Adapting to Judges

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: You’re heading to trial and there is one last hurdle: the mandatory settlement conference that your judge is gunning for. He has signaled at every opportunity that he thinks this is a case the parties should resolve prior to trial, and that nothing would please him more than to have

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Wherever juries are used, we tend to expect quite a lot out of them. As Marie Comiskey, Senior Counsel with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, has written, “While first-year law students are given a semester to learn the rudiments of criminal law, jurors are expected to become conversant with the essential

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: Our trial system is set up so your adversary is on the other side and your judge is neutral. The courtroom layout illustrates that relationship, and trial procedure supports it. But at times, advocates can find themselves treating the judge as the adversary. Few examples rise to the level of presumptive

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on the question of marriage equality, and specifically whether state bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional, and whether marriages that are legal in one state need to be recognized in another.  As is typical, the focus is on Justice Kennedy as the

By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm: So you’re slated for trial before a judge who is new to you. Naturally, you do your due diligence and try to find out all you can on what makes this judge tick. The result? A few broad comments and stories in response to an all-firm email. If you’re lucky,