A LAWYER: (noticing my nametag) Hey, are you the Christopher Bird who writes for thecourt.ca?
ME: Yes, I am.
A LAWYER: Yeah, I was reading your analysis of… uh… damn, what was the case?
ME: Hydro-Quebec?
A LAWYER: No, it was about crown liability issues? Policy versus operational?
ME: Right, I was talking about the Just test, that would make it… damn…
A LAWYER: Saskatchewan?
ME: Yes, that was it. So you read it?
A LAWYER: Yeah. Great analysis. You’re completely wrong, of course, but great analysis.
ME: Thanks?
A LAWYER: Well, you know, I just think negligence immunity from policy considerations is necessary for government to function. How do you respond to that?
ME: Well, I actually wish I had written the article a little better. You remember how I said that some level of tort immunity for policy consideration is necessary?
A LAWYER: Yeah.
ME: The problem is that in Saskatchewan, the policy was effectively to be deliberately negligent. Saying “well it’s policy so you can’t sue” in that instance just strikes me as giving government a license to behave in bad faith whenever they want. I should have made that clearer when I wrote it.
A LAWYER: I think it came through. I still don’t agree with you, but I get where you’re coming from. It was a great analysis, that’s all I wanted to say.
ME: Well, thanks again.
(turning back to KAREN, a friend/fellow law student at the session)
ME: That was so fucking awesome.
KAREN: You know, they have really good food here.
Related Articles
8 users responded in this post
Dude, that totally was fucking awesome.
Fucking awesome indeed.
Agreed. TOTALLY awesome!
The only way way to make it better is if his closing comment was “And you SHOULD Write The Legion!”
Pretty cool. Kudos to you, and thanks for your writings on thecourt… I’m not a law-knowy person, but some of your analyses have been really good, accesible reads.
See, THAT’S how people who disagree about anything should talk to each other. You both handled it very well. Congrats, keep it up.
Lawyers have to be able to look past simple disagreements in order to co-exist peacefully.
I, on the other hand, react this way to peaceful co-existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REoN1sEYVZo
Lawyer complimenting law student- priceless indeed.
Awesome? Not only is the dude unable to remember more than vague details, he says “You’re completely wrong, of course” (why would you be wrong “of course”?), and while he claims to disagree with you, he is utterly unable to articulate why. And doesn’t even seem to see why that might be a problem for him having that opinion.
This guy is a practicing, functioning, paid lawyer. You’re clearly a whole lot better already. I suppose that’s awesome, in a way.