Given the recent retirement of U.S. Supreme Court justice David Souter, we will soon be treated to the spectacle that is the confirmation process for the proposed nominee. Anyone recalling the hearings for Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas will know that the process is ripe for either reform or satire. As to the latter, author Christopher Buckley has a wonderful send up of the Court in his novel “Supreme Courtship” (2008: Hatchett Book Group U.S.A. Inc., New York).

The premise of the novel is that, after having had two distinguished nominees with unblemished records rejected by the Senate, one for having written a negative review of To Kill a Mockingbird when the nominee was 12 years old, the President nominates a judge and host of the popular television show, Courtroom 6, for the Supreme Court post. In her preparation for the hearings, the sassy judge gets ready for the inevitable hostile personal questions:

“Look here Senator. You got five thousand FBI agents out there going through my garbage and waterboarding everyone I ever talked to, starting with the ob-gyn who slapped my butt on my way out of the womb. Do you really think I’d put myself through all this if I had a whole catacomb of skeletons doing the cha-cha in my closet?”

The ideological division on the Court also comes in for scrutiny:

“Half the justices had proved to be disappointments to the presidents who appointed them, the conservatives voting liberal and the liberals voting conservative and the middle-of-the-roaders swerving like drunk drivers from right to left. Nine times out of ten, the Court voted 5-4… ‘It is at this point unclear’ the Times noted ‘whether this Court could agree on the law of gravity.’”

Even the footnotes are funny:

“There were at least some advantages to being ‘the most powerful man in the country,’ even if you couldn’t seize your wife’s assets and have her submitted to peine forte et dure.”*

*French term for being slowly pressed to death. Used today to describe waiting for the cable company to arrive.”

The conduct of a trial is not for the faint of heart. It is stressful, time consuming work. In its March 2009 cover story entitled “7 over 70, Lions of the Trial Bar”, the American Bar Association Journal profiled seven of the most distinguished trial lawyers in the United States, all of them over 70 years old. Herewith are some of the gems.

Bernard Nussbaum, New York City, New York: “Nussbaum says good settlements hinge on the opponent realizing that you are not afraid to take the case to trial, as well as your own client recognizing the risks that come with a trial.”

“At the end of the day, we convinced the judge that we were the good guys and that they were the bad guys. Most cases, despite all the technicalities, come down to that; Did your client act in good faith or bad faith.”

Joe Jamail, Houston,Texas: “Today’s law schools teach students how not to get emotionally involved in their cases. That’s bullshit. If you are not emotionally involved, your client is not getting your best effort.”

James Neal, Nashville, Tennessee: “They didn’t understand how much I hate losing. Yeah, I love winning. But I hate losing even more. Just the thought of losing makes my body shrink from 5’8” to 5’6”.”

“[Jimmy] Hoffa was even a tough old bird on the witness stand. He had the same answer to every question I asked: ‘To the best of my recollection, I do not recollect.’”

Fred Bartlit, Chicago, Illinois: “Jurors are like us. They hate not understanding things. They appreciate and trust the people – be it lawyers or witnesses – who help them better understand the facts and the meaning of the case.”

“I tell our young lawyers the one thing we know jurors do is evaluate everyone in court, and they don’t trust phonies. So always be yourself.”

Bobby Lee Cook, Summerville, Georgia (82 years old): “I’m having the best and most productive year of my career. I enjoy waking up every morning and kicking somebody in the ass that needs it.”

“The law practice has changed so much. The law is viewed as a business these days and not as a noble profession. Law firms are operated as banks. I know partners at big law firms who have never tried a case to a jury. I didn’t become a lawyer to get rich, but I’m doing OK.”

“If you can railroad a bad man to prison, you can railroad a good man. That’s why we should always vigorously fight for the constitutional rights of even those who are most despised in our communities.”

James Brosnahan, San Francisco, California: “Brosnahan turned 75 in January, but he has no plans to slow down. He has four jury trials and two non-jury trials already scheduled for this year.”

“Brosnahan says his decision to try all kinds of cases – civil and criminal – has allowed him and trial lawyers of his generation to gain the courtroom experiences that following generations have not had.”

Richard “Racehorse” Haynes, Houston, Texas: “For Haynes, the courtroom is always a place for theatre. He re-enacts crime scenes. He mimics opposing counsel. He shouts, screams and dances. He waves around murder weapons – be they guns or cattle prods.”

“There was a trial in the 1970’s in which the prosecutor refused to call a witness because he knew Haynes would tear him apart on cross-examination. Furious, Haynes used his closing argument to cross-examine an empty witness chair, asking the same probing questions he would have asked the absentee witness. The stunt was effective; again, the jury acquitted on all counts.”

The Globe & Mail is reporting today on a case of alleged corruption involving participants in the Ontario justice system. The case started out as an investigation into fraud at Bombardier Inc. and has since expanded to include a member of the Ontario Provincial Police and a Toronto Crown Prosecutor. Included among the charges against the police officer are allegations that he used his position as case management officer in the Toronto criminal courts to “gain corrupt advantage for his associates charged with offences.”

The details are sketchy at this point but include allegations that the officer assisted an accused person avoid prosecution in Ontario and assisted another to obstruct the course of justice in a sexual assault prosecution. The Crown Attorney, although not charged with an offence, is named as “an unindicted co-conspirator.” None of the allegations have been proven, however they are sufficiently serious that the Attorney General has appointed an out of province lawyer, Richard Peck of Vancouver, to prosecute the case.

Corruption in the Ontario justice system is exceedingly rare, but any concern of this kind must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Maintaining the integrity of the justice system is of paramount importance.

Please visit often for a variety of articles about personal injury, employment and labour law in Ontario.