Judges are prohibited by law and custom from defending themselves..
When judges are the object of unjust criticism, lawyers have an ethical duty to support and defend them in order to contribute to greater public understanding of and respect for the legal system.
Edmund Martin and Danny Williams have recently publicly accused both Commissioner Justice Richard LeBlanc and former commission co-counsel (now Justice) Kate O’Brien of bias, prejudgment and lack of objectivity in the conduct of the Muskrat Falls Inquiry. Neither is able to respond to these contemptuous, intemperate and unfounded allegations.
LeBlanc is one of the most senior and respected judges of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Throughout his tenure on the bench he has demonstrated his wisdom, intellect, hard work and impartiality. He obviously had no “axe to grind” in the outcome and demonstrated these qualities in the open, thorough and objective manner in which he conducted the Inquiry.
O’Brien performed her role as commission co-counsel in the impartial and thorough manner required of that role. Her competence and ability were recognized part way through the inquiry when she was appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada to also become a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Martin, now — by his public comments — continues to demonstrate the same wrong-headed and disrespectful attitude for which he was criticized in the report and which he displayed at the inquiry hearings. He accuses LeBlanc of not providing “a fair, open-minded and balanced approach,” “abandoning professionalism,” “making up his mind well before hearing all the evidence” and “bias.” His diatribes should not be allowed to taint the impeccable reputations of LeBlanc and O’Brien when they cannot respond. The truth lies in the evidence placed before the inquiry, and particularly in his own evidence, all of which has been placed online by LeBlanc for all to see.
Williams, himself a lawyer, is bound by ethics to an even higher obligation to promote respect for the administration of justice and avoid ill-tempered and unfounded criticism of a judge. He accuses LeBlanc of “hindsight bias,” failing to provide “a balanced and fair process” and “ignoring evidence.” He should know better.
All decisions of courts and tribunals are open to legitimate public debate, discussion and criticism by anyone based on facts and legal principles, but not on the basis of unfounded personal attacks on judges which brings respect for our legal system and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Don MacBeath
Marystown
