Personal Reflection

On my first day, I received a call and was asked to appear for a mention at Fairfield local Court, I rushed to the court. I was anxious and nervous but tried my best not to show it to the client. It was my first ever court appearance. Following that I appeared several times but each time my confidence increased and started to handle the stress and anxiety well. One remarkable story from my placement, on my third day I was asked to appear at Burwood local court for a mention, the client was charged with Sexual assault and was bail for other domestic violence related charges, the Officer in charge assured us that Police will not be opposing bail.

I arrived to court with the client and sough a ‘balance of Brief’ Order and was granted. When we existed the court the client was arrested on a further charge namely ‘breaching an AVO’. I contacted my supervisor seek instructions, my response shook me to the nerve and made me questions the ethics of some lawyers and in particular whether lawyers actually abide by the duty to the client rule. She advised me to leave the client and not attend police station with him because this is a new matter and he has not paid us for it. Nonetheless my placement exceeded my expectations by far as every day would be different since people get sued for criminal activity every day.

I remember I worked together with my supervisor and other students under placement on variety of felonies including homicides, robberies, rapes and assaults. I helped in all stages from the pre-trial preparation to the trial which assisted me to gain numerous skills needed to become a defendant lawyer. On different occasions, my supervisor would make me go through jail tapes to ensure that the clients who were being defended never made any self-incriminating statements about themselves or their co-defendants (Champion, 2005). I would also perform a similar task with witness and surveillance videos with an intent of finding discrepancies or anything that my supervisor or a prosecuting attorney might have missed during review of the materials. My supervisor would also make me go through charging document, lab tests and police reports and ensure that I give him feedback in form of a well written report on the loop holes that would help build up a strong defense.

My supervisor used to insist much on the importance of having research and general investigation skills. I realized that one has to spend numerous hours researching and investigating information for the clients. This means that a lawyer has to be able to know the way to research accurately within a small span of time and dig up lots of information relevant to a trial. The source has to be credible as the court easily dismisses the information if the confidence of source authority is doubted by the bench. Earning a trust from the client and making the client to believe in ones skills and ability is a paramount in criminal defense as I realized that clients may withhold a lot of information. My instructor always advised me to focus on creating the best first impression whenever I met a client for the first time as it creates confidence.

An open and collaborative communication as I noted is essential in obtaining criminal and personal history and ascertain the individual’s state of mind or mental capacity, establish crime timeline as well as relationship between the victim and the crime committed. In all the cases that our office was assigned to by the firm, the supervisor used to lead us in conducting an independent investigations to verify facts of the cases and gather new evidences which included interviewing witnesses to establish their credibility. In addition we also used to visit the scene of crimes and explore any inconsistence in evidence of the state.

Team working was the other skill that I learned during my placement period. I realized that when dealing with a lawsuit especially of a high profile crime, working together as a team of lawyers is crucial. I remember at the firm we would emulate a real court of law with our supervisor taking the role of a judge while an available lawyer would be a prosecuting attorney and we the student would form a panel of defense. Our supervisor used to group us into two and give us different cases that the firm was dealing with. During such events we would learn ways to present opening statements in a court, interview a client or witness and make closing remarks.

In addition, we would share ideas about ongoing cases after our instructor go through all the reports availed to him by the students on loopholes to pursue when defending a client (Champion, 2005). As the supervisor presented all the statements made by each individual, we would critically evaluate it as well as analyse the collected facts of the case to create a strong theory of defense that encapsulates the clients version of story and answer any doubts and questions the prosecuting attorney is likely to raise at the trial.

The other skill I learned is negotiations especially in a case of plea bargaining. I remember a case of a client who had been arrested of assault on his girlfriend and for threatening the woman with a knife. I remember when I accompanied my supervisor together with the client to the prosecuting attorneys officer, the prosecutor offered to give the individual a two years jail term and an additional time spent on probation in exchange of a plea guilty. Our client based on the advice of my supervisor rejected the offer and expressed the desire to exercise his rights to trial. Of course, the prosecutor stated he would grant us his wish but noted some of the serious charges that carried possibility of a life time imprisonment.

Based on my understanding, I used to think that actions were illegal as it is aimed at denying a defendant his or her rights to a due process. It was on this case I realized that the allow specifically allows prosecutors to inflict more severe penalties on individuals who go on trial so long as the incarceration is within the legislative guidelines. My supervisor requested the prosecutor to give the defense more time for consulting before accepting or rejecting the deal which was granted. As we moved out of the office and our client was taken to the holding cell by the police, my supervisor advised me to never get scared of the terms given by a prosecutor when plea bargaining.

I learned that before accepting any plea bargaining agreements is good to evaluate the case and the charges that prosecutor intends to file. The supervisor told me that in some instances the other parties might be bluffing. Although according to Brandy rule bluffing is illegal as it is a violation of a due process in some instances excluding some information might not affect the decision of the court in case the plea deal is appealed (Champion, 2005). For instance the law does not need an individual to know all the relevant circumstances in spite of misapprehension forms under which a defendant may labour. While the prosecutor must provide all information determining the factual evidence of the accused during a plea bargain, he or she does not need to provide impeachment evidence that the person may raise at a trail.

I learned that whenever the deal negotiated by a prosecutor sounds too good to be true in that it us almost so charitable, as a defense attorney one requires to rethink. According to my supervisor, I need as a good lawyer in need to ask myself, “ why is the prosecutor willing to be so charitable by letting a case he or she thinks is worth a life imprisonment or several years in jail be thrown away after the client pleads guilty and gets a two years jail time only?” Perhaps such can be a sign that the prosecutor has no intension of taking the case to trial since the proof is weaker and he or she is likely to lose the lawsuit.

I noted that dealing with prosecutors is a hard task and require much of critical thinking, research and negotiation skills. By failing to do a thorough research and looking to possibilities available can lead to avoidable imprisonment of a client in both cases. I remember when we went back to the office we re-examined the evidence and witnesses statement again to ensure that we understand the magnitude of the case well. I also accompanied my supervisor to inquire more information about the client and the event as it happened from the neighbours of our client. Upon gathering all evidence we realized that the what the prosecutor had was not enough to convict our client to such a lengthy period and in fact if we went to trial we would have gotten a better deal to our client that why the attorney offered.

When we went back to the prosecutor’s office my supervisor presented all the case facts and argued that we were ready to go for trial if not offered a better deal. The prosecutor lowered the sentence to one year and community service which was a better deal to our client. I relearned that I needed to improve my negotiation skills as if it were me, the client could have been convicted for the two years as I would have assumed it to be a better deal than going on trial and face a possible life imprisonment.

In theory I learned from course work critical thinking skills but I never new how in particular it applies. Exercising careful judgement and judicious evaluation was one of the things one of my lecturers has insisted since I joined law school. As a lawyer one must learn how to question and analyse what the individual feel, read, think and hear. My supervisor showed me practically that the first impressions are often wrong and they often change when a more thoughtful analysis is done. Another thing that I learned pertaining critical thinking is deductive reasoning which was always stated in many classes by several professors in college. For instance, by questioning why the prosecutor was giving us such a generous deal given that he thought the case was easy to win and get a life imprisonment, my supervisor was able to negotiate a better deal for my client by determining that the attorney had no intent to take case to trial.

During my placement period I learnt that being a lawyer requires a lot of passion as one has to sweat for even small stuff. To practice law effectively one require an absolute command of the cases and legislation details as well as a wider view of how distinct areas interlock and their aim of achievement. The several times I went to court allowed me to learn that each problem question require one to apply the law to very specific and at times outright preposterous pattern of facts in explaining the reason why a piece of legislation is applicable in certain way to a given scenario. Without a massive knowledge of the law, it can be difficult for a criminal defense lawyer to determine the appropriate course to follow when presented with case facts and witness statements.

My resilience and self-confidence assisted me in gaining the attention and skills that I hoped for during my placement period from my supervisor. Many are times that we skipped lunch with my colleagues as we tried to understand cases as they were presented to us by our instructor. The supervisor used to put pressure on us which was a great skill he wanted to develop in us since as a lawyer one is faced with lots of workload in office and stress since a lawsuit might be headed in another way that was not foreseen. I remember one of the most stressing lawsuit that was being handled by the firm when I was there involving an individual who was wrongly accused of vandalism. Based on the case facts, the defendant vandalized properties belonging to his employer after being fired.

Evidence presented included a recording threatening the employer but there was now video record but there were three witnesses. Based on confession made by the victim, he actually did threaten the employer out of anger but he never carried out the act and insisted on being framed. The man was black and given the racial profiling issue, prosecutor and investigators conducted an incomplete investigation. However, at some point the case seemed to go in favour of the prosecutor when the witnesses identified the accused as the culprit based on the height and clothes he had worn that day. My supervisor mounted a lot of pressure in us to go through the case facts and confessions as well as evidence all over again to determine inconsistence. That day I remember we worked until eight in the evening and had to carry the workload at home. Such experience reminds me what it means to become a lawyer in a society.

Over the three months I worked at the firm, I also learnt the importance of staying inquisitive and keeping an open mind since there is always something new to learn every day. Law as a profession has a lot to learn both theoretically and from experience for one to improve. One has to be ready to accept tasks that a person may deem trifling as there is no small or insignificant one. Hard work and being focused is important as client’s life or fate is dependent on ones skills to convince the bench or a prosecutor. Although at some point I questioned the ethics of some lawyers on whether they abide to client rule, I learned basic practical skills from my supervisor including how to communicate during a court proceeding or plea bargaining. I also established that I need to improve my critical thinking skills and avoid assumptions without questioning. Am faster to conclude things without questioning them and that could affect my judgment and negotiation skills.

Reference

Champion, D. J. (2005). The American dictionary of criminal justice: Key terms and major court cases. Scarecrow Press.

This entry was posted on March 21, 2018 at 11:54 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.