010 - Sarah Boulby - Encountering the world of Family Law

As a way of introduction, Sarah, thank you very much for being here and being a guest on our podcast. You are a leader in the field of family law.  you graduated from Queens university in 86 and you did a master's in 89, graduated from law school in 91. And if I'm not mistaken, you've been practicing family law.

almost the whole time you've been a lawyer. you started your career. I saw, as a clerk in the Supreme court. So I'd love to hear about that. But if you'd I'll always, take a step back and ask the question. What prompted you to study law? Give us a bit of a background. Who is Sarah for the specifically about law?

not, it, wasn't a very serious decision on my part. I studied history. At Queens, which was a lot of fun. And then I went and did a master's in history, which I also enjoyed, but it's not what you call practical. And while I was doing my master's, it occurred to me that I probably should do something a little sensible to try to earn a living.

And I thought, what could I do. with this history degree and I decided to write the Hill sets. So it's, it's that simple, really? I didn't, nobody in my family, was a lawyer. and I didn't have any idea of what the practice of law would be like. the first time, I think I even went into a law office was probably when I did, interview.

Number student. So I really had no idea what I was getting into or what the profession would be like. Wow. And how did you enjoy the whole law school aspect? I think you must've been a fantastic student because you landed up at the Supreme court and only the cream of the crop get there. So how was that experience and how did you land up at the Supreme court?

thank you. I loved law school. That was the thing. I really had no idea what I was getting into. And then, I started where I was at UFT, and, Rob Prichard at the time, was the Dean and it was, he fostered a really, open, intellectual experience. I discovered that I found fascinating and while I was there, lucky.

And, and I did well with it, which was also, it's a mixture of luck and skill because, I'm quite a good exam writer. I'm maybe not the most, not always, perhaps the most thoughtful, I'm not the best person on that, 40 page term paper necessarily, but I'm good at exam writing.

I'm good at. processing information and, figuring out legal analysis quickly probably helps in a courtroom as well. And, in those days, anyway, U of T law was a hundred percent final exams. that was just played to my skillset, which was great. And for the court. I just saw a sign posted, that they were, asking for applications.

And one of my small group prof at UT law in first year, you do a lot of big lectures and then you have one small seminar and mine was in property law with Jim Phillips, who had, a background in history. So I related to him quite well. He had been a history professor, I think, before he went to law school and he had clerked for justice Wilson.

So I had that idea. He had talked about it and I thought that sounds really exciting. And I saw the sign posted and I thought, should I apply or not lived in Toronto? I was already married at the time. I talked to my husband about it and he said, you should apply. And I did, and I got one of the positions with justice, Cory.

my husband told me afterwards, he said I should apply. Cause he thought I wouldn't get the job. Cause then I was off to Ottawa for a year, which was hard. But, cause we were, I was back and forth for a year, but it was astounding experience. and was that general experience or did that even push you in the family law direction at that point?

Okay. I, ending up in family law was, probably as much happenstance as ending up as a lawyer in the first place. so I was a clerk to Peter Corey who actually sadly died this year. he, I don't know if you've come across his decisions. he's, he retired obviously quite a long time ago. but he was, a good man.

And he was a very kind man, had a very fine, a very fine sense of judgment and discrimination of understanding. And so I learned a lot from. Working with him and seeing him decide thesis. he, I didn't have the opportunity to work on any family cases that year, because, the, at the time there were three clerks for each judge and one of my co clerks, David Platz, who's now a judge in Quebec, actually.

He was, committed to being a family lawyer. really want it to be a family lawyer. And I had been thinking of, I wanted to do my PhD. I wanted to be a barrister, was thinking maybe, administrative law, in some form, maybe labor law, something like that. So every time a family case came up. Morgan mow, which is a big family case came up while I was there.

David was the one who worked on the case, not me. So I didn't get any real family law experience while I was there at all. The family law came after because, I, I finished at the court in 93. Or I was called in 93. I finished in 92. I did the bar exam for our exams and the courses at the time. there was a recession going on.

I had been offered a job as a first-year lawyer at Tory's, but in corporate and I didn't want to be a corporate lawyer. I wanted to be a barrister. So I rashly said no and turned down this. Amazing job with a great firm. and then I went about trying to get a job with the barrister and it was really hard because nobody was hiring really.

And I wanted to, I want, I tried labor law and human rights, firms, all sorts of things like that. and in the end I got a job at the Ontario law reform commission. and, John McCamus was the chair at the time. I've been very lucky with the people I early in my career that I worked with and joined me.

You may know he's the, the guru of restitutionary law and, also a very, client, and thoughtful person. So I got that job and I took it because I thought I get this job. I can work. And with the commission for awhile. And then I can maybe slide over to the constitutional division of the age or the civil division of the AGA and do the kind of career I had in mind.

And then the commission was asked to do some. Law reform reports on family law. There was one on same sex, marriage and partnerships. there was one on number forming the property, system. And I went on a support generally, and I was. tasked with working on those reports. and in doing that, I started to learn more about family law.

It tied in with my background in history because I had done a lot of, social history. So I was interested and still am in family relationships and, The structure of the family historically and how it develops. And then looking at family law that underlies, our law and our form of our law and how it's developed.

So that caught my interest. And then, at the time sort of two things happened, one was, I don't know if you remember the turmoil, In the province in 1993 where you, I don't know if you were in Ontario. I actually wasn't and I probably wouldn't have remembered it anyway. So please share. Yes, she is younger than me.

but at the time, there was a recession, the, government was on under a lot of financial pressure. they started, they put us all on three month contracts. If you can imagine their security three months at a time, they had something called Ray days. The premier was Bob Ray, and they were trying to get people to work four days a week.

It was all very unstable. So I was thinking, this is not so good working for the government right now. and then the, the, where. there were lawyers who were on these various projects and Stephen Grant, who's a prominent family, lawyer to this day was consulting on this project and I was working with him and interacting with him.

And then he had somebody in his office, quit. and so he offered me a job because he had a spot and that seemed really. Like a good idea, because I liked him. I was interested in family law and it was an actual job that didn't come up every three months. And then once I was into it, and that all happened in my first year of practice.

So I started practicing family law in, I think, November of 93. And that was it. I've been practicing it since. Yeah. And if you're have any aptitude for family law, it just sticks to you. Like it's just, once you start doing it, the work comes to you and no really amazing how, I mean yourself and other such successful lawyers.

I've spoken to land up in their roles. Almost by a bit of luck and chance. And it all works out in the end of course, but amazing how you just end up meeting the right people and landing upsetting you on a path to success. Ultimately, you touched upon a lot of interesting things over there, and that is your combination of history and the development of law.

I'm coming from a different area of law States and real estate. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about family law. I'm wondering, you mentioned the history aspect. Have there been major developments? What have the major developments been? You mentioned one being, same-sex marriages.

That's an obvious one, but, is there anything else or would that, and anything else that stands out. Over my career. Do you mean Korea or in the past whatever, 50 years or so? in any major changes there. Huge changes. Huge changes, certainly over the last 50 years because family families are an expression of our society.

And as our society changes families change and the law changes usually, slowly a little behind the eight ball, and it could speed up, but it has moved tremendously. and we went from a time, when, There really were, no meaningful property rights, for, non, non owning spouses, where they were probably in Canada, mostly traditional arrangement relationships.

They were men married to women. The women didn't have the money. They were at home looking after children and so on. So we had support law developed first, in a protective way, really for women then, there was approximately was that if you don't mind. In the seventies about or after that can just trying to get a picture of a family law.

In general, there would have been support rights earlier than the seventies, the modern concepts of support, and importantly, no fault divorce came in. I think in, 68, if I'm right, that. So there was a divorce act in 68, and that was important. it was possible to get a divorce without proving that there was adultery or cruelty.

people used to, in those days before there was no fault divorce. And I just heard this. This is before my time. I'm not quite that old, but I've heard from people talking about it, somebody people's marriage and Dylan did. And they ended not because of adultery, just because, Yeah.

And what would happen is that the, somebody had to come up with a way to get out of the marriage. somebody had to look like they were committing adultery. People would literally rent a hotel room and then get caught. So then there'd be there in a hotel room with a woman and then that would be the basis for the divorce.

And it would be. gentlemanly for the husband to do that, as opposed to the wife having to do that. it was, and in fact, still to this day, people will see that, they have to a task that there's no, condemnation of the divorce. It's because of those times, where people had to beg for a divorce and then there was this move and I'm pretty sure it was in the late sixties to no fault divorce, meaning that you didn't have to have a reason.

You just had to have a period of separation, which makes sense. So it's not done, on a whim. and I think that started at three years and now it's one, the divorce act we have now is from 1986 and that. was a huge transformation, family, of family law. and, and the, I'm sorry, I'm going to say in 86, I might be wrong about that date.

Yeah. Don't hold me to that. and then, but what did happen in 86 for sure is the family law act two material and the family law to Ontario deals with, spousal and child support rights, but it also deals with property rights and that was the. It's a huge transformation because all of a sudden, marriages are deemed to be economic partnerships and his economic partnerships without having to prove it.

You don't have to prove that cooking the meals is equivalent to schlepping out, to earn an income. Don't have to, get into the details of it. It's just assumed that in different ways, spouses contribute to the marriage and they should share in the profits of the marriage and in the wealth generated during the marriage without restriction, not just matrimonial homes, but all assets and Ontario chose a, Evaluation system.

So with certain restrictions and exceptions, wealth is valued of each spouse, beginning of their relationship and at the end of the relationship, and if someone got richer than the other, then there is an equalization payment though, in theory, they both share equally, and that, created, probably the, But a huge transformation for quality, in our province because it had a big impact on reducing the poverty of non owning spouses.

usually women after separation, because they got to share in the wealth and that hadn't been true before. There is still. more poverty among women than men after separations in our province, but it's definitely been ameliorated by that policy. And it also created the modern family law bar because what we do, and non family lawyers tend to think we're social workers, which we're not, we're pretty unqualified if we are.

and you need to, if your family lawyer have some ability to understand and help. People who are going through a traumatic time in their life. But a lot of what we're doing is actually financial, and because of the equalization it's financial work, so properties have to be valued. and there's a lot of the work that I do on a day-to-day basis is actually dealing with financial statements.

valuation reports and that kind of thing. Wow. That's interesting and amazing how it's developed relatively recently to, improve the equality between sexes and, thankfully we got to that point, I'm wondering if you still think that there's more to go or we're somewhat on an equal playing field now?

Oh, there's still, there's still a long way to go. we have some of the reforms and some of the more recent ones have probably caused more problems than they've solved. we have. we used to have child and spousal support based on you'd look at the income and you'd look also mostly at the expenses and try to make sure that the person received enough money to cover their expenses based on the lifestyle during the marriage and the children's expenses.

And then the government decided to reform that with, a guideline formula. based on, on incomes first for child support and then more recently for spousal support. and what that has done unfortunately is it has, it's created a lot of interesting work. I spend a lot of my time thinking, and working with interesting concepts about what income is and imputing income.

But, it's made the process of family law really expensive. So on the one hand, it seems great because, the support numbers went up. for sure, like the amount of support that people were getting went up significantly when they made these changes, but the costs. the system went up astronomically because it's a very labor intensive system.

And so one of the issues we still have is that, some people can afford lawyers and some can't, and, And that's created an access to justice problem and for men and women, but I think it's probably more of a burden on the spouse with less resources, which is still usually the woman. Not always though.

that's changing for sure. Yeah. Yeah, access to justice is an interesting issue. And, I've seen you write quite recently about, against different proposals or four different proposals. one being that because there's an access to justice issue. I think it's the law reform is considering bringing non-lawyers to try and deal with family law issues by the paralegals or social workers.

and I saw, I agree with you that it should be reserved for lawyers because there's a certain, area of expertise over there. But talk about the access to justice. Do you think there's a solution? I know it's a tough question and you might not have an answer, but if you're against the paralegals and the non lawyers, providing family law services, and the lawyers are charging so much.

Do you have any sort of solution for that middle class income family who cannot afford a high charging lawyer? I think there are a number of solutions having non lawyers or paralegals taking on that role is not a solution because, they will be cheaper. It's the same business they don't have.

They won't have lower overhead than lawyers. There's nothing special about us. Yeah, we have rent. We have it. We have all the same expenses, so they I'm sure they will be cheaper. And, and they won't have the skillset the lawyers have. So there's a huge risk to the public. I don't think the solution to access to justice is to keep doing things the way we're doing them now.

And just have somehow have magically cheaper providers, right? Particularly like a private sector, cheaper approach. I suppose if you expanded legal aid, that would have an impact. And I remember when legal aid coverage was much broader, again, in the 1990s. And that was something that was, cut back, drastically.

And that's when we first started seeing a lot of self-represented people in family law, it was. Almost overnight. It was also during this period, of the nineties. It was probably when, my careless with the Tory party was in government and they cut back and restricted legal aid. There were a lot of cuts across the board happening, and not just legal aid.

And it was night and day. initially show up emotions, court, and it was crowded. And then the next week motions court, there was nobody there. And then gradually over time. People reappeared, but it was individual parties without their lawyers. So one thing that could be done is to have, subsidized lawyers or the government subsidizing.

I think that would be a good thing. I'm not sure how easy that is politically, realistically, but there are, and there are other ways that we can. Subsidize, subsidize the provision of legal services. I think that, the trial lawyers association, which I'm on the board of, which is why you've seen me speaking, you're even, the director, if I'm not mistaken.

That's right. I'm one of the directors. The TLA. And I'm also the chair of the family and States committee of the TLA, which is why I've been working on this. And we've proposed among other things that perhaps there'd be a levy, of all the lawyers, to create a fund, to try and provide some legal services to people who can't afford them.

But I think there's another, a much bigger reform. Which could happen. and that is to move away from the adversarial process for family law cases. much as I, I enjoy it. I'm a barrister and I appreciate the traditions. this British tradition of the common law and you have a judge sits there and you have the two parties and do you do get out?

it, it has a lot of strengths, but it's really expensive. And it's also, exacerbates conflict, between couples, which is not what we want. and. People can forget that in family law that, often say that to younger lawyers when they get, as they're aggressively pushing for their client and sometimes demeaning the other side, it's like, you think your client is the good person than the other side.

The other spouse is the bad person. What if they w what if the wife was the one who walked into your office first, instead of a husband, they're just people who, whose marriage fail. They just, we have to have some compassion for both sides. And I think that there, we should consider moving away. From the adversarial process to something more like a civilian process, like they have in the courts in France or Italy, where the judge is, is not sitting back up on the days and just listening to the opposing parties.

The judge would be a specialist in family law and would sit down and work out. A solution with the parties. And I, maybe in an ideal world have family courts where that judge had access to, experts like, so it would be possible to have valuation work or, or the kind of expertise that's needed, to assist with parenting coordination and so on available.

To work with. So that would, it would be a non-adversarial process. If we did that, it would be some more society, social costs in terms of setting up the structure. But I think we would probably save money overall because there are enormous resources expended on family law litigation. I'm not sure what the current numbers are.

At one point, it was like 50% of the trials and the Providence or trials. Wow. So I think we could save on that side and I think it would be a less destructive process and it would not be so necessary for people to have lawyers. Wow. There's a lot to unpack over there. just a couple of things that come to mind.

One is, the trials, the number of trials you mentioned in family law. I'm just curious how many, family law cases make it to trial. Other areas of law, personal injury, friends of mine. They can spend their whole careers. I never make it to trial. I assume it's different in family law. First of all.

But different. Yes. it's true that most cases don't, we'll go to trial. and, lawyers, very, but, I know I might have one trial a year. Like I don't, there's some lawyers who do nothing but trials, but that's rare, very rare. and there's some family lawyers who probably don't do any trials, but it's likely that they don't like doing trials and they just refer their cases when they get to that point off to somebody who does litigate.

So most. Most cases do settle. but still overall it's a very high percentage of the cases that go can you talk about the importance or the value of mediation? I know it's a mandatory in Toronto, is that, does that usually solve things for clients or, I don't know, family law clients are unique in that sometimes they're seeking that adversarial process that you're describing and they want to just stick it to each other.

Regardless, even if it makes each other broke. So how do you remain impartial on the one hand and then what is the best way to diffuse those very contentious situations? Whether it be mediation or some of them may be a trick you've got up your sleeve? there's a lot of questions there. mediation.

it's not mandatory for family cases. but it is the whole court process involves mediation in two case conferences. And, there is a lot of mediation that's happening in family law. it's very helpful in many cases, and we do it a lot. I'm a big fan of it. And interestingly, even in high conflict cases, Mediation can work.

If you have a skilled mediator, it's fascinating when that happens and more people should do it. It's I always advise it. if, as long as there's full disclosure, I wouldn't say people can get, Corrine squabbled a bit, right? You don't want to go into a mediation. If the other side isn't giving you the information you need to.

Make sure that you're fully informed, but as long as you're fully informed and have full disclosure, I always advise doing that before going to court as it may work. And sometimes when a case is in litigation takes so long, we'll stop and try mediation and can settle things part way along.

so the other question you asked me was about the high tensions and Layla. it's definitely a factor. it is really important as a family lawyer, I think, to try to calm the waters because a certain percentage of client, family, law clients coming in will be, really. And, some of them they're, maybe there's nothing you can do.

They really don't want a resolution. They just want, the word, the roses, and that's it. people that are there want to add for very long, I am very happy to take matters to trial. If they need to be taken to trial, some cases, do you need to be litigated, but there's a difference between litigating to achieve a rational result and litigating just for fun and frolic and to terrorize your spouse.

I won't play that game. and no lawyer should, there may well be some who do, but nobody should, there are some people who are they're on the cusp of that. And so the trick is to calm them down and get them to focus on. On solving the problem on their own fell on their own. Self-interest right.

Not, destroying themselves financially in this battle, and thinking about their children and to divert them into a rational course of action, which may still mean that there has to be some fairly aggressive tactics thinker, Depending on the circumstances. but that's really important. and it is possible at that.

Initial stage, if the lawyer doesn't handle the client well that they head off into this disastrous self-destructive path. So I think it's really important to do that and to bring the client back and it's easier. If you're sitting in a room with somebody who's angry and upset and who may well have been mistreated, get to fall into the trap of justice, being a cheerleader.

and in the moment, they'll love you for that. And they'll think I'm the best lawyer in the world because my lawyer says I'm completely right. and will, they're going to fight for me. And they're going to try and destroy my spouse and they hate my spouse too. But they will, most of them will realize over time that's, that's just, perming themselves, not hurting them.

So it's not even necessarily good for the lawyer and it definitely firms the client to do that. So you have to pull them back a bit, right? Yeah. That's absolutely true. Our job as lawyers is to try to solve things, resolve things, bring people together. That's really what we're paid the big bucks for, but.

I find lawyers thrive at least academically in the gray areas. I loved law school as well because of the theoretical aspects and, mens REA in criminal law. How do you decide if the God's got intention or not? And that type of thing always intrigued me because it could go either way.

So you mentioned the family law type situation where you could argue either way, depending on which spouse walked into your office. First, I find that interesting as well, and one. issue with COVID maybe in the background, is an issue that could go either way. I heard recently couples, arguing or debating whether it's safe to send their children to school.

And I think that's something that, is under review right now in the courts, if I'm not mistaken, but this is like a competing interests. One spouse says it's not safe. One spouse says it's necessary for social reasons. And there are, the spouses are busy. I'm arguing about it. And, there's a famous, fundamental concept, best interest of the child, but you get a gray area like that.

What does a family lawyer do in such a situation? what are the best interests of the child? that's really difficult because it's not obvious. some, there are a lot of these cases and they are being decided, different ways. It probably depends on the child and the circumstances. So in some cases, one can see, and it may not even be entirely best interest of the child.

if a child lives with a parent who has a compromised immune system, For example, then choosing the remote, learning over school, in person school is the better choice I would say. but, what I would say that objectively, and I suppose we tie that into the best interest of the child, which is a lovely, vague concept by saying, it's investigators with child that their parent doesn't get ill and die.

but sometimes it's really not easy to see. Which side should win in these discussions. That's part of the problem. so as a lawyer, there are two things. The first thing is you try to do everything you can when it's that point of a dispute to stop it from ending up in court because it's, there's going to be.

A winner and a loser. And if the parents have aren't on side with it, there will be a lot of ill will and it will make everything else more difficult. And it's going to cost a lot of money. And frankly, it's pretty much throwing a dart at a board, Unless there's something specific, like a compromised immune system, you're just going to judge.

You don't know which judge it is. And the results, I would guess would depend a lot upon whether that particular judge thinks that it's super important for kids to have the social contact or that particular judge is the kind of person who worries an awful lot about COVID-19 infection. And you're not even going to know until you walk into court, which one you get, and on something like that, you'll find out what their views are.

Partway through your submissions. so it's a real fraud. Are the board kind of case to pig. and on something like that, w we're advocates. So if I try to resolve in Canada, it's very important to my client. And that would be a really important issue. It would have been important to me when my child, if my child were younger to make that decision and they understand that they might lose and they understand that it's going to cost money and they still want to do it, then I would go and I would make the best argument I could on the facts.

for their position and try to win, and hopefully win. and I would do the same if I was hired by the other parent. That's our job. Absolutely. Yeah. can you, give your comment on how COVID has affected things right now, we're in the middle of our second lockdown in Toronto and, I'm happy that I have a happy marriage, but I'm assuming other people are killing each other.

Being forced to be locked. Locked up. Have you ever seen a spike in, divorce applications? I'm on the pulse of real estate transactions, but I'm not so sure about how COVID has affected divorce rates. Okay. Have you seen a difference? overall, there was that first really serious lockdown we had.

Yeah. And, and with that one, I think nobody was doing anything. So there was almost a law, and it was difficult for people to even get out. I had people who were calling me, I was doing consults, with people on their phones, in. I would in parks, Or in their car. they pretended they'd go into the grocery store and they were in their car.

very difficult for people. So there was a little bit of time when nothing which was happening and we couldn't even issue claims. And then, then things opened up and there was a bit of a rush, but I think that was just a backlog of people who were waiting. I don't see yet that we're having more.

Marriage breakdown. maybe we will see that by year end. I don't think so. but I do think there's more domestic violence for sure, because where there are bad marriages, there is unfortunately more pressure and I that's my anecdotal, but that's my sense that there's more violence happening.

I could assume. again, being locked up, not being able to leave, what is a family law lawyers role in domestic violence? If anything, I know it's something you generally call the police for, but does that usually lead to a divorce or separation or what else could be done in such an unfortunate situation?

it depends on what they want to do, but it's often the trigger, right? Because if, if there's an assault, and somebody calls the police and there's charge and then they're immediately separated, right? So the, the bail conditions will be making them separate. And that's often the trigger for the end of the, the end of the relationship.

and, also we might have cases where somebody comes in, who. Is in fear of their spouse and they want to separate, but they come before the separation. One of the most dangerous times in a violent marriage or a violent relationship is the actual moment of separation. That's okay. That's statistical.

I think the most likely to get killed by your spouse is the moment you say, I'm leaving you so often. We'll have people come in and they're in these relationships and they want to figure out a safe way. So we will be involved in those cases move fast. And you have to get orders quickly because you can't just leave with your children.

That would be kidnapping. So you have to. Have a plan and have a safe place to go to and maybe have an, have a very, quick, going to court, either ex party or on short notice to get initial orders, protective orders, that kind of thing. And then there's a lot of domestic violence out there and yeah.

It's often I will have clients and they don't tell me about it right away. They tell me about it months and months into the retainer, because they're not trusting, it's the impact of. The violence has on people and really shatters their self esteem. They have trouble talking about it.

And so that's an aspect of our work that we have to be able to pick up when it's there and identify it. even when they are separated, it's crucial to understand it and to protect against it, influencing the negotiations, for example, when there's violence in the background. And that's something I think I wish our judges had more, education on because any federal lawyer will tell you about that experience.

And I still see cases where the judges are saying, this person, didn't mention the violence, on the first day they issued their claim, but six months later they mentioned it. So somehow that's suspicious. It's actually not, it's actually pretty difficult. it's, you mentioned something about, lawyers not being social workers or something, but it seems like we very much are in many ways having to look through that and get the truth out of clients.

There's a big aspect of that in our work. Yes. Yes, there is. For sure. Yeah, important stuff. I always liked speaking to a specialist, so to speak such a, an expert, you've built your career in family law, and you're rated a best lawyer in a number of publications. You sit on the board of a number of family law related institutions, out of the many hundreds of other family law lawyers out there.

I always wonder, give advice to the young lawyers amongst us. How do we. Get to the best lawyer spot any, path that you could perhaps replicate and teach, young lawyers, how to make it to the top of their practice area. and every area probably has its own way forward. I think, in any area there are.

There are two, two elements you need in your career. One is, is excellence and to hold yourself to a standard of excellence, but to try to always do, The best job for the client in terms of understanding the law. And, not just telling them what the law is, that's not what the clients need.

They actually need, they need tactics and strategy. They need to have, they need a lawyer who can do that for them. And. That is one aspect, of building a successful career. And the other aspect is being able to, build a client base and people do that in different ways. but you're shining your light under a bushel if you're this wonderful lawyer, but you don't have any clients.

No. Yeah. What about you? And there are all sorts of things. One can do. there's all the marketing and everything everyone does now, but a lot of it is the clients you do have. And somehow we all start with some is really giving them good service and, and focusing on their needs, and treating them like individuals, not just running them through a mill.

I think those are the elements that are necessary to succeed in law. Would you ever feel that you're in? Absolutely. so also, keeping in mind the advice to the younger lawyer, the law student, even. if you can just expand a bit on that, what you just said, but even with the law student in mind that they, like you maybe didn't even know what they were getting themselves into and they enjoyed it.

How do you, advise a young person like that to go ahead and make the most out of their career and, build a successful, law firm or practice, whatever the case may be. You have to find a niche of practice of law that you enjoy, and different areas have different pluses and minuses.

I don't think for example, I had some exposure to criminal law when I was clerking for justice, Cory and I put in practice in that area. I. it's funny. Some people say they could do family law because it's too upsetting and emotional, and I can do that. I'm fine managing that, but I couldn't even look at the exhibits, the bloody knife or whatever.

I can't do that. So you have to find an area of law that you're comfortable practicing, that you find, intellectually satisfying. And that may take some time to find your niche. I think. I think the best thing to do, is be a listener. if you think about it in every way, you have to listen and learn from mentors.

and it's important to find, find people to mentor you. And hopefully different people with different skills so they can teach you different things, to be an effective way. Or you need to listen to your clients. You need to listen to opposing counsel need to be open to experience. I think all great advice.

is there any last words you want to share with us, fellow lawyers or law students, or anyone interested in family law? anything about you, your practice or in general, before we let you go. That's a huge one. The floor is yours last few moments to, I think, I don't know where we're, it's an old profession.

And, and I S I was lucky to start with justice, Cory, who had such a sense of the traditions. And I think that, we need to hang on to those and have some pride in being lawyers and the practice of lawyer of law. It's, it is, an important part of society, and we're not always the most popular, but.

We need to draw on our traditions. I think, in terms of values and on the other side of the coin, we need to embrace technology. So somehow we have to marry the two and it's probably not that hard. We just have to, we just have to focus on those two branches. I would say. I agree a hundred percent and I've enjoyed our discussion.

I think there's a lot of changes coming for lawyers in general, but also family law lawyers. technology is a big one. like everybody's been saying, covert and 2020 has accelerated things. many years over, I'm all for it. I like technology. And, I think marriaging those to the future and technology with the solid traditions that we have is indeed a good formula to proceed.

that's great advice. Thank you. One last question I'd like to end with. And sometimes people get stuck with it. So take your time. that is if there's a favorite quote that you have saying that is going to be displayed before thousands or millions of people, does anything come to mind that you live with that keeps you going perhaps?

I'll tell you what I have. I have a Blackboard in my kitchen and I write things on it sometimes. And what's there right now is a quote from Bob Marley. Bob Marley, the guys there. And, it's from, I think it's from redemption song. and he said, And no one, but ourselves can free our minds.

That's absolutely true. So much work that goes into having a healthy mind and healthy body. It's a daily effort that we've got to put in and that's how to be the best people and the best lawyers at the end of the day. Yeah. so that's my quote, Bob Marley. Thank you. I like my mighty big fan. That's great.

Appreciate your time, Sarah. I really thank you very much. It's been insightful. There's a lot of depths to families. Know, as we can see and a lot that goes into being a good family law lawyer. So thanks for sharing some of that insight with us. Thanks for asking me. I appreciate it. And, we look forward to seeing you on the next one, right?

Bye. For now.