Yuvika Johri, Partner at Neuberger & Partners, Toronto, reflects on an evolving path toward international criminal defence. Shaped by early exposure to criminal litigation in India and strengthened through legal education and practice across the United States and Canada, this conversation explores how global training, mentorship, and courtroom experience have informed a principled and compassionate approach to criminal advocacy across jurisdictions.
This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
As a dual-qualified lawyer in India and Toronto, what initially motivated you to pursue an international legal practice? Was this always part of your vision, or did it evolve over time?
I initially did not intend to pursue further studies beyond the five-year law program at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. At the time, the prospect of continuing my education felt daunting. However, during my third year of law school, I had the opportunity to work in the chambers of Adv. Satish Mane Shinde. This experience marked my first exposure to criminal law, and I found the field immediately compelling.
As my studies progressed, I gravitated increasingly toward criminal law related courses. Over time, my interest deepened into a clear desire to specialize in this area. By my fifth year of law school, I decided to apply to universities abroad.
My decision to study overseas was driven by a desire to challenge myself personally and professionally. It represented an entirely different way of life and learning. I was introduced to new pedagogical approaches, including the Socratic method, and had the opportunity to engage with individuals from diverse cultural and legal backgrounds. Many of my close friends today are lawyers and judges practicing in different countries, and I believe I was ultimately seeking a more holistic legal and life experience.
In the formative years of your career in India, what experiences laid the groundwork for your transition into international practice, particularly in criminal law?
While working with senior lawyers in India, I was exposed to a wide range of criminal matters rather than a narrow subset of offences. My experience spanned white-collar crime, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual offences. I assisted in representing both large corporations and individuals facing criminal charges. Each client came with a unique background and story, and I found criminal law to be a deeply humanizing area of practice.
Meeting individuals who were wrongfully accused or who had simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time left a lasting impression on me. These experiences shaped my perspective and reinforced my commitment to criminal defence.
When I later moved to the United States, I did so with a strong sense of purpose. I was not starting from a blank slate. I already knew the kind of lawyer I wanted to become. The mentorship I received in India played a significant role in shaping that clarity. The question for me was no longer whether I wanted to practice criminal defence, but how to become a good criminal defence lawyer.
Several factors contributed to my success. I was highly motivated and eager to learn, and I consistently sought out opportunities to work with lawyers whenever possible. Early exposure to serious and complex criminal matters allowed me to remain open-minded and adaptable in my practice. For instance, a significant portion of my current work involves defending individuals charged with sexual assault. This is an area I was already familiar with from my early career in India.
Additionally, I had been attending court regularly since my third year of law school, shadowing lawyers during trials and motion hearings. As a result, the transition into practice abroad felt far less abrupt.
When you transitioned to the U.S. as a Research Associate, how did you navigate differences in legal systems and procedural frameworks?
The transition was challenging and involved a steep learning curve. My LLM program at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities was instrumental in helping me develop strong research skills and understand the complexities of the U.S. legal system, particularly its multi-jurisdictional structure.
Unlike India and Canada, criminal law in the United States is largely governed at the state level, resulting in significant variation from one state to another. Each state has its own trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and Supreme Court. In parallel, there is the federal system, which includes district courts, circuit Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court, with federal crimes pursued by agencies such as the FBI and DEA.
I studied in Minnesota and later worked in California and Texas, where procedural practices differed significantly. Even legal citation standards varied from the Bluebook to the Greenbook. While initially overwhelming, mentorship played a critical role during this period. Having senior lawyers to consult made a substantial difference.
Going through these challenges strengthened my research abilities considerably. Understanding foundational principles became essential, particularly distinguishing between state crimes such as assault or sexual offences, and federal crimes involving interstate activity or federal jurisdiction.
How did your experiences as a Legal Fellow with the Office of the Public Defender in Atlanta and as a Research Associate at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles shape your understanding of justice?
Both roles profoundly influenced my approach to criminal defence. At the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, I worked on a project addressing the use of solitary confinement in California prisons. This involved examining the psychological and constitutional implications of prolonged isolation, including anxiety, self-harm, and long-term mental health deterioration. As a criminal defence lawyer, these realities are deeply relevant, and much of my work focused on the policy and constitutional aspects of such practices.
Later, at the Office of the Public Defender in Atlanta, I was directly involved in courtroom litigation, including client meetings, motion drafting, trial preparation, and second-chairing murder trials. Working with low-income clients exposed me to systemic issues such as poverty, homelessness, and longstanding inequities within the criminal justice system. Spending time with clients in the Fulton County Jail, Atlanta, and witnessing heartbreaking courtroom moments reinforced the importance of zealous and compassionate advocacy.
Together, these experiences gave me a holistic understanding of justice, both at the individual level, and within broader systemic frameworks.
How did observing litigation from a judge’s perspective during your clerkship influence your advocacy today?
Clerking provided invaluable insight into how judges perceive cases. Judges observe not only written submissions but also counsel’s conduct toward court staff, clerks, and court reporters. They prepare thoroughly for hearings and appreciate well-prepared, professional advocacy.
As lawyers, we are officers of the court, and our role is to assist the court in reaching just outcomes. Judges value concise, well-written submissions provided in advance. Additionally, judges observe lawyers beyond the courtroom, including through professional social media platforms, which underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism at all times.
How do you compare criminal law practice in Canada and the United States?
Sentencing is one of the most significant differences. While sentencing is individualized in both jurisdictions, it is generally harsher in the United States. Some U.S. states retain the death penalty, which has been abolished in Canada.
Substantively, criminal law is similar across jurisdictions, but procedural differences are notable. For example, in the U.S., arraignment occurs early in the process, and accused persons are asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. In Canada, arraignment typically occurs on the trial date. Jury trials are also far more common in the United States, with additional mechanisms such as grand juries. In Canada, jury trials are available primarily when the Crown proceeds by indictment.
Another distinction is the use of polygraph evidence. In Atlanta, I saw cases where charges were withdrawn following polygraph results, something that is not accepted in Canada, where such evidence is considered unreliable.
Charter applications also differ. In Canada, even where a rights violation is established, the court must assess whether the violation was prejudicial before granting a remedy. However, this is not the case in the United States.
How has your global legal education informed your current practice?
Although I do not engage in cross-jurisdictional practice and currently practice exclusively in Ontario, my international education required adaptability and reinforced my understanding of common law principles. While there are shared foundations across jurisdictions, the differences are equally instructive and have shaped my approach to advocacy.
What advice would you give to aspiring lawyers seeking an international criminal defence career?
Students should first decide whether an LLM or a JD aligns with their goals. I chose the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities for its criminal law specialization and selected courses that balanced theory with practical application, including a jury trial simulation course.
I later pursued a JD because I wanted deeper, more rigorous training. This was a decision that I am grateful for, given the intensity and breadth of the program.
Young lawyers should focus on mastering the basics, never stop learning, seek mentorship, and engage in continuing education. Identifying a niche within criminal law such as sexual assault, domestic violence, DUI, or firearms offences can also be beneficial.
Networking is especially important for foreign-trained lawyers. Punctuality, professionalism, and initiative matter greatly. If opportunities do not exist, create them. I completed multiple internships during my studies, which allowed me to gain hands-on experience and build meaningful professional relationships.
How do you maintain balance while handling emotionally demanding criminal cases?
Maintaining balance is essential. My dogs, painting, and cooking provide important outlets outside of work. I also enjoy strength training which helps with my mental and physical health. I am fortunate to have a strong support system, including family and spousal support. Supportive colleagues and fellow lawyers also play a crucial role. Burnout is real, and acknowledging the emotional toll of this work is vital to sustaining a long-term career in criminal defence.
Get in touch with Yuvika Johri –
