In this paper, we explore issues related to both client and lawyer (dis)advantage, the right to effective counsel and the consideration of collateral consequences in criminal courts. Drawing from qualitative interviews with 65 criminal defense lawyers, we document and analyze how the ‘duty to inform’ clients about collateral consequences of criminal convictions is experienced and negotiated by public defense lawyers and private counsel taking on indigent defense work. We engage with scholarship on privilege and the reproduction of social inequality via criminal justice, the constrained discretion of frontline legal actors, questions of access to justice, and the unique organizational realities of public defenders. Our findings suggest the imposition of this formalized ‘duty to inform’ can exacerbate injustice despite defense efforts. We show when and how lawyers and their clients face additional burdens, which shape how collateral consequences are (1) identified, (2) brought up in court, and (3) received by prosecutors and judges. Our work highlights that challenges posed by collateral consequences cannot be overcome via criminal defense efforts alone. We end with a call to explore other redress avenues ranging from decriminalization to criminal record expungements

Defence lawyers working in lower criminal courts are increasingly invited to consider a variety of holistic or alternative strategies like drug treatment courts (DTC). This raises new ethical and practical questions. Scholars have been critical, showing how specialized courts circumvent the principle of presumption of innocence, impose onerous conditions and surveillance, and lack the resources required to support participants’ long term. What is not known, however, is how defence navigate this setting, advising clients or engaging with DTC programs. Our paper examines this, drawing from interviews with defence working in Toronto and Montreal (n=107). We describe and discuss when and why participants report being more supportive or critical of drug treatment courts, and how they borrow from therapeutic justice in their ‘regular’ practice. Our discussion engages with questions about access to health and social support resources, about interdisciplinary interventions and the ways in which people are criminalized rather than helped.

La Cour suprême est récemment intervenue dans les arrêts Antic, Myers et Zora sur des questions entourant la mise en liberté provisoire par voie judiciaire et l’infraction d’omission de se conformer à une promesse ou une ordonnance, communément appelée « bris de condition ». Les avocat.e.s de la défense jouent un rôle important dans l'élaboration des pratiques des tribunaux de juridiction criminelle, surtout auprès des populations marginalisées. Au stade de la mise en liberté provisoire, ils et elles sont en mesure d'avancer des arguments qui tiennent compte des désavantages sociaux et systémiques. Nous proposons une analyse qualitative à partir d’entretiens auprès d’avocat.e.s de la défense pratiquant en pratique privée et à l’aide juridique. À partir de deux études de cas – Montréal (n=51) et Toronto (n=51) – nous analysons les perceptions des avocat.e.s par rapport aux impacts des décisions majeures de la Cour suprême sur les pratiques lors de la mise en liberté provisoire, aux conditions de surveillance et à la prise en compte des facteurs sociaux et de la marginalisation à ce stade des procédures judiciaires. Nous concluons que la mise en œuvre du droit à ce stade du processus judiciaire reste à géométrie variable, corollaire de la discrétion octroyée aux juges et au Ministère public. L’application des enseignements de la CSC qui exigent de respecter les droits fondamentaux des personnes prévenues est limitée par les rapports de pouvoir au sein des tribunaux de première instance et la pression exercée par le manque de ressources et le contexte de justice managériale.

It is widely recognized that people experiencing homelessness (PEH) are profiled, (over)criminalized and face many obstacles when they find themselves in court. Many struggle to access justice, secure legal representation and negotiate bail conditions or therapeutic obligations (Bernheim et Laniel, 2013; Sylvestre et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2020). In this context, defense lawyers play an important role, helping clients negotiate, advocating for their rights and engaging with extrajudicial procedures (ex. referrals and collaboration with psychosocial services). Focusing on these issues, our article draws on semi-directed interviews conducted with criminal defense lawyers (n=65) who practice in Quebec in order to identify and understand their point of view on (1) their willingness to represent PEH, (2) obstacles to access justice, (3) the issues related to the formal and informal recognition of those obstacles and the social profiling experienced by their clients and (4) the defense strategies as well as the reactions of the court and the other actors. Our article highlights strategies deployed by lawyers (shopping, collaboration, resistance) to represent PEH, highlighting the important challenges caused by court culture, criminal justice system overload and lack of resources.