Workplace Challenges
Lights, Camera, Adjudication |
|
1 | 2
|
Bernard Grenier is one master at giving this type of nutshell commentary. Tune into RDI (Réseau de l’Information, Radio-Canada’s news network), and you may see the jurist discussing the finer points of a case that’s making the headlines. “It’s easier for me because I’ve retired from the bench and can be more detached from a case,” he says.
Grenier served as a Quebec court judge, penal division, from 1980 to 2002. He has also been active in criminal-law reform projects and has taught at the school of the Quebec Bar, the Université de Montréal and McGill University. “I use my knowledge and experience to explain the judicial process to people,” he says.
For instance, in July 2006, he was in Laval to observe the parole hearing of entertainment producer Guy Cloutier, who had served 19 months of a 31/2-year sentence for child sexual abuse. Grenier worked with the reporter there, who often needed to fill airtime until the decision was made. Grenier would appear before the courthouse, where he would explain how parole board hearings work, and sometimes provide commentary on the case. (Cloutier was ultimately granted early release.)
While Grenier has found the freedom to speak his mind at the end of his career, working legal professionals must make tough choices every time they’re buttonholed outside the courtroom and pressed for statements. Grenier watched how lawyers handled the avalanche of media attention that accompanied the trial of former world boxing champion Dave Hilton, Jr., who was sentenced to seven years in prison in May 2001 after a judge convicted him of abusing his two daughters.
“When court adjourned, the crown attorney would explain what happened during the day and give her evidence,” Grenier remembers. “Then defence counsel would give his point of view. Many legal professionals thought the case was heard twice, once in court and again before the media. As much as the public has a right to be informed, in our system of justice, it does not have the authority to influence the outcome of a case.”
Grenier reflects that the “star syndrome” is a reality in all walks of life, including the legal profession. Certain lawyers embrace the media. Some have been known to call media outlets to let them know when a high-profile case is coming to trial. In the end, however, Grenier feels that most still try to avoid the cameras’ glare.
BALANCING ACT BY THE BAR
“We definitely see a change within the profession,” says France Bonneau, director of communications for the Quebec Bar Association. “Lawyers and prosecutors can no longer completely avoid the media. And many of these professionals are becoming more at ease in the media spotlight. But it’s not happening overnight.”
Bonneau singles out one of the challenges: “It’s a very different process, pleading a case and speaking to the media.” Pleading before a judge or jury involves addressing people who have heard witness testimony and seen the evidence. A lawyer or prosecutor’s job is then to convince them his side of the argument is right. When speaking to the media, it’s about informing the public and raising awareness of the process rather than persuasion. Totally different sets of communication skills are involved.
To this end, the Quebec Bar offers its members the services of an on-staff communications professional, who can advise on how to summarize in a manner that will satisfy reporters. Bonneau notes that on certain cases, lawyers are also consulting public relations firms. These might provide courses or seminars on the skills needed to answer questions during one-on-one interviews, during a press conference, and so on. “Lawyers need to learn how to vulgarize,” notes Bonneau, “or frame their ideas in language a lay person can easily grasp.”
Even with the best communications skills, knowing exactly how much one can say about a case without breaking the code of ethics remains a thorny issue. To give solicitors the best understanding of the guildlines they must follow, the Bar also retains an on-staff lawyer to field questions about where to draw the line.
As a final aid, the Quebec Bar publishes a range of articles in its journal and on its website (www.barreau.qc.ca) that can help lawyers clearly and effectively convey legal complexities to the media. Bonneau notes that journalists need access to as much explanatory material as possible, since they are ultimately the ones responsible for transmitting the details of a case to the public at large.
The law’s pursuit of justice can — and must — be squared with the ideal of an open society. The Bar is working to provide the tools for greater transparency in the justice system, and for the greater faith in the courts that will come with it. Says Bonneau: “Raising awareness about this issue is important, and is an ongoing process.”
Did You Know?
Until 1997, Article 2.09 of the Quebec Bar’s Code of Ethics stipulated that all lawyers must strictly respect the “obligation de reserve,” which forbade them to comment directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever on a matter before the courts. In June 1997, the article was repealed.
According to France Bonneau, director of communications for the Quebec Bar, “It still means that they must uphold the authority of the court and cannot act in a way that will prejudice the administration of justice. So no lawyer may make any statement that can have an impact on or jeopardize a pending legal matter.”
Do you have you a bad boss?