Why lawyers are quitting the criminal bar

Samira Taghavi writes on why some lawyers are quitting the criminal bar:

After seeing my friend’s LinkedIn post, I rang her. We spoke, we compared notes and we asked the question I always hate: are women less kind than men to other women in the law?

I want the answer to be no. Often it is. But not always – and the “not always” is costing us big time.

It is costing us juniors who are leaving criminal law because they do not want a life built around fear, humiliation and impossible choices. I myself have already lost a junior I will dearly miss. That is a loss for her, for her future clients and for the system.

This is not a “men versus women “issue. Most judges – women and men – are measured, decent and fair. This is about power and culture. As the old line goes, if you want to know someone, give them power. If what follows that gift is interruption, point-scoring or process bent to convenience, that is not firmness: it is misuse.

It is an interesting insight, and one I have experienced also. Now please note the plural of ancedote is anecdotes, not data.

I haven’t had a boss for over 20 years, but before that I had a few. In my experience female bosses were both the best and the worst that I had. The male bosses tended to be more around the median. The bad female bosses seemed to be insecure and thought they had to constantly prove they were the boss by imposing stupid rules etc. The great female bosses were supportive, flexible, clear etc.

She first asked orally and was told to file a formal application closer to sentencing. She did exactly that – using the same standard form that had been accepted elsewhere for months – and a retired female judge (sitting) declined it. With VMR refused and every avenue closed off, she ultimately instructed an agent. Not because she lacked commitment, but because in that moment – with a newborn recently out of NICU – she did not have the reserves to keep fighting a refusal that should never have been necessary.

A separate matter shows the same pattern from another angle. My friend sought an adjournment of a trial date because of her post-birth circumstances. A female Crown prosecutor opposed the application; the adjournment was declined. Only later – when the matter came before a male judge – was the adjournment finally granted, with understanding and sympathy. The contrast speaks for itself.

From both the court and the Crown, too many emails read as if a newborn’s survival and a mother’s recovery were mere diary entries. What should have been hours spent cuddling a fragile baby became hours drafting memoranda, chasing consents and explaining ­– yet again – why counsel of choice and continuity matter in a criminal case.

I suggest those judges and prosecutors take two messages on board: continuity of counsel is not a luxury item and motherhood is not a scheduling inconvenience.

Both messages seem very reasonable.