocks our higher-level abilities to analyze, weigh probabilities, and foresee outcomes. While lawyers are intended to be legal experts, it is ..read more

Should we think like a litigator? In my opinion, yes. In law, as in life, logical reasoning is superior to emotional reasoning. The rational, reasoned decision-maker will beat the emotional decision maker almost every time. As Naval Ravikant says, the goal is to be the “coolest cucumber in the room”. But how do we do that? Lawyers are taught to recognize the “fact pattern” — that is, the objective facts as far as we can know them from the available evidence — and analyze them in light of the governing cases which apply to that fact pattern. This is a disciplined, objective ..read more