“One of the things that I think is so important for young lawyers is to find their own voice. It’s to not lose yourself in the desire to try to be like somebody who’s gone and done it before, but rather developing the skills and the expertise to articulate your own personal situation and also to articulate why and how it’s relevant to the judicial context.”

Whilst the legal profession can sometimes be a daunting place, Mr Kalantar said that advocating for your clients is an important aspect of finding your voice as a lawyer.

“I think it’s important as professional lawyers to understand that everybody is entitled to have a bad day, and everybody is entitled to conduct themselves in that manner that they deem appropriate. And I’m certainly not critical of any particular judicial officer. However, it is very scary, objectively, to stand in front of someone who is belligerent, who is loud, who has far more power than you,” he added.

VIEW ALL

“And one of the things I think people don’t understand is that when you’re an advocate and you really care about your clients, you gamble with their money, so to speak. So, if you make a mistake, you don’t pay for that mistake; somebody else entirely does. An innocent person does, and I’ve certainly found that to be a very difficult thing to swallow. And when I give advice, I always give hyper-conservative because I really don’t want to risk something that’s not mine to risk.”

Mr Kalantar has had numerous experiences where he’s had to stand up for these vulnerable clients – one of which was against a judge

“I did something which it’s hard to do, which is stand up and say, ‘Well, I think your honour has prejudged the matter. Unfortunately, I don’t believe your honour can hear this matter. I’d like to ask your honour to recuse yourself.’ And it was honestly one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do because in this situation, I have no power. In this situation, the penalty for me, quote unquote, stepping me on my station, it’s thrust onto someone completely separate.

“And the challenge in doing that is I was probably in my fifth or sixth year of practice at that stage, but when you’re in certainly your first two to three years, you take as gospel everything the bench says, even if the bench is incorrect. And your duty to the court, that oath that you take when you stand in the stand before the court for the first time, is that you have a duty to the court, your paramount duties to the court,” he explained.

“And one of your paramount duties to the court is to prevent an appealable error, which means you have a responsibility to make sure that the court is not making mistakes that can otherwise be avoided. So, I think it’s the understanding of that duty that has given me the confidence to sometimes say things that are not easy to say.”

In this instance, the bench penalised Mr Kalantar’s client and “gave him an awful outcome”, but after raising the case on appeal, his client got a “more appropriate determination” of his case.

“One of the things that I think is so important to articulate is that many people think that challenging the bench is this hot-blooded thing that you do that you see red because they’re saying things that are incorrect. It’s not that at all. It’s actually terrifying. It’s much easier to be quiet when you’re being yelled at than it is to say: ‘you are wrong,’ because you are putting yourself in the firing line,” Mr Kalantar added.

“And you’re not even putting yourself; you’re putting your client in the firing line. And I think a lot of young lawyers in particular really loathe to do that, and I understand why, but it’s our job. It’s our job to be fearless. It’s our job to stand up and have those frank, challenging conversations. And if we don’t have them, if we simply allow the fact that there is this status quo to exist, we don’t do our client service and we don’t do the institution of the court, which we all vow to protect and serve, the honour it deserves.”

Mr Kalantar was able to develop from this situation personally and professionally – and said that he now has a good instinct for when to make those calls.

“I certainly felt awful that I had to make that call, and I wondered whether it was the right thing to do, whether it was just easier to sit there and eat crow, so to speak, rather than do what was necessary. But I have found over time, particularly in the field of criminal law and family law, you start to develop an instinct that serves you well, and you have to trust that instinct. You have to trust that you’ve done the work and the research. And as much as the bench may think they know everything about my type of case, it’s my responsibility to know more,” he said.

“And if I’ve done the research and the research suggests that the course that the bench is embarking upon is incorrect, well, I have to say so. I may be wrong; I’m not omniscient, but neither is the bench, and we have a duty to have that discussion. It’s a duty of respect for the profession that requires me. It’s not even something I want to do. I don’t want to have that chat, but I have to – it’s my job.”

The transcript of this podcast episode was slightly edited for publishing purposes. To listen to the full conversation with Jahan Kalantar, click below: