Judge

I have been a judge at the Court of Québec for about 10 years. Before becoming a judge, I was a lawyer for more than 15 years. I practised as a litigator at a well-known law firm in Montreal. I hadn’t really thought about becoming a judge until one of my co-workers was appointed. His enthusiasm for his new career sparked my interest. Finally, after a few years, I was appointed a judge as well: and so began a great career!

The work of the judge differs in many ways from that of a lawyer. I had to make some adjustments. The lawyer works to defend his client to the best of his knowledge and abilities. The judge, on the other hand, tries to fix a problem that exists between people who haven’t succeeded in coming to a settlement. The judge intervenes as a last resort. She listens to the parties without taking a side and decides according to the evidence that the lawyers present and the law in force. All this is done while ensuring that the debate is conducted fairly. Obviously, the judge must have good legal instincts, and having practised as a lawyer before becoming a judge is an important advantage in this regard. But if my old lawyer’s habits sometimes encourage me to ask questions of the parties, I have to remind myself that the judge must leave that job to the attorneys.

In addition to being patient and respectful with the people who appear before her, I think that a judge has to be a good listener. Even if a particular case might be the hundredth one that I listen to as a judge, that hearing is the BIG DAY for the parties involved. I have to give them all the attention necessary and work to create an atmosphere that encourages a smooth proceeding.

Of course there are some parts of my profession that I find difficult. For example, sometimes I might have to make a decision that is well founded in law but that I find difficult to accept personally. The judge must not make decisions based on personal convictions, though. Rules play an important role in our society in providing useful benchmarks for people; they must be able to rely on them. Even if I have some latitude when I interpret the evidence and the witness testimony, I have to be careful. In the same vein, it isn’t always easy to tell what is true and what is false when one witness contradicts another…I do my best to discover the truth, but, unfortunately, there is no fool-proof technique.

Judges, as a matter of judicial self-restraint, cannot explain their decisions in public. This is essential for the preservation of the honour and credibility of my profession, but I sometimes find it hard to resist publicly justifying a decision that is criticized by the media. It’s the appeal court’s job to review our decisions.

Even if the role of the judge involves many responsibilities, I find it very satisfying and I feel privileged to be able to fill it. I hope that these few lines have helped you to learn a little more about it.