Mickael Chiasson, Attorney

R v Daniel Silliker on June 30th 2016 before judge Anne Jefferies in Moncton: The case related to the use of a tracking dog to identify the suspect of a theft of a motor vehicle. I was appointed to the case 2 weeks prior to the trial, held on June 23rd 2016. The client was found not guilty. My overall contribution was about bringing forth arguments that tracking dogs are an investigative tool in order to find a lead, and as such, could not be used alone to determine the guilt of an individual as the corollary evidence is circumstantial at best.

On the business side, focusing my practice exclusively on a certain type of law, to wit: Criminal Law, is the single most influential cornerstone of my success. Whilst it would be easier to cast a wider net, aiming for a specific set of skills allows for a greater workload to take place with less overall effort per case individually, mostly because the workload is largely iterative. Even when a case requires specific attention, the likelihood of having a precedent of which to work out is higher as the practice goes on. On the personal side, I tend to cast my net as wide as possible to absorb as much knowledge as possible. Since one of my passion is debate, I tend to attune myself to a number of topics, from politics to science, especially data interpretation in statistics. With the advent of the Internet, the issue with knowledge isn't acquiring it, but understanding it and engaging with it in such a way as to derive insight.

The single most important quality of a lawyer should be the ability to ask question. It is my firm belief that anyone can find an answer to a question, but to know what question to ask is when one has the opportunity to really understand the depth of a case. To come up with those questions, a general up-to-date knowledge of the topic and a willingness to engage with the matter of the client are essential. Ancillary to the above, being an epistemologically responsible individual, or the willingness thereof, is also something I believe a lawyer should be. What that means is that one should not only know what they know, but why they know it to be true. A lawyer's belief should be enshrined by supporting reasons, and upon the realization that a belief is not so supported, I would assume the lawyer should have the drive to find those reasons. Tertiary to the above is being bilingual. In Canada, you can be tried in english or french. Furthermore, even if you choose to be tried in a language, you still benefit from the more favorable interpretation of the law, even if it exists in the other language.

Regarding Criminal Law, in so far as you describe ""local"" as ""provincial"", I would tend to agree strongly that ""local knowledge"" is important. Whilst Criminal Law is uniform across Canada, provincial legislation and regulations will cause the lawyer to enter a phase of adaptation if they choose to practice in a province different from their own. Regarding local provincial courts, with the exception of the Elsipogtog first nation Court which has its own set of rules, the local knowledge is a tad less important. Having appeared before Judges and having a confirmed good standing may help, but if the accused is in detention and time is of the essence in setting the trial, a Judge from outside the jurisdiction, though within the province would be asked to sit in, hence why ""local"" as ""provincial"" makes more sense to me. With New Brunswick being a small province, it's far from uncommon that the Moncton's Court is presided by a St-John, Fredericton or Woodstock Judge. Crown Prosecutors are the same to a lesser extent and building a rapport with them is equally important. Aside from that, there are slight variations in tendencies between Courts, Judges and Crown Prosecutors and adaptability seems like the more adequate quality when those differ.

As a general rule of thumb, I only start charging the client upon reviewing the disclosure, the totality of the evidence intended to be used at trial as provided by the Crown Prosecutor. Any meeting, by phone or in person, tends to be done free of charge and the following applies to both of those scenarios. The reason for such is that, without the disclosure, the information to be gained is purely hypothetical, making any advice I provided just as much. Still, some cases like driving under the influence or other such archetype tends to stay on the same steady roadmap, thus the degree of certainty I can operate with during those consultation can vary. First and foremost, I ask what the case is about from the perspective of the client, what they know, what they've been told and how far are they in the processing of their cases. Based on that, I am able to infer the type of offence they may be charged for, the possible outcomes of a finding of guilty, the possibility of a defence being raised and what's to in term of their next step. Next, I inquire about their intention regarding the case, such as: ""What outcome are they looking for?"" or ""What kind of evidence can they bring for consideration?"" Unless there is any more specific questions, this tends to cover the initial interview.

Debating. As a lawyer, I can almost never guarantee an outcome with 100% certainty, but I can do a number of things to reach the best outcome possible and usually, those come by way of debating with others. Debating isn't just arguing: the goal is changing someone's position, be it the Crown on the way they wish to approach the case, the Judge in arriving to a finding of fact or a decision based on such or even the client in the determination of their expectations. I like to think of debating, not as a means of pushing others toward an agenda, but drawing them in my sphere of influence. If I may be so bold as to be poetic about it, debating is the heart and soul of a trial, the core of a cross-examination and the essence of truth itself. As such, the sanctity of a debate, of its form and substance, must always be protected with vigilance and good will. It is always an enriching experience.

In the proper context, just about anything I happen of which I happen to be aware falls somewhere within my sphere of interest, but to name a few: Politics, Gaming Sciences (especially physics and psychology), Statistics, Philosophy, Mathematics, & Literature

• Member | New Brunswick Legal Society

• LinkedIn
• Twitter