Discussion
Mrr T said:
I disagree. Just because the lawyers for the child's parents worked pro bono does not mean they will not earn kudos for their work.
They have dragged the case back and forth to the court presenting evidence which had little medical substance and ignoring evidence which did. In this they have caused pain to many including the child.
They will escape sanction by the law society because they will argue they where representing the wishes of the parents. Note what I have just said they where representing the parents not the child.
Since they are representing the parents they will argue they can present the parents demands to the court even if they have no validity.
They can therefore absolve themselves of any responsibility for the pain and distress they have caused to others.
I would have no problem with their attitude if this was not a case where others including a young child are involved. In most cases so long as you have advised your client they have minimal chance of success but they still wish to continue a lawyer is perfectly entitled to proceed with a case. In this case the lawyers should have researched the medical details and advised the parents the case did not stand a chance. If the parents still wanted to proceed they should have resigned because of the potential pain to the child while the case continued. They choose not to take the moral high ground because they will gain kudos from the case. That defines scum to me.
Two more points. Firstly there was no point of law being argued in this case. Secondly the lawyers for GOSH hospital will not have worked pro bono. So the case will have cost the NHS (you and me) a lot of money which would been better spent on patients.
Your post suggests you don't properly understand the lawyer/client relationship.They have dragged the case back and forth to the court presenting evidence which had little medical substance and ignoring evidence which did. In this they have caused pain to many including the child.
They will escape sanction by the law society because they will argue they where representing the wishes of the parents. Note what I have just said they where representing the parents not the child.
Since they are representing the parents they will argue they can present the parents demands to the court even if they have no validity.
They can therefore absolve themselves of any responsibility for the pain and distress they have caused to others.
I would have no problem with their attitude if this was not a case where others including a young child are involved. In most cases so long as you have advised your client they have minimal chance of success but they still wish to continue a lawyer is perfectly entitled to proceed with a case. In this case the lawyers should have researched the medical details and advised the parents the case did not stand a chance. If the parents still wanted to proceed they should have resigned because of the potential pain to the child while the case continued. They choose not to take the moral high ground because they will gain kudos from the case. That defines scum to me.
Two more points. Firstly there was no point of law being argued in this case. Secondly the lawyers for GOSH hospital will not have worked pro bono. So the case will have cost the NHS (you and me) a lot of money which would been better spent on patients.
Lawyers don't tell the client what to do, it's the other way around. Lawyers use the tools at their disposal to achieve the client's objective.
Sadly this has been a desperate case. Not due to lawyers or the involvement of the press, but a rare condition and a little boy who isn't destined for this world.
Being a parent with young children, I can empathise with the parents here. If I thought there was a glimmer of hope, I'd push like hell. However, emotionally motivated clients are not always going to be the most objective. This case, due to the publicity and intensity of the court activity, only highlights this.
To use this case, where the wishes of the parents against the views of GOSH meant court was inevitable, to bash lawyers, representing their clients for free, seems crass and unnecessary.
janesmith1950 said:
Your post suggests you don't properly understand the lawyer/client relationship.
Lawyers don't tell the client what to do, it's the other way around. Lawyers use the tools at their disposal to achieve the client's objective.
Please read my post again. I never suggested a lawyer can tell a client what to do. They are however required to explain the legal position to their client. In this case the advise should have been the chances of success where zero both medically and legally. If the client still instructs the lawyer to proceed with the case the lawyer is perfectly entitled to resign. Failure to do so in this case makes the lawyers scum, in my view.Lawyers don't tell the client what to do, it's the other way around. Lawyers use the tools at their disposal to achieve the client's objective.
janesmith1950 said:
Being a parent with young children, I can empathise with the parents here. If I thought there was a glimmer of hope, I'd push like hell. However, emotionally motivated clients are not always going to be the most objective. This case, due to the publicity and intensity of the court activity, only highlights this.
To use this case, where the wishes of the parents against the views of GOSH meant court was inevitable, to bash lawyers, representing their clients for free, seems crass and unnecessary.
The law in this instance is clear and was never challenged in court. The duty of the medical staff is to act in the interest of the child. For this the medical staff spend years in medical school, then progress though experience to become consultants. The hospital also consulted external experts. All said there was no hope and continued treatment would cause pain. The parents with no medical knowledge and only the support of one US doctor who did not initially even review the medical file, decided to challenge the medical treatment.To use this case, where the wishes of the parents against the views of GOSH meant court was inevitable, to bash lawyers, representing their clients for free, seems crass and unnecessary.
The lawyers should have advised the parents not to proceed and if they did not agree should have resigned.
My guess this case will have cost GOSH many thousands of pounds. In my view the parents lawyers should be required to reimburse the NHS (you and me) for these costs.
Mrr T said:
janesmith1950 said:
Your post suggests you don't properly understand the lawyer/client relationship.
Lawyers don't tell the client what to do, it's the other way around. Lawyers use the tools at their disposal to achieve the client's objective.
Please read my post again. I never suggested a lawyer can tell a client what to do. They are however required to explain the legal position to their client. In this case the advise should have been the chances of success where zero both medically and legally. If the client still instructs the lawyer to proceed with the case the lawyer is perfectly entitled to resign. Failure to do so in this case makes the lawyers scum, in my view.Lawyers don't tell the client what to do, it's the other way around. Lawyers use the tools at their disposal to achieve the client's objective.
Indeed. The parents have the right to go through the legal processes to ensure the law is being correctly applied. A rather important fundamental part of our democracy, I'd say.
It's also very easy to see, with clarity, an outcome in hindsight.
The idea that every lawyer will withdraw based on their assessment of the case before going to a court essentially changes their role to judge and jury (where there is one). Just because specific case law, for example, isn't being defined doesn't mean the law can't be progressed or there won't be things highlighted during the proceedings that may result in improvements.
Why stop there? Why not extrapolate the 'logic'?
There are loads of defence lawyers who'll receive a prosecution file in criminal courts who'll know there is pretty much no hope that the accused they're representing will not be found guilty. Why don't they withdraw? After all, the CPS cost the public money.
It's also very easy to see, with clarity, an outcome in hindsight.
The idea that every lawyer will withdraw based on their assessment of the case before going to a court essentially changes their role to judge and jury (where there is one). Just because specific case law, for example, isn't being defined doesn't mean the law can't be progressed or there won't be things highlighted during the proceedings that may result in improvements.
Why stop there? Why not extrapolate the 'logic'?
There are loads of defence lawyers who'll receive a prosecution file in criminal courts who'll know there is pretty much no hope that the accused they're representing will not be found guilty. Why don't they withdraw? After all, the CPS cost the public money.
Luther Blissett said:
The American media coverage of this case has been utterly nauseating, and by the looks of things primarily aimed at turning their population away from universal healthcare.
Agreed. As with a lot of things in the US, it has to be watered-down and polarised as a simplistic 'left' and 'right' issue.
Obviously it has nothing to do with the healthcare system. It's the law which is relevant.
Although I am not familiar, I doubt the US system allows parents to do exactly what they want, regardless of the detriment to the child or how well the parents intentions are.
rscott said:
So the parents legal team should have resigned, leaving the parents without any legal advice (and no access to legal aid to pay for it elsewhere) at an incredibly difficult time? That'd do far more harm to the reputation of the lawyers than anything they've done so far.
They can continue to give legal advise. They would just resign if the parent instructions where to pursue a case they cannot win.It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
Mrr T said:
rscott said:
So the parents legal team should have resigned, leaving the parents without any legal advice (and no access to legal aid to pay for it elsewhere) at an incredibly difficult time? That'd do far more harm to the reputation of the lawyers than anything they've done so far.
They can continue to give legal advise. They would just resign if the parent instructions where to pursue a case they cannot win.It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
Mrr T said:
It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
It is. It's morally right to facilitate the fundamental right an individual has to ensure the state is applying the law (proposing to end the life of a child, no less) in the correct and just way. The risks involved with having legal counsel pick and choose whether to represent based on their assessment as to the probability of success obviously has serious implications.
La Liga said:
Indeed. The parents have the right to go through the legal processes to ensure the law is being correctly applied. A rather important fundamental part of our democracy, I'd say.
It's also very easy to see, with clarity, an outcome in hindsight.
The idea that every lawyer will withdraw based on their assessment of the case before going to a court essentially changes their role to judge and jury (where there is one). Just because specific case law, for example, isn't being defined doesn't mean the law can't be progressed or there won't be things highlighted during the proceedings that may result in improvements.
Why stop there? Why not extrapolate the 'logic'?
There are loads of defence lawyers who'll receive a prosecution file in criminal courts who'll know there is pretty much no hope that the accused they're representing will not be found guilty. Why don't they withdraw? After all, the CPS cost the public money.
Please re-read my post. It's also very easy to see, with clarity, an outcome in hindsight.
The idea that every lawyer will withdraw based on their assessment of the case before going to a court essentially changes their role to judge and jury (where there is one). Just because specific case law, for example, isn't being defined doesn't mean the law can't be progressed or there won't be things highlighted during the proceedings that may result in improvements.
Why stop there? Why not extrapolate the 'logic'?
There are loads of defence lawyers who'll receive a prosecution file in criminal courts who'll know there is pretty much no hope that the accused they're representing will not be found guilty. Why don't they withdraw? After all, the CPS cost the public money.
1. The case was not about legal rights. The relevant law was never challenged in court. The case was about whether snake oil treatment should replace medical advice.
2. I never said a lawyer should always refuse to take a case to court where they cannot win but the client instructions are to continue. In most cases the only loser is the clients pocket. In this case others including a very sick child who is in pain are involved.
3. As an aside the issue above can also occur where one party can use a case to punish the other. This can be a serious issue and one the legal profession ignore.
4. This was not a criminal case where other considerations apply.
4x4Tyke said:
Interesting, also that doesn't hold up when they are doing the work Pro-Bono, that puts the lawyer in the driving seat. They could and should have withdraw. They have there own agenda and it is probably self promotion.
This.I'm no legal expert, but on so many occasions, the lawyers are those that at worst, come away totally unscathed, & at best, financially enriched.
I'm angry in that it appears the parents have been put through hell, on the premise that everything will seemingly work out fine for their child. Clearly this has not occurred; surely the legal team could foresee the outcome long before this stage in proceedings?
I apologise for the language used in my previous post, but I do not have much time for lawyers.
Very interesting comment by a retired judge about this case ( https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/07/25/8469/#more-84... ) . It's amazing to read that the judge in this case has only been a High Court judge for less than a year, given the way he's handled this case with great dignity, respect and openness.
Mrr T said:
They can continue to give legal advise. They would just resign if the parent instructions where to pursue a case they cannot win.
It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
Please stop using 'where' instead of 'were', it dramatically undermines any credibility that your argument may have.It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
At first I thought it was a typo but you keep doing it.
La Liga said:
Luther Blissett said:
The American media coverage of this case has been utterly nauseating, and by the looks of things primarily aimed at turning their population away from universal healthcare.
Agreed. As with a lot of things in the US, it has to be watered-down and polarised as a simplistic 'left' and 'right' issue.
Obviously it has nothing to do with the healthcare system. It's the law which is relevant.
Although I am not familiar, I doubt the US system allows parents to do exactly what they want, regardless of the detriment to the child or how well the parents intentions are.
The type that makes these comments also tend to get pissy when you ask them to explain their understanding of a genetic condition that affects the respiratory pathway (many assume you mean breathing....) or point put that the US kills a city the size of Miami every decade due to not having medical insurance.
They really hate being reminded they have some of the worse child mortality in the developed world, and they operate a 'for profit death panel' model.
I assume, as in the UK, there is a similar correlation between loudmouth twitter/facebookers and idiocy though
La Liga said:
t is. It's morally right to facilitate the fundamental right an individual has to ensure the state is applying the law (proposing to end the life of a child, no less) in the correct and just way.
The risks involved with having legal counsel pick and choose whether to represent based on their assessment as to the probability of success obviously has serious implications.
Let me repeat this again the case did not deal with the rights of the parents or the medical profession. This is well established in law and I doubt the court would have consider any challenge. The case was about snake oil treatment.The risks involved with having legal counsel pick and choose whether to represent based on their assessment as to the probability of success obviously has serious implications.
The fact this case was about the life and pain of a 3rd party to the case makes the attitude of the parents lawyer indefensible.
langtounlad said:
Mrr T said:
They can continue to give legal advise. They would just resign if the parent instructions where to pursue a case they cannot win.
It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
Please stop using 'where' instead of 'were', it dramatically undermines any credibility that your argument may have.It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
At first I thought it was a typo but you keep doing it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
langtounlad said:
Mrr T said:
They can continue to give legal advise. They would just resign if the parent instructions where to pursue a case they cannot win.
It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
Please stop using 'where' instead of 'were', it dramatically undermines any credibility that your argument may have.It might effect their reputation on FB and mumsnet but being a lawyer is not about popularity in this case it's about what is morally right.
At first I thought it was a typo but you keep doing it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff