Insane Lawyer

Author
Discussion

eldar

21,791 posts

197 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
How can these possibly have any standing?

Surely they are just a very expensive printing service?

This suggests no standing

http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/5/Ens...

Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 5th September 21:53
No standing at allsmile I could call myself Lord Eldar of Beagleshagger if I chose, and no problem unless there was an intent to deceive.

anonymous-user

55 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
The pathetic dweeb that has inspired this thread does appear to use his fake title and fake degrees etc in an attempt to drum up business, so he ought perhaps to have his collar felt, at least to warn him off from doing that. I can't see much real public interest in prosecuting a sad fantasist. The client who chose Lord Faker to defend him on a serious charge (he was looking at his phone while driving and killed a cyclist) may regret that choice, but it sounds like the evidence against the defendant was quite damning anyway.

Qwert1e

545 posts

119 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
"If you ever appear before this court again dressed as you are I shall exercise my right to decline to hear you."

So far as I am aware Defendants are these days able to wear whatever they like in court. I see no reason why the same should not apply to the Defendant's representative.

Grumfutock

Original Poster:

5,274 posts

166 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
RULES!

Walter Sobchak

5,723 posts

225 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Increasingly, Judges in the High Court are deciding that no one will wear robes during hearings. I like those Judges! Court dress is a matter of convention and professional conduct rules, not general legal rules.

As for made up and purchased titles, they are just nonsense (but I think the same about so called real titles anyway: so what if your great great x 27 granddad was good at hitting people, who cares?).
My understanding is that the theatrical- for lack of a better word, robes have more or less been dispensed with outside of criminal law?.
Also I thought it was only Barristers who wore the robe and wigs in court?, could well be wrong though, and you're more likely to know, working in the field.

anonymous-user

55 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
Solicitors appearing as advocates in Crown Courts, County Courts and in the High Court and above wear gowns and can choose to wear wigs if they want to. The criminal lawyers seem to like robes, but most of us civil lawyers think they are stupid and we wear them quite rarely; but if the Judge wants us to wear robes we still have to at civil trials, and in the Administrative Court for judicial review hearings. It is rare to see robes being worn in commercial cases. We wear them for appeals, and in the European Courts (which look like a fancy dress parade, as every country has its own legal costume). The sooner robes are abolished the better, in my view.

dudleybloke

19,846 posts

187 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
Send him to Judge Rinder.
smile

scdan4

1,299 posts

161 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Increasingly, Judges in the High Court are deciding that no one will wear robes during hearings. I like those Judges! Court dress is a matter of convention and professional conduct rules, not general legal rules.

Thank you.

(A move in the right direction IMHO)

Quhet

2,427 posts

147 months

Saturday 6th September 2014
quotequote all


Matt?judgescratchchin

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

262 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
How can these possibly have any standing?

Surely they are just a very expensive printing service?

This suggests no standing

http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/5/Ens...
There are legitimate 'Lordships' that do come up for sale occasionally, but they are Lords of the Manor, landlords in other words. No right to collect £300 for turning up at the house of Lords. There was someone who bought into the Lordship of a patch of land that had already been split up and sold to developers, so apparently totally pointless. Then it turned out that strips of land between the newly built executive homes and the roads still belonged to the Lord, and he charged (a lot) for the laying of cables etc.

iphonedyou

9,255 posts

158 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
scdan4 said:
Thank you.

(A move in the right direction IMHO)
Why? Genuine question, but from reading your posts I got the impression it doesn't impact you directly.

anonymous-user

55 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
scdan can answer for himself, but I think that the costumes are daft. They persist only because of historical inertia.

dudleybloke

19,846 posts

187 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
Quhet said:


Matt?judgescratchchin
smile

HQ2

2,306 posts

138 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Walesonline said:
When contacted Blacker was too busy to chat.

“I’m having my tea and I won’t be talking to the press,” he said.
rofl

Silver Smudger

3,299 posts

168 months

Sunday 7th September 2014
quotequote all
Or perhaps -

Walesonline said:
When contacted Blacker was too busy to chat.

“He's having his tea and won’t be talking to nasty rude men from the press” his mum said.

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

218 months

Tuesday 9th September 2014
quotequote all
In all seriousness the guy sounds like a liability to his clients. The sad reality here is that a family grieving have had their due process turned into an ongoing circus and a man has been imprisoned for 5 years, possibly a sentence and/or conviction the result of poor advice.

The SRA have a rare opportunity to look competent, I hope they take it.

anonymous-user

55 months

Tuesday 9th September 2014
quotequote all
Blacker appears to be a sad fantasist but, as you say, the joke went sour when he got involved in a serious case.