There was a time when a politician, or someone who represented an entire people, had to hold themselves in higher esteem than they would when representing only themselves. It is possible that those niceties that we all subscribed to could be a thing of the past. With Presidential hopeful like Donald Trump giving speeches on his political campaign trail calling people names, making outlandish jokes about the character of his opponents and making stereotyping not only acceptable but the norm, many believe that all formality has flown out the window.
Alas, there may be one voice of reason left in our new world of civility. The Canadian court system may be the final stronghold for people to have an upstanding way. Losing his “rude” lawyer conviction, Joseph Groia took on the court system again and failed miserably. The Toronto lawyer who was convicted over ten years ago of incivility has taken up his cause again and once again he has been struck down. Apparently, the Canadian Court system wants to uphold their standards of conduct.
Groia, passing strike two, lost his case with the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Law Firm of Kevin Bessant. His “rude and improper” conduct as it was called, was not overturned but withheld after an entire decade and a changing society around it. He is not the only one who thinks that there is time for a change, other lawyers backing his moving forward with his case are supporting him to take the cause all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Many in the law community are asking whether it is really necessary to push the issue as far as it has already gone. Groia insists that if he doesn’t fight against the ruling, it could affect the ability of many clients going forward to receive a fair trial. If lawyers aren’t allowed to defend their clients in the way that they see fit then, he insists, they are not being given license to give the full and proper defense as the law and their oath dictates.
There may be something to his assertions. It could be that lawyers may stop their line of questioning or fail to bring up something important for fear of “stepping on the toes of the court” or being labeled as rude or improper in their line of questioning. Some court cases just beg for improper behavior, but is that true?
Lawyers have, throughout the centuries, been able to carry on their defense finding a way to outline their case without using improper behavior, or is it that they have not always provided the best defense because their hands are tied?
Those defending Groia believe that the rudeness guidelines may negatively impact the lesser in the society and their ability to get a fair trial, especially in the case of defense. Sometimes lawyers have to defend unsavory characters or actors if their hands are tied by the defense that they can put on, and be tamed by the prospect that it could come across as rude, then it may be hurting those in a lower socioeconomic bracket the most and causing inequities in the justice system.
There is likely a difference between the subject matter of a case being improper and rude and the way that a defense lawyer chooses to conduct himself in court. Is it necessary for a lawyer to stoop to rude behavior to get his client a proper and legal defense, well then that maybe a reflection of our society?
The way that we conduct ourselves, in general, has changed severely even over the past two decades. Some things have to keep up with the times and alter to be relative and fair, is the court system one of them? Likely, Groia and his proponents are not going to give it up. Following it all the way to the highest court in the land, he will not only have his day in court, but he will also have many, many, days in court defending his offensive behavior. Whether it will bring about real and systematic change is doubtful. There are still some of us who believe that decorum needs to be withheld, or our society will have no standard of common decency and conduct left.