Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:36 pm  

Mind you alot of experienced lawyers in other fields, where they charge significant amounts, are not the most practical of people. Recently Mrs D and I were forced by our expereienced barrister to have a conference the day before a scheduled hearing even though we said we did not want one. Not only that we were required to stump up a couple of grand for the privilege of attending for an hour when in our view it was pointless given the volume of papers Mrs D had provided. Anyway, the main purpose of the conference seemed to be that the barrister thought the case was very complicated and to effectively tell us we'd probably lose; and in view of the complexity it was hard to know how to approach it - in fact barrister seemed to have no idea. Just what you want to hear after months of paying professional fees costing tens of thousands! I just said, rather forcefully, it's very simple we just argue "......" Barrister ran with that argument. We got a favourable judgement. Judgement ran to many pages (longest the team had ever seen in such a case), seemingly to close off every possible avenue of appeal to the other side. SI have since learned the solicitor and barrister have run my line successfully in other cases (and won). Why could I see the crux of the matter in 30 seconds of getting vexed off when the lawyers had spent months and couldn't. Mrs D had prepared the case from our end so I had little prior knowledge. Makes you laugh (or cry when you're paying) the level of expertise! Years of experience in dealing with London solicitors via work haven't overwhelmed me with confidence either!

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:39 pm  

Yes, Mrs D visits Aldi for certain products. Mind you, that could be because of her propensity to give our cash to the legal profession!

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:45 pm  

Dally wrote:

Mind you alot of experienced lawyers in other fields, where they charge significant amounts, are not the most practical of people. Recently Mrs D and I were forced by our expereienced barrister to have a conference the day before a scheduled hearing even though we said we did not want one. Not only that we were required to stump up a couple of grand for the privilege of attending for an hour when in our view it was pointless given the volume of papers Mrs D had provided. Anyway, the main purpose of the conference seemed to be that the barrister thought the case was very complicated and to effectively tell us we'd probably lose; and in view of the complexity it was hard to know how to approach it - in fact barrister seemed to have no idea. Just what you want to hear after months of paying professional fees costing tens of thousands! I just said, rather forcefully, it's very simple we just argue "......" Barrister ran with that argument. We got a favourable judgement. Judgement ran to many pages (longest the team had ever seen in such a case), seemingly to close off every possible avenue of appeal to the other side. SI have since learned the solicitor and barrister have run my line successfully in other cases (and won). Why could I see the crux of the matter in 30 seconds of getting vexed off when the lawyers had spent months and couldn't. Mrs D had prepared the case from our end so I had little prior knowledge. Makes you laugh (or cry when you're paying) the level of expertise! Years of experience in dealing with London solicitors via work haven't overwhelmed me with confidence either!

How much did it cost you, and did you challenge the bill on these grounds? Another thing most people don't know is that you can challenge any legal bill in various ways, including ultimately having a judge pore over every single piece of paper in the file if you want, and deciding whether the charge should have been made, or is fair or reasonable.

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

How much did it cost you, and did you challenge the bill on these grounds? Another thing most people don't know is that you can challenge any legal bill in various ways, including ultimately having a judge pore over every single piece of paper in the file if you want, and deciding whether the charge should have been made, or is fair or reasonable.

We paid our solicitor for his and the barristers fees (which is quite normal). Our first hearing was actually adjourned due to inadequate preparation - really by the other side, but in their absence our solicitors should have dealt with it all. Sadly, despite Mrs D emailing them 2 months beforehand asking about liaison with the other side they didn't - a junior rather than our main man seemingly being the issue. Consequently, we had to pay all the experts witnesses for a second day and the barrister for a second day notwithstanding the first time lasting minutes. I told Mrs D NOT to pay for the second hearing (or certainly not in full) but as she likes the solicitors and she went ahead without me knowing! I was prepared to query the charges / formally complain in the circumstances.

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:10 pm  

Dally wrote:

Mind you alot of experienced lawyers in other fields, where they charge significant amounts, are not the most practical of people. Recently Mrs D and I were forced by our expereienced barrister to have a conference the day before a scheduled hearing even though we said we did not want one. Not only that we were required to stump up a couple of grand for the privilege of attending for an hour when in our view it was pointless given the volume of papers Mrs D had provided. Anyway, the main purpose of the conference seemed to be that the barrister thought the case was very complicated and to effectively tell us we'd probably lose; and in view of the complexity it was hard to know how to approach it - in fact barrister seemed to have no idea. Just what you want to hear after months of paying professional fees costing tens of thousands! I just said, rather forcefully, it's very simple we just argue "......" Barrister ran with that argument. We got a favourable judgement. Judgement ran to many pages (longest the team had ever seen in such a case), seemingly to close off every possible avenue of appeal to the other side. SI have since learned the solicitor and barrister have run my line successfully in other cases (and won). Why could I see the crux of the matter in 30 seconds of getting vexed off when the lawyers had spent months and couldn't. Mrs D had prepared the case from our end so I had little prior knowledge. Makes you laugh (or cry when you're paying) the level of expertise! Years of experience in dealing with London solicitors via work haven't overwhelmed me with confidence either!

I know that talking crap is your usual MO, but this post surpasses your normal standards by some distance.

I mean, you're seriously expecting us to believe that both your experienced solicitor and your equally (if not more) experienced barrister were at a loss as to how to argue your case, and you got to the heart of it in a single statement? Not only that, but your previously unconsidered argument was so compelling that they employed it successfully for subsequent cases as well? Deary me!

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:24 pm  

It's also surprising that if you won, you still paid your own costs. The normal rule is "loser pays".

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:55 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

This situation reminds me of a scene from (I think) one of the Rush Hour films where Chris Rock is reading a suspect his rights:

"You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, we will provide you with the dumbest fxcking lawyer on Earth."

I believe it was from that classic, Lethal Weapon 4. The worst, least funny and least Lethal of all the Weapons. It's release was the day I began to hate Mel Gibson.

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:07 pm  

Him wrote:

I believe it was from that classic, Lethal Weapon 4. The worst, least funny and least Lethal of all the Weapons. It's release was the day I began to hate Mel Gibson.

In that case it would have been Chris Tucker, and not Chris Rock. Is this what the kids refer to as an 'epic fail'?

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:36 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

It's also surprising that if you won, you still paid your own costs. The normal rule is "loser pays".

Not at Tribunals.

Re: Dismantling of the justice system : Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:11 am  

The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?

The new face of criminal defence work: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... etent.html Notwithstanding the skeletons in his closet, this chap seems to have no formal legal qualifications. Worried?