780-686-7948

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-686-7948

Call Us Today!

Contact Us
logo
mobile logo
 

lawyer

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > lawyer
17 February
0 Comments
Sticky

The Best Criminal Lawyer in Edmonton

Posted by Rory
in best lawyer in edmonton, criminal lawyer edmonton, lawyer

(a guide to choosing the best criminal lawyer)

“I’m not the greatest. I’m the double greatest. Not only do I knock ’em out, I pick the round. I’m the boldest, the prettiest, the most superior, most scientific, most skillfullest fighter in the ring today.”

Mohammed Ali

Mohammed Ali’s positive attitude and confidence was infectious. He also had the record to back up his big talk. In a system like boxing or baseball where ‘wins’ and ‘losses’ are easy to tally, a claim of being the greatest is verifiable.

What does it mean to be “the best” lawyer? By whose standards? Here are some factors to consider when choosing to hire the best lawyer. 

Hard Work Beats Talent Every Time

I used to tell my son when he was growing up (he was a good hockey player and I am a proud father) “hard work beats talent every time”. This motto is a philosophy I hold true.  

The Best Criminal Lawyers are the ones who work the hardest. It’s really not that complicated. 

You have to work hard to achieve results. Some people and maybe even some lawyers think that justice is just the set point. That justice just happens. It doesn’t. If that were true, we wouldn’t need criminal lawyers. The Crown could just give the facts to the judge and the judge would make the right decision.  You have to fight for justice at every step. In my experience – justice seldom “just happens”. 

What is a Win?

Anyone looking to hire “the best” lawyer should have an understanding of what “the best” means. The law is not a finite game like boxing or baseball. Cases are complex, unpredictable and there is a real human aspect to it all. What is important to one client may not be important to another. 

Measuring “a win” in criminal law is not so easy. If someone is charged with murder and you are able to get the charge reduced to manslaughter, is that a win? What if you are successful because the Prosecutor was incompetent or made a mistake? Is that a win? What if you lose at trial but win on appeal? What if you win at trial but lose on appeal? 

Defining “a win” is context specific. It ‘s like playing the cards dealt. The question to ask is how well does the lawyer you hire play the cards he or she is dealt on a consistent basis? 

A win is doing the best you can with what you have. Look for a lawyer who leaves no stone unturned, is up to date with the law, who doesn’t worry about what others think of him or her. Sometimes you need to be brave to make the hard arguments. A lawyer who is too cautious in litigation often loses by default. 

The best criminal defence lawyers are creative, hard working and enthusiastic about their work. This usually translates into “wins”. 

Experience isn’t everything

My principal, the person who trained me in my first year of being a lawyer-article student, told me when I first started practising that it takes about 10 years to feel comfortable in the court room. Generally, I would have to agree with his observation. This however does not mean that less experienced lawyers cannot get the job done.

In fact, I would take a young lawyer who knows the law, is eager to make a name for himself, who is passionate about his work, conscientious, caring and committed to the client any day over an experienced lawyer who thinks he knows it all because he has seen it all and views the work more as a chore than a calling. 

Don’t get me wrong; there is no substitute for experience, but there is also no substitute for knowing the facts of your file inside and out, being up do date with the law, new legal trends and what goes on in the court house day in and day out. 

It is often the younger lawyer who has an eye on these important things. Do not hire on experience alone. You need to gauge whether the lawyer you hire is engaged in the process and is passionate about his/her work. 

Personality 

Some clients need more reassurance than others. Not every lawyer is willing to engage in this type of relationship. Genuine empathy is generally a good quality for a lawyer to have but not mandatory. It’s important that both parties know each others’ exceptions at the outset. 

Communication

Make sure the lawyer you hire is prompt in responding to emails and phone calls. This is key.

The Best Criminal Lawyers don’t need to say they are the best

The best criminal lawyers don’t need to say they are the best. Their results, reputation, referrals (repeat business) is proof enough. Take the time to read a lawyers reviews and case decisions. 

Price

“The best lawyers charge the most.” No. No. No. This is completely wrong. Many good lawyers choose to charge prices that are lower than lawyers who are not of the same quality. I’ve seen very good lawyers, maybe some of the best, do exceptional work for a fraction of the price of lawyers who think they are the best. Do not be fooled by the price a lawyer charges.   

20 April
0 Comments
Sticky

Rory Ziv: Top 3 DUI Lawyers in Edmonton, AB

Posted by pantelis
in dui, Impaired Driving, lawyer, ziv
Rory Ziv Top Dui Lawyer

This year, Rory Ziv has been selected as one of the top 3 DUI lawyers in Edmonton Alberta by Three Best Rated® (CANADA). He is proud and extremely honoured to have been selected as one the top 3 local DUI lawyers in Edmonton because, for decades, Rory Ziv has been diligently representing individuals from all walks of life who have been facing DUI charges. 

An Impartial Evaluation

This ward is a true honour because Three Best Rated® (CANADA) aims to find the top 3 local DUI lawyers by conducting thorough checks and reviews of prospective candidates. They conduct a 50-Point Inspection which includes business’s reviews, history, complaints, ratings, nearness, satisfaction, trust, cost, general excellence, and reputation. Most importantly those awarded do not pay Three Best Rated® to list them. The award-winners are listed for free because as they say “…if you can pay to list, then is it really the best business? No Pay to Play!”

Best Dui lawyers in Edmonton

Rory Ziv is excited to be among the Top 3 local DUI lawyers in Edmonton since the years of hard work he has spent defending individuals charged with impaired driving offences have been recognized not only by his clients but also but an impartial third party. 

What Makes Rory Ziv The Right Choice For You

As the founding and managing partner of Ziv Law Group, Rory Ziv is a highly sought-after DUI and criminal trial attorney. He is well-known for his extensive preparation, attention to detail and considerable knowledge of the provincial and federal criminal code. However, what characterizes Rory Ziv as a top DUI and criminal lawyer is his relentless, unshakeable and passionate advocacy on behalf of his clients.

Rory Ziv has always known that being charged with DUI can be intimidating, that is why he carefully assesses the case against his clients and works with them to obtain the best possible result available, whether that is a withdrawal of the charge, a reduction at sentencing or even a full acquittal at trial.

If you are ever charged with DUI or any other criminal offence, it is important to call our office as soon as possible at 780-686-7948 because you deserve the best defence possible!

15 April
0 Comments
Sticky

NEW MARIJUANA AND DUI LAW

Posted by Rory
in Charter Rights, Defences, dui, lawyer, lawyer edmonton, search or seizure, Search Warrants

NEW MARIJUANA AND DUI LAW Sucking and Blowing

Two new bills were proposed by the government of Canada this week. The new marijuana bill which legalizes possession of 30g or four marijuana plants and new impaired driving legislation.

The link for the new marijuana bill is here:

The link for the new impaired driving link is here:

The Marijuana Bill

I can’t help but to notice that the new marijuana bill is – confusing. Confusing not because its badly worded, structured or illogical but because it sends a conflicting message:

The purpose of the act is set out in section 7 which states:

The Act’s purpose is to “protect public health and public safety” by restricting its access (especially to children), deterring illegal activities associated with cannabis, while at the same time, relieving the burden it places on the criminal justice system and providing access to quality controlled products.

In the same breath, the government is underscoring that marijuana is dangerous “to protect public health and safety” yet advocating for its access.

I’m not advocating a position on marijuana. I’m only highlighting the apparent contrast in the new Act.

The Impaired Driving Bill

I read in a newspaper piece that stated that impaired driving laws have “softened” because of “high priced lawyers” are finding “loopholes”.  Without commenting more on this naïve perspective of the role of criminal defence lawyers, my reading of the new Act (which seems to be cut and paste) of our previous Government’s work (which was not enacted because of the regime change at the last election) the new Act is certainly going to test our relationship as individuals with our government.

One of the glaring new sections 320.27(2) authorizes a peace officer to demand a sample of your breath without any grounds whatsoever to believe you have any alcohol in your body.

This is going to create a significant amount of DUI litigation.   To begin, people don’t like to be told what to do and now we are going to force them to provide a sample of their breath when they have done nothing wrong.

What I find interesting is there has been a push to cease DUI litigation with alternative provincial administrative type enforcement. In British Columbia for example, DUI cases are no longer prosecuted (with some exceptions) because the Provincial government has found other more cost effective ways to deter and punish people for impaired driving. This new legislation coupled with the legalization of marijuana is going to reverse the progressive steps taken in jurisdictions like British Columbia.

Since the legalization of marijuana is coupled with get tough on crime and impaired driving initiatives, I can’t help to feel like the Government is sucking and blowing. We may have taken one step forward by legalizing marijuana but I wonder if we have also taken two steps back?

16 July
0 Comments
Sticky

Eyewitness Identification

Posted by Rory
in best lawyer in edmonton, criminal lawyer edmonton, Eyewitness Identification, Jury instruction, lawyer, lawyer edmonton, Murder, ziv

R. v. Bailey, 2016 ONCA 516, is an interesting case from the Ontario Court of Appeal on the perils of Eyewitness Identification.

Background

Bailey was charged with first degree murder during an attempted robbery. The mother of his victim identified him in court 2 ½ years after the alleged incident. Moreover, there was suggestion that the identification was improper because at other points in the criminal proceedings, most notably in the preliminary inquiry, the mother had testified that she was unable to identify the offender. The case involves an appeal of a conviction from the jury at trial, on the primary ground that the trial judge’s instruction on Eyewitness Identification was misdirection resulting in reversible error.

Analysis

The Ontario Court of Appeal finds in favour of the Appellant. The Court finds that it is not enough that a trial judge give model instructions regarding Eyewitness Identification. Instead, the instructions must be tailor made to reflect the particular situation before the jury. In this case, the Court found that it was not enough that the Judge urged the jury to give the Eyewitness Identification little weight and warned that it would be dangerous to rely on the Eyewitness Identification.

Instead, the Court ruled that in this case, the trial judge should have warned of specific dangers of the Eyewitness Identification evidence. These included the temporal gap in the original incident and the in court identification, earlier testimony by the victim’s mother that she was unable to identify the assailants, as well as the questionable nature of her claim that she was able to identify the appellant because she recognized his forehead.

There were other grounds of appeal in this case that the Court did not significantly address. On the question of whether the jury instruction regarding the “Jailhouse Informant” or the Vetrovec Instruction was proper, the Court reserves its verdict, finding it unnecessary to decide the appeal on this ground. Rather bizarrely, the Court goes on to suggest that the instruction was proper, and if anything if the instruction had been more “proper”, i.e. if the specific circumstances of the witness had been mentioned in this particular case it would have become clear that the dangers typically associated with jailhouse informants were less at play here, the jury would have been more likely to find against the Appellant.

This raises the question of whether the Court is suggesting that in situations unfavourable to the accused, instructions given to the jury regarding witness testimony may not need to be as context driven as in situations unfavourable to the accused.

On the Appellant’s suggestion that Crown Counsel’s closing comment, whereby it was pointed out that the Appellant did not introduce testimony from his friends or family for the purposes of alibi, had the effect of shifting the burden of proof and was improper, the Court notes that it does not think the comment was improper, and if it was it was significantly tempered by the Trial judge’s suggestion that the burden of proof rested at all times with the Crown.