Lawyers getting it wrong - Or not....
Discussion
I have been inspired to start this topic by the various arguments raging in the private school thread and also BV's latest (and hopefully temporary) departure from SP & L.
Presumably, even a barrister of BVs standing doesn't win every case, ergo he is 'wrong' at least some of the time? Is there a league table of lawyers? Do they keep their own stats of won/lost or even informally compete with colleagues?
BV is always telling us that the law is actually quite straightforward and fairly black and white - and reading as a layman his replies always seem to make perfect sense to me. But if this was true then 'the law' would be a binary thing and the courts wouldn't be chock full of litigators, and BV would be unable to run his Italian sheds in the manner to which he is accustomed?
Given that most questions asked on SP&L are fairly simple, then it is safe to assume that the BV/resident lawyers answers are correct - but are they ALWAYS correct? Is it necessarily a bad thing that a 'non lawyer' (yes JustinP1 I'm looking at you) challenges the view of an expert?
For the record I have every sympathy with BVs position - am just being a bit devils advocate-ish and hoping to start an interesting discussion.
Presumably, even a barrister of BVs standing doesn't win every case, ergo he is 'wrong' at least some of the time? Is there a league table of lawyers? Do they keep their own stats of won/lost or even informally compete with colleagues?
BV is always telling us that the law is actually quite straightforward and fairly black and white - and reading as a layman his replies always seem to make perfect sense to me. But if this was true then 'the law' would be a binary thing and the courts wouldn't be chock full of litigators, and BV would be unable to run his Italian sheds in the manner to which he is accustomed?
Given that most questions asked on SP&L are fairly simple, then it is safe to assume that the BV/resident lawyers answers are correct - but are they ALWAYS correct? Is it necessarily a bad thing that a 'non lawyer' (yes JustinP1 I'm looking at you) challenges the view of an expert?
For the record I have every sympathy with BVs position - am just being a bit devils advocate-ish and hoping to start an interesting discussion.
Without the input of professionals from differing fields (lawyers, barristers, police, HMRC, claims/underwriters, actuaries etc etc )there wouldn't be much point in SPL. BVs advice is brilliant, but I cant imagine he'd have been successful if he took the same attitude to paying clients as he does to those on here asking for a bit of a pointer!
Do they get it wrong? yup... approximately 50% of legal disputes are lost by someone.
Do they get it wrong? yup... approximately 50% of legal disputes are lost by someone.
Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's the standard of lawyers in NZ....
For various reasons I have been involved with number of lawyers here, one has been struck off, two have been censured by the Law Society, three have misled the court by filing paperwork full of lies - a few others have varied from very good (defending me against the police over a stolen wheel clamp), to the frankly terminally stupid. Many have just been patronisingly arrogant.
I have discovered one thing, the only figures a lawyer understands is the amount he is owed (invariably grossly inflated) - things like interest and VAT are a closed book.
I'm fighting four lawyers at the moment, all of them have have told lies to the court - I have a judicial settlement conference in November - which (to put it mildly) is going to be interesting. All four lawyers have abused their privileged position and abused the court process.
So yes, people like JP1 are essential to try and keep at least some lawyers (and the police, as they can be just as bad) honest.
(By standing up to the Police they have have withdrawn from trying to prosecute me on six separate occasions. Allegations of four speeding offences, one accident, one stolen wheel clamp).
It's good fun down under, JP1 would do very well.
For various reasons I have been involved with number of lawyers here, one has been struck off, two have been censured by the Law Society, three have misled the court by filing paperwork full of lies - a few others have varied from very good (defending me against the police over a stolen wheel clamp), to the frankly terminally stupid. Many have just been patronisingly arrogant.
I have discovered one thing, the only figures a lawyer understands is the amount he is owed (invariably grossly inflated) - things like interest and VAT are a closed book.
I'm fighting four lawyers at the moment, all of them have have told lies to the court - I have a judicial settlement conference in November - which (to put it mildly) is going to be interesting. All four lawyers have abused their privileged position and abused the court process.
So yes, people like JP1 are essential to try and keep at least some lawyers (and the police, as they can be just as bad) honest.
(By standing up to the Police they have have withdrawn from trying to prosecute me on six separate occasions. Allegations of four speeding offences, one accident, one stolen wheel clamp).
It's good fun down under, JP1 would do very well.
I work representing members in a Union.
Not big law things.
But I know how to mitigate a case and coach the member to give the right answers at a hearing.
That can be the difference between loosing their job and getting a final warning.
Same in some situations in a court, all about attitude, reading the case and pitching your case better that managements. Although very low key compared to a barrister I admit.
Not big law things.
But I know how to mitigate a case and coach the member to give the right answers at a hearing.
That can be the difference between loosing their job and getting a final warning.
Same in some situations in a court, all about attitude, reading the case and pitching your case better that managements. Although very low key compared to a barrister I admit.
surveyor said:
Currently involved in a boundary dispute where a solicitor (who is part of the dispute) is very much in the wrong, and acting in such a manner that really is very aggressive and overbearing, if not criminal. Not the first I've seen take this approach.
PS- They are also wrong.
This is an element of what I was getting at - for example in your case do you think your opponent 'knows' he is wrong, but is using his legal weight to get others to back down - or is his understanding and knowledge of the law simply better than yours - not meant to be an inflammatory question.PS- They are also wrong.
Similarly on SP&L can we always assume that a posting from a qualified professional (eg BV and others) is always right - as I said earlier they must all be wrong at least some of the time.
I would also still ike to know the answer to my initial 'league table' question.
h8tax said:
surveyor said:
Currently involved in a boundary dispute where a solicitor (who is part of the dispute) is very much in the wrong, and acting in such a manner that really is very aggressive and overbearing, if not criminal. Not the first I've seen take this approach.
PS- They are also wrong.
This is an element of what I was getting at - for example in your case do you think your opponent 'knows' he is wrong, but is using his legal weight to get others to back down - or is his understanding and knowledge of the law simply better than yours - not meant to be an inflammatory question.PS- They are also wrong.
Similarly on SP&L can we always assume that a posting from a qualified professional (eg BV and others) is always right - as I said earlier they must all be wrong at least some of the time.
I would also still ike to know the answer to my initial 'league table' question.
I also think that they are attempting to win by bullying my client and frightening her off.
h8tax said:
Given that most questions asked on SP&L are fairly simple, then it is safe to assume that the BV/resident lawyers answers are correct - but are they ALWAYS correct? Is it necessarily a bad thing that a 'non lawyer' (yes JustinP1 I'm looking at you) challenges the view of an expert?
Lawyers often make mistakes, that is why they have to maintain Professional Indemnity insurance.Worst attiude I have encountered is from a para legal who works for a large law firm representing a clamping firm I am suing. (same firm that sent a barrister on a grand a day to county court who asked for her costs against me, unfortunalty she hadnt put her claim into court within the allotted time, when I pointed this out to the judge, barrister tried to blag it, luckily judge wasnt having it).
As a profession, like all others, there will be the brilliant, good, average and not so good.
h8tax said:
I would also still ike to know the answer to my initial 'league table' question.
This is as close as you'll get to a 'league table', although it's more qualitative than quantitative (albeit win/loss ratio will count for something in the qualitative analysis).http://www.legal500.com/assets/pages/united-kingdo...
Breadvan72 is named in 3 Barista categories, meaning he is regarded as amongst the top practitioners in those fields. The other PH members involved in arguing and/or solicitation are somewhat more guarded with their identity, so we do not know whether they appear here...
h8tax said:
Given that most questions asked on SP&L are fairly simple, then it is safe to assume that the BV/resident lawyers answers are correct - but are they ALWAYS correct? Is it necessarily a bad thing that a 'non lawyer' (yes JustinP1 I'm looking at you) challenges the view of an expert?
Oh God, not me again... 
On the thread you are talking about, although I am being made the pariah on it, there are a number of posters, including a couple of lawyers who have shared my views.
I've contributed to this forum for ten years, and regard it a positive place where people can all walks of life can club together their various knowledge and experiences to help the OP if they ask for it.
I stress particular relevance to 'club together', and 'help the OP'.
I've got a lot of respect for the police who post on here, as I do for the lawyers on here. However, if someone brings up a valid point to help the OP, it doesn't matter if he is a police officer, barrister, or a fishmonger. He has a right to post. He should be judged on the quality and accuracy of what he says, not his job.
However, on the private school thread, discussion of a couple of very relevant points that the lawyer had not covered were stifled by him belittling the posters.
I think that this forum reaches a bad place when posters cannot make reasonable posts or recount their own experiences without fearing being belittled and being made a caricature of.
Edited by JustinP1 on Thursday 24th September 10:53
The law is not black and white.
Here is a very "simple" example.
15 Discrimination arising from disability
(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.
That is a statute.
Now, what is unfavourably? What about "arising in consequence"? What is a proportionate means? What is a legitimate aim? What is reasonably expected to know?
Here is a very "simple" example.
15 Discrimination arising from disability
(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.
That is a statute.
Now, what is unfavourably? What about "arising in consequence"? What is a proportionate means? What is a legitimate aim? What is reasonably expected to know?
Jasandjules said:
The law is not black and white.
Here is a very "simple" example.
15 Discrimination arising from disability
(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.
That is a statute.
Now, what is unfavourably? What about "arising in consequence"? What is a proportionate means? What is a legitimate aim? What is reasonably expected to know?
Reading statute is straightforward, if not tedious. What makes the difference is the case law....Here is a very "simple" example.
15 Discrimination arising from disability
(1)A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
(a)A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
(b)A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.
That is a statute.
Now, what is unfavourably? What about "arising in consequence"? What is a proportionate means? What is a legitimate aim? What is reasonably expected to know?
I was led to understand the law is 90% grey area, interpreted by lawyers and barristers alike, with the judiciary there to act and rule on such 'grey issue.'
I've known lawyers recommend me a barrister only to hear said barrister totally contradict all the lawyer said previously.
IMO the law is far from black and white.
I've known lawyers recommend me a barrister only to hear said barrister totally contradict all the lawyer said previously.
IMO the law is far from black and white.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff