 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
I’ve recently heard about some apps that transform curated collections of judicial orders thereby giving lawyers an idea of how they consistently rule in different scenarios. Are the judges strict on procedure, obsessed with pomp and ceremony, hard or soft on criminals? Needless to say, this information could be invaluable for the lawyers.
But do these apps go far enough? After all, judges are human. Notwithstanding their oath to be objective and neutral, their hearts and guts still play a major role in their rulings. Wouldn’t it be formidable if the app would dive deeper into the judges’ backgrounds and focus on their quirks and interests and idiosyncrasies, giving us an even greater heads-up on why judges do what they do.
For example, before appearing before Justice X, it might be helpful to learn his sports team preferences. I would find it priceless to know that some camera caught him wearing a Dodgers cap. On a motion for an injunction, I might just tailor my argument accordingly, saying something like, “Your Honour, you can stop the respondent from demolishing the building. The only thing unstoppable is Shohei Ohtani.” Motion granted.
Or maybe the judge is athletic. Knowing that, a lawyer should have no hesitation when the judge enters the courtroom to perform a handful of jumping jacks instead of bowing. After the oyez oyezs. You’d have His Honour eating out of your hand.
Then there are the biases. I once acted for a plaintiff who, while attempting to deliver a pizza, was mauled by the defendant’s large Rhodesian ridgeback dog. In my opening, I told the judge these dogs are monsters, used in Africa to fend off lions. The judge interrupted saying, “No, they’re not. My daughter has a ridgeback, and he’s gentle as a lamb.”
My case quickly went south. I wish AI could have helped avert the fiasco. Checking the judge out in advance, it might have warned me: “Your judge’s daughter has a Rhodesian ridgeback. The breed is allegedly gentle. Tell the judge your client’s assailant was a Doberman.”
Hey, like many lawyers, just following AI. Maybe a Doberman in Rhodesian ridgeback clothing?
Upon reflection, in any event in this case, I should probably have elected trial by jury. Very good chance at least a couple of members worked at Domino’s.
I had another case of a repeater thief. I was sure this time around he was going to the slammer. I found out that His Honour was a retired admiral, with a soft spot for sailors and things maritime.
By chance, my client originated from Halifax. I brought this out in my submissions to sentence. The judge hesitated and fortunately hit him with only a fine and probation.
I wonder what an enhanced version of this app would say if it worked on steroids: “You have just the judge you want. Throw in the Halifax crap, but for good measure, dance a 30-second hornpipe.” In a blink, I would have folded my arms.
A common problem lawyers have is concerns about judges not reading the materials — or worse, not listening. Sure, the judges work hard, and most are all aces. However, we have all come across judges whose knowledge of the case is slightly wanting for failure to be properly present. How useful would it be to identify those justices who commit this transgression frequently?
The app might warn the user, noting: “So you’ve prepared a comprehensive brief. All set to score a home run before Justice Norton Morton? Dream on. No way you want to argue this one before Homer Simpson.”
Good to know. Duh!
Then there are the doodling habits. Many of us, including judges, doodle. Knowledge of these doodles could be very advantageous, especially in a criminal matter as the lawyer makes a pitch for leniency.
The app might say: “Try to sneak up near the bench and see if the judge is doodling. If the judge is playing hangman, I would request an adjournment.”
One word to the wise is sufficient.
I asked ChatGPT whether we shall soon see what I consider essential upgrades to these apps, reflecting my comments herein. The answer I got was: “I don’t know. Am I Nostradamus? And by the way, do you want me to check where you can pick up a Dodgers cap?”
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.