Why women lawyers represent men accused of sexual crimes

By the Criminal Lawyers’ Association Women’s Committee

In response to the Hockey Canada verdicts, a familiar misogynistic refrain popped up again: why would a woman defend a man accused of sexual assault? Where are their moral compasses? How do they sleep at night?

The answer is simple. A criminal lawyer, regardless of gender, represents individuals charged with criminal offences. A criminal lawyer does not prejudge the guilt or innocence of their clients, simply because the person has been charged with a certain type of offence.

We give the state the power to take away a person’s liberty in this country. But that power is not limitless. That power comes with constitutional restraints to ensure that no innocent person is wrongfully convicted.

Every single person in this country accused of any crime is presumed to be innocent and must be found “not guilty” unless the Crown is able to convince the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence are not catch phrases or loophole defences. They are the bedrock principles of the Canadian criminal justice system.

Defence lawyers shoulder the responsibility of protecting these principles by holding the state accountable to this high burden of proof. That is our job. Our job is not, and never has been, to say that violence against women is morally or legally correct.

So how do we sleep at night?

We sleep knowing we work tirelessly to safeguard our clients’ presumption of innocence from trial by public opinion.

We sleep knowing we put forward robust defences that compel police and prosecutors to produce sound, reliable, and legally obtained evidence.

We sleep knowing that despite public rhetoric saying otherwise, we follow our well-established rules of professional conduct that curtail excessive cross-examination or abusive courtroom conduct.

In Toronto Star opinion, Why Would Female Lawyers Represent Men in Sexual Crimes?, Heather Mallick casts judgement laced with patriarchal thinking about where women should and should not be working while also suggesting that the men who hire female lawyers only do so to “hide behind their skirts” — as opposed to their talent or well-earned reputation for excellence. Ms. Mallick suggests that a man accused of sexual assault might hire a woman lawyer as a “flattering adjacency” — “the lady by your side in court and taking your side.” These words are not just patronizing. They are cartoonishly sexist. They reduce highly trained, highly competent women lawyers to skirts and set pieces — implying that their presence is decorative or tactical, rather than a testament to their skill and experience.

This isn’t a new trope. During the 2016 Ghomeshi trial, Macleans published a piece by Anne Kingston, musing that Marie Henein’s wardrobe and co-counsel’s supposed “makeover” were what won the case. The implication — then and now — is that when a woman lawyer succeeds in court, it’s because of optics, not advocacy. This isn’t legal critique –it’s  a refusal to see women as professionals.

A woman defence lawyer is not a lesser sub-set of a defence lawyer who should only take on certain cases.  She is not, as Ms. Mallik suggests, just some “friendly blonde” in a “skirt”. Nor is she “serv[ing] misogyny” by accepting the cases that her male colleagues accept routinely without question or judgment.

A woman defence lawyer is a highly trained professional who accepts and advances her ethical and professional responsibilities as a zealous advocate. She knows the law. She knows the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and understands the rules of evidence. She does not bend to uninformed public pressure from those who believe the presumption of innocence should apply differently to those charged with sexual assault. 

Let’s be clear: suggesting that woman defence lawyers “serve misogyny” by doing their jobs is not feminist. It’s paternalistic moral policing. It infantilizes women, implying that they are either too emotional to take these cases or too compromised by gender loyalty to uphold professional obligations. That’s not progress — it is regression dressed up in outrage.

Within the criminal bar, the women who defended the accused in the Hockey Canada trial are widely respected for their legal acumen. They are leaders, mentors, and role models in a profession that still struggles to retain women. That they were chosen to lead these high-profile defences is not a failure of feminism — it is a success.

We stand for due process. We stand for justice. And yes — we stand for women. We’re not apologizing for doing our jobs. We’re demanding respect for doing them well.

Comments are closed.