An Interview with The Honourable Chief Justice Robert Bauman Cont’d

... Continued from page 17

Q: IT’S INTERESTING TO HEAR YOU USE THE TERM “USER” TO REFER TO LITIGANTS. DO YOU FEEL THAT HAS BEEN A CHANGE?

That kind of mindset is important if we’re going to put people at the centre of our efforts and realize we all work for them.

I was in Ukraine, in a small courthouse in Zaporizhzhia, and the Chief Justice said, “Let’s go down to the lobby.” The lobby was filled with people and I asked what’s going on. He said, “Well, we invited a lot of the public to come today and tell us what they think of our institution.” That was before the tragedy they are facing now, but I learned something that day about canvassing our users.

Part of a user’s experience is the expectations they come with. If people understand how the system really works and what it’s supposed to do, they won’t be frustrated when they come with their problem and see how it’s dealt with. Education of the public is critical.

Q: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE JUDICIARY ADVOCATING OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR CHANGE?

Judges and in particular, Chief Justices, have a duty to speak out and engage appropriately, largely through the Attorney General. We’re seeing that on a national scale with Chief Justice Wagner and the work he’s doing with the Minister of Justice and the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19.

That wouldn’t have happened in that way ten years ago.

There’s lots of room for appropriate collaboration without prejudicing the objectives of independence and impartiality. That kind of collaboration is critical. We don’t control the purse strings, we don’t even control the agenda so if we’re not going to collaborate, we’re not going to have any input.

Q: WHAT LESSONS WERE LEARNED FROM ADAPTING COURT PROCESSES SO QUICKLY IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC?

COVID was such a singular threat, that the “what if?” of using new processes disappeared. We didn’t have a choice. We immediately started proceedings by videoconference. We had no difficulty, the court embraced it, the Bar embraced it, and it gave confidence to people that the institution was still working.

It’s given us tremendous confidence to try new things and prove the value of technology. The court now continues to embrace the idea of, where appropriate, virtual hearings and hybrid hearings. We’ve also defaulted to broadcasting our hearings. What we learned from COVID was that we can adapt much more quickly than we thought we could.

Even though I can’t do an appeal electronically for the life of me — I’m a Tyrannosaurus Rex — the new judges are tremendously adept at the new reality. Our experience with the pandemic gave us confidence that we can change and that change does not necessarily compromise the traditional values we hold.

Q: WHICH INNOVATIONS DURING YOUR CAREER HAD THE MOST IMPACT ON THE JUSTICE SYSTEM?

You’re talking to the guy who in 1995 said email would never be a substitute for a legal letter. Got that one wrong! The adoption of technology is, of course, the most major change. It has made our jobs so much easier.

In the old days, we were totally wedded to writing letters to each other. When I used to go away as a young lawyer, I was on pins and needles the entire two weeks because I knew I was going to come back to a stack of letters. Writing a letter would give you two days or three days respite but when you got that confrontational letter from the other side, it was stressful. Now you get it instantly with email!

I sometimes am asked “what’s the worst innovation” in the legal profession. I’m not sure I can answer that, but maybe the worst innovation in the legal profession was the idea of timekeeping and the billable hour. Certainly, as a lousy timekeeper, I found it the worst.

I think that model is not serving us well these days. It puts stressors on lawyers that are quite unfortunate, and often misses the mark of what really is valuable. Time is valuable, but results are valuable, and knowledge is valuable. I’m not sure that’s measured adequately by time.

Q: HOW MIGHT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHANGE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE?

My law clerk last year was Sancho McCann. He’s a Ph.D. in computer science — I get good law clerks. He spoke to the court about AI, and it’s interesting what uses it has in a constitutional case predicting what the court might do. I’m dubious, but it has some interesting potential.

Q: WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ARE YOUR CAREER HIGHLIGHTS?

When I was in college, I never really thought I had the talent to be in certain positions. But I was thrust into doing work in front of the utilities commission on behalf of municipal clients who were purchasers of electricity from a local utility.

I’d never been a barrister before. I was entering a very sophisticated area of law and a tribunal that was extremely sophisticated with all the high-powered lawyers from Vancouver and Calgary. Suddenly, as a young lawyer, I realized I could hold my own.

Q: CAN YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE DECISIONS YOU’VE MADE DURING YOUR CAREER?

We deal with some of the most important issues our society faces and we deal with some of the most mundane issues citizens face. If you’re going to be a judge and enjoy the job you have got to find something interesting and important in both. I find them all interesting, from the fender bender to the most complicated constitutional case or high-profile criminal case. I think it’s important for the public to know that we find them all interesting and important, because they’re important to them.

Q: WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENTS OF YOUR CAREER OVERALL?

I’d like to say I plotted my career, but I absolutely did not. I’ve been lucky, I’ve always been in the right place at the right time, and I didn’t burn any bridges. That’s important. I wanted to be a judge and so I intentionally had that as an objective from early in my career.

I don’t think there are any bad career decisions you can make. Every experience is going to be helpful but you have to know when to make a move. You’ve got to think about where the profession is going and what areas are valuable in the future. Not from a mercenary’s point of view but from the point of view of satisfaction in the job.

Q: DO YOU THINK YOUR EXPERIENCES WORKING IN SMALLER COMMUNITIES BEFORE COMING TO VANCOUVER INFORMED YOUR PASSION FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND DID FOCUSING YOUR EXPERIENCES WORKING IN SMALLER COMMUNITIES INFORM YOUR PASSION FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

Maybe. I’ve got a fairly common touch for a judge, and that might have helped.

As a lawyer, I was downtown. My clients were sophisticated and had the wherewithal to pay my fees. The times I acted for ordinary people were extremely rewarding but even then, I knew they couldn’t afford the services, as a result I didn’t charge many of them full rates.

So, I had an inkling then but I wouldn’t say I had a great understanding of the challenges ordinary people face. That was brought home to me as a judge sitting in family chambers where you see those challenges quite clearly. People completely at sea, files thick and no progress is being made even though you can tell they’ve expended thousands of dollars in legal fees and can no longer afford a lawyer.

Q: WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO IN RETIREMENT?

I’m looking forward to retirement. I enjoy golf and watching Jackson, my grandson, play sports. The idea of road trips with my wife intrigues me and we have a few planned. I love to cook and bought a Yoder Smoker — the Rolls Royce of meat smokers I’m told — so I’ll spend some time mastering that.

I’ve spent 27 years as a judge and I’m looking forward to the new challenges and opportunities that retirement might bring.

KATE HANEN