I’ve been talking to incoming law students at law schools over the past few weeks and experiences like these are front and centre in those discussions. But, this sort of conduct operates in less direct, equally problematic ways. https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1309156685966180359

A few years into my career, I was acting for plaintiffs in a major lawsuit. My clients were impecunious, disadvantaged, and part their marginalization caused by the conduct of institutional defendants in the suit.

I was not even a 3 year call, and those on the other side were long in years, experience, and reputation. Established firms. An issue that could create significant liability and raised major legal issues.

I remember appearing before the judge, and quickly realizing that my real opponent in the action would be the judge rather than opposing counsel. The judge was livid; every word, every breath I took set them off.

I could do no right. If I said it was white, they’d say it was black. If I said it was black, they’d say it was white. I didn’t know if it was my age. I didn’t know if it was my name. I didn’t know if it was my background. I didn’t know if it was the subject matter.

It reached a point where the other lawyers started feeling sorry for me. Going as far as correcting or attempting to diffuse things if the judge got worked up about something I proposed.

There were not many lawyers in the city that the file was in that practiced that area of law, but turns out I had a mentor who was the senior member of the small cohort of lawyers who practices in that area. A QC, skilled litigator, respected, and wise.

I didn’t know what to do, so I pulled the transcript from my appearances for them to review and give me guidance.

Their response after reading it: "the judge hates you, you set them off. It’s not anything you’re doing. It’s you."

It reached a point where for anything I asked procedurally or opposed procedurally, it was incumbent on me to bring a motion and argue it. Things that my client didn’t have the onus of bringing a motion to address. Things that didn’t need a motion to address.

One instance was the ability to admit into evidence the transcript of a proceeding in the same court involving the same parties and issues that were being litigated in our lawsuit. The law of evidence in Alberta clearly made the records admissible but not determinative.

The judge wasn’t convinced. I was directed to bring a motion and written argument setting out why each page of a court transcript that’s thousands of pages in length was admissible for another preliminary application.

The motion hearing was set for 6 months into the future. I drafted a thorough, detailed, 50 page argument setting out the law, how each aspect of the transcript was material and relevant. Opposing counsel consented, while another wrote a few page long response.

I show up at the hearing, start making my submissions, and 3 minutes in, I am cut off. The judge — frustrated already — grants my motion. They accept the straightforward position I made 6 months ago. I ask for costs, and they scoff at the suggestion

I put in about $10,000.00 in time and disbursements for that motion / argument. My clients, who are extremely vulnerable and don’t have any real money, couldn’t pay for it. There was no point in doing it.

This was one of many examples. It was really frustrating, especially as a young lawyer eager to correct terrible violations for vulnerable people. It worked me up.

For whatever reason, I was singled out. Something about me set the judge off. I tried everything to appease, to confirm, to show the judge that I was worthy of respect, that they could trust me when I state the obvious, and no luck.

Then, I spoke to my mentor, the experienced QC who had been around the block. And, they said that "I know you don’t want to hear this and it won’t give you any solace but there’s nothing you can do. It’s not in your hands. You can’t do anything to get the judge on side."

"You may not be able to control the judge, but you can control yourself and your case. Be thorough, put your best arguments forward, and hopefully the record convinces them in the end or you have something to appeal on."

I don’t know if it was my age, my race, or my clients, but I didn’t get a fair shake and there’s nothing I could do about it. That was the worst part: that there was this unfairness and I could do nothing about it.

Im not sure if other lawyers have similar experiences. But, that’s something that students, especially folks from backgrounds that have been historically excluded/marginalized in the legal profession, have to contend with. Your identity may influence how your advocacy is accepted

Around the same time of that experience, I read this in Zadie Smith’s NW. One of the characters is a Black woman who is a lawyer, seeking advice from a senior, accomplished lawyer from a similar background, on how she made it

For lawyers from a background not traditionally involved in the practice of law in Canada — whether by race, religion, caste, income status, etc — I don’t think there’s truer advice on how to make it in this profession. Figure out your audience, cater to it.

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine who is also a racialized lawyer, heard me in court, and made fun of me afterwards for my "court voice." Apparently, my voice, pacing, language choices, etc are much different than how I speak normally. I honestly never noticed but it’s 100% true.

My court voice essentially mimics the audience I am speaking to in court. It never dawned on me that there are cultural and class norms around the notions of persuasiveness and polish as a litigator.

It makes sense but reflects the deeper problems in the profession and judiciary. Who is streamed and how one succeed and which folks are left behind.

But, it is what it is, and my effectiveness as a lawyer — my ability to deliver for my clients, which in the end, is all that matters in the job — depends on me figuring out how persuade decision makers. Nothing else really matters.

That’s the one of the most disappointing things to tell incoming law students, particularly those from backgrounds and experiences like my own. You’ll face challenges for being who you are and there’s nothing that can be done about it.