# 65. They can be a little too sensitive

The murderer and the bail application

To be a regular client of a criminal firm you not only need to persistently commit crimes (allegedly or otherwise) but also be caught, often.  As criminals reach their mid 20s many find it difficult to maintain this level of commitment.

In the London criminal firm where I worked as a newly qualified lawyer there was such a client.  Although, in his mid 30s, when he was not allegedly stealing in a violent sort of way he was being arrested for driving offences and assaults.  Eventually, he committed a murder and changed law firms.

My boss who was prone to hysterics, took this badly and marched down the police station with the words “he is not going to get away with this”.  He angrily confronted the alleged murderer in his police cell and insisted that he change back to our firm, which he did.

Next morning, the client was understandably disappointed when my boss sent me to court to represent him. 

The client wanted me to make a bail application and I recall saying “We may not get it” in the hope that he might decide that he would leave it.  He didn’t.

In the circumstances the bail application, apart from the fact that it was refused, went quite well. He was later convicted.

My boss continued to be let down.  The local Italian cafe owner had a 16 year old daughter who was kept on a very short lead.  The father sent her for two weeks of work experience at our firm.  On her first day she agreed to a date with a client charged with administering date rape drugs.  This was quickly cancelled by my boss.  On Day Two she wore less clothing and more make up.  From that point, we all lived in a state of fear of Mafia type reprisals until she was returned safe and sound to the unsuspecting father at the end of the work experience.

Two years later my boss died of a brain tumour.  His increasingly paranoid behaviour did not seem to put off our clients, in fact, they really liked it.

(c) Paul Brennan 2009.

#. 64. They don't answer our calls quickly enough

Lawyer’s Telephone message

Please listen to the following five options.

Press  1 to ask how much a standard will costs, only to die 30 years later without getting one.

Press  2 to ask about getting rid of your spouse, only to decide you will give him another chance.

Press 3 for telling your neighbour where to get off and then having to move house as a result.

Press 4 for advice on bankruptcy or guaranteeing your children’s debts and/or both.

Press 5   to sue your enemy for defamation etc., only to be told you cannot afford it.          

To speak to a lawyer press “o” and wait.

(c) Paul Brennan 2009

# 63. They show no restraint

Showing Some Restraint -Of Trade

Anyone who has watched Fatal Attraction will know how hard it is to get rid of some people.

For instance, you bought a “Brazilian Wax” business and one year later the owner sets up down the road. You sue. You find yourself in court asking for an injunction to close him down.

The “restraint of trade” clause in the contract will not work if it is unreasonable. It has three elements:

1. Distance- Is 50 kilometres reasonable?
It is not just a “drop em, rip and tear” operation but requires a degree of intimacy that you would not trust to anyone. The judge might liken it to his tailor. Find examples of other clients who are prepared to travel 50km to be tortured.
2. Duration- Is five years reasonable? If the Vendor was to return to the area and start up a competing business within 5 years would this damage the business that he sold to you? I would say yes unless he had developed cold hands.
3. Type of business. Brazilian waxing is a very small area of business to restrain. It is difficult to know if the judge would allow you to expand the restriction to legs, backs and chests or top lips. He would want to protect the goodwill sold to you. Finger nails may be out of the question.

Such clauses are not a “lay down hand”: You must think carefully about what you need and don’t ask for the world. Take a careful look at the vendor and decide if he is ready to let go. But if you paid good money hopefully the judge will produce the right answer.

In one case a judge adjourned a trial while he took a ride on a bus-his first. If the judge in your case decides to have a “Brazilian” my advice is-sell tickets.

(c) Paul Brennan 2007.

# 62. They hate government departments

Fights with Government Departments




To their credit government departments have the professionalism and training to listen quietly when you throw a tantrum. But what if slamming the phone down and telling your wife is not enough?


Decisions regarding licences, permissions, trade marks, taxes-there are no end of decisions that government departments can make to wind you up.


Here, again government departments outshine private industry and other non-governmental organisations (except maybe Opus Dei) in inventing ways to be castigated.


In the past only “aggrieved parties” could complain but now all sorts of people can get angry and complain.


There is normally an appeal time limit. Don’t miss it, as extensions are unlikely.


There are four ways to appeal:


1. Letter to the Minister.
2. The Ombudsman. He does not have power to force anyone to do anything but he can investigate complaints in an informal Scandinavian sort of way (they have come a long way since the Vikings).
3. Appeal Tribunal. Many appeals can be made to tribunals. Usually informal and cheap.
4. Judicial review application to the court which can quash the decision and make the department’s life a misery.
a. It does not hear the evidence/witnesses again. It decides if the Department had the power to make the decision and if they exercised that power lawfully e.g. bad faith, bias, irrelevant considerations, improper delegation.
b. It takes time and is expensive.
c. Even if you win it may just be sent back to the Minister to think again. In response to this the Minister can simply remake the decision using the correct procedures.


I was once a member of an organisation where an aggrieved person travelled for hours just to throw a brick through our window. Simple, effective and does not need to be in writing but regrettably illegal even against government departments.


Extract from "The Law is an Ass...Make sure it doesn't bite yours!"

# 61. They try to talk you out of suing

The Gathering Storm - The First Visit to Your Lawyer

If your living room looks a little untidy, are you the sort of person who starts cleaning in the attic? It is easy to approach a legal dispute from the wrong angle and become overwhelmed.

Here are three reasons why you delay in seeing your lawyer:

1. You decide to work on the problem yourself- 3am is always a good time for this sort of reflection.
2. You want to organise every last page of detail-letters, emails, diagrams, photos to give your lawyer the clearest picture.
3. You have another go at getting your adversary to see sense, which fails.

Some people don’t do all this. They go to their lawyers early, get the advice and are often able to avoid the legal dispute and move on. Dull I know.

A lawyer may approach the first interview in three stages:

Stage 1
• What damage have you really suffered? He doesn’t care about the ins and out of how you have been shafted only the consequences.
• Is there a cheaper or alternative method of getting what you want as opposed to legal action?
Stage 2 If legal action is the only solution:
• Can you prove it? Start from a position of strength or you are likely to lose.
• Can you gather more evidence? Hopefully you have left the door open to interacting with your adversary.
Stage 3 A reality check:
• Do you want to spend the cash? You may decide to spend the money on a holiday instead.
• Do you have the grit that litigation requires? More than aggression it requires time and hard work.

All this can often be done in a thirty minute initial interview. There will be plenty of time for 3am consideration and mind numbing detail later, if that is necessary.

Extract from Unleashing the Dogs of Law...How to Win or Lose Your Dispute in the Bad Times by Paul Brennan

# 60. They can do a runner

Let sleeping clients lie

You would expect every lawyer to have a story about a client falling asleep on him or her. In fact, it is fairly rare and has happened to me, only once.

I was a defence lawyer appearing at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court near Victoria Station, London.

My client in his 50s was well turned out in shirt, tie, blazer and grey flannel trousers. He was on a suspended sentence. I told him that he was going to prison where he had been many times before, always for theft. Like so many clients, drink had been his downfall.

By 11am he seemed jolly. By noon he had a manic grin. I started to beg the list officer to get us on. Just before lunch he had become morose and disshellved which could hopefully be mistaken for remorse rather than extreme drunkeness. We were called on.

During my plea in mitigation the Magistrate drew my attention to the snoring coming from the dock which had grown to an unacceptable level which even the legal process could not ignore.

I looked into the dock and there was my client on the floor, fast asleep.

The Magistrate unexpectedly sentenced my sleeping client to probation and went to lunch. The courtroom cleared. We were alone.

With great difficulty, I woke my client up and tried to explain what had happened or at least my understandably inflated version of it.

But, by then he was unbearably drunk and seemed not to understand his good fortune and my role in it. He wanted money. He advanced on me with his hand out.

I did what many other lawyers have done over the centuries ...... a runner. Easily outpacing him on the stairs, past security, out onto the street, never to see him again.

“Things won are done, joy's soul lies in the doing”.

© Paul Brennan 2009

# 59. They sue people for no reason

How to apportion blame.

We all make mistakes. However, in my experience, it is easier and more convenient to blame others for your own mistakes.

Your family and friends can be relied upon to accept your version of events, however skewed they may be. But, others often try to understand your enemy’s position. This is of course infuriating. Suing your enemy is the best way to shut these doubters up.

Isn’t it risky to sue someone for something that was your own fault? Not at all, people do it all the time. However, it is prudent to let your spouse think it was his or her idea then even if things go wrong it will give you useful ammunition for years to come. Likewise, do not make the mistake of choosing your own lawyer, it is best to follow a recommendation of say a hated in-law.

It is essential to get rid of your first lawyer early on then you can blame him or her for messing up your case. If it is a particularly hopeless case, change lawyers several times. This should help to muddy the waters.

At some stage, it will start to become clear to the other lawyers that your case is particularly weak and even the judge could start to side with your opponents. Please don’t worry. You are going to court to insist on your right to a fair hearing, the facts should soon become secondary to the various skirmishes. A good tactic is to sack your lawyer and represent yourself. The fundamental wish to give you a fair hearing can often override the judge’s sense that your case is a joke.

At the end of the day, provided that you have laid the groundwork of multiple lawyers, a domineering spouse who doesn’t listen to reason, interfering relatives and a crazy, unreasonable opponent then you can feel safe in the knowledge that the legal system, lawyers and society in general, are to blame.

Extract from Suffering 101. (c)Paul Brennan 2009.

# 58. They do the banks' dirty work

I have a dream

- Bank disclosure

Banks give us truck loads of paper all in the name of telling us what we are signing up to.

Even if we read it most of us would still have a hazy idea of credit card terms, loan terms and bank fees.

Before clients sign loan documents banks insist that their customer's lawyer explains what it means. Banks do this as they think that judges deliberately let off supposedly confused little old ladies who say that they did not know what they were signing. Heaven forbid.

I object to banks wasting paper, my time and their customer's money in this way, but I have a dream.

I have a dream that one day a bank's disclosure documents will be judged on their capacity to be easily understood by all God’s children and not on the weight of the paper provided.

I have a dream that one day even the legal departments of banks, sweltering with the heat of verbosity, will be transformed into an oasis of brevity.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a world where banks do not insist that I need to pay a lawyer to be told what will happen if I guarantee their loans and they default.

I have a dream today!

And when this happens, when bank disclosure documents are just one A4 page saying “You and your guarantors will be pursued into hell if you do not pay up” trees will be saved, lawyers will be released from telling people the obvious and be able to join hands with the bank clerks who prepare this boring paperwork and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

© Paul Brennan 2009

Click here to see and read the speech "I have a dream" by Martin Luther King Jr.

# 57. They don't seem to understand our issues

Leaving your spouse out of your will

Dear John

My spouse is devoted to me but I worry that in grief at my death, my spouse will fall easy prey to some fortune hunter. Of course, I would not begrudge some happiness after my passing but what if my spouse dies and leaves everything to this chancer’s children?

P.M.

Southend, UK

Dear P.M.

Whether you have worked hard to earn it, had the good fortune to have someone leave it to you, or just spent the last 40 years bored witless watching your spouse amass it, your concern is understandable.

We all from time to time consider leaving our money directly to our children expecting our spouses to understand. They generally don’t. In fact, they expect the children to see sense and renounce their windfall whereas your children naturally decide to respect your wishes.

If you adopt this strategy there are risks:

• You can expect your spouse to sue the estate. Such cases often settle but only after acrimonious affidavits full of accusations about your sanity, bad temper and slovenly habits. Fortunately, this is all done in confidence, it is not as if your neighbours and friends get to read the unpleasant detail, unless of course they are called as witnesses.
• I would suggest that you make your own funeral arrangements just in case your spouse decides to cut a few corners.
• Above all, you must not allow your spouse to know of your intentions in case they decide to do the same thing. Whereas they need to be saved from themselves you probably feel that you can be trusted to leave the money to your kids unless of course they marry unwisely or forget to call you on your birthday.

To look on the bright side, you are usually long gone before the fighting starts. But, if you cannot stand to have your memory besmirched in this manner but still fear your money ending up with the wrong person there really is only one option: don’t go.

I hope this helps.

J.F.

Extract from John Fytit’s International Problem Page. (c) Paul Brennan 2009.

# 56. They hate cats

John Fytit’s International Problem Page

- Your Legal problems shared

Dear John

Despite having a cat door, every night, my cat wakes me up wanting to be let in and out or vice versa. My sleep is being severely disturbed. Is it illegal to kill a cat?

H.M. Dublin, Eire

Dear H.M

Cats do not have nine lives. This old adage is a reference to failed assassination attempts by their owners, so you are not alone. My own cat has a permanent scowl.

Your cat is your property and you can kill it, provided it is not done in a cruel manner. For instance, drowning in a bucket although quick, may be prohibited as an extreme form of water boarding. Even a pillow placed gently over the face after it has dozed for 20 hours straight in its favourite chair may be considered cruel in the cold light of the court room.

Therefore, it is best left to your Vet. But, most Vets, not all, are animal lovers and treat requests for execution of a healthy albeit malevolent animal as motivated by cruel intent and therefore illegal.

This is why many regimes, when dealing with subversives, use “trumped up” charges. As the Vet’s determination is behind closed doors with no witnesses, no investigation and no appeal, accusations of attacks on pregnant mothers, babies, widows or, as a last resort, puppies should work fairly well. As many cats have a night life that Hannibal Lechter would be proud of, the Vet should be easily convinced that he is dealing with an enemy of the state and any delay on his part may result in a law suit against him by one of the victims.

But, your cat’s untimely death may not improve your sleep. Guilt may weigh upon you as it did with Lady Macbeth. Alternatively, your small triumph may result in you turning on other members of your family who are even more irritating.

If you have reached an age where you find that your only nemesis is your cat it probably means that you should get out more. At least, that is my plan.

J.F.

(c)Paul Brennan 2009.

John Fytit is the name of the central cartoon charter in Law & Disorder cartoons which started in Hong Kong in 1992. He is from the fictitious Hong Kong firm Fytit & Loos (pronounced “Fight it and Lose”). A very unsuccessful name as people read “Fytit” as “Fit it”. The International Problem Page started in 2005 and was merged into Paul Brennan’s blog. But, not before John Fytit started to receive real legal questions from various parts of the world.

For further extracts from John Fytit’s International Problem Page sign up to the free monthly Law & Disorder eZine.

# 55. They blame their clients if they lose

The best criminal defence ever

If there was an Oscar for the best criminal defence ever it would go to what I know as the ‘Jump Up’ defence. I don’t know why it is called that. Imagine that you are a criminal. You have just stolen a TV and you are carrying it down the street. A policeman catches you red-handed. Being a criminal you stay stumm. At your trial you say that you were walking along the road when a man said to you, ‘Do you want to make some cash?’ Being out of work, you agreed. The man tells you to pick up a TV and follow him. You were following him, carrying the TV, when the policeman stopped you.

In criminal trials the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt so that the jury is sure. Juries often give the defendant the benefit of the doubt especially where the Jump Up defence is used.

So why doesn’t everyone plead clever defences like the Jump Up? Well, defence lawyers are not able to assist their clients (even a little bit) in concocting untrue defences. Defendants often learn basic defence strategy in prison, however, it displays a marked lack of creativity. They can’t all have brilliant criminal minds. If they were that smart at school they would now be bank managers.

What lawyers will not do is represent you in a not guilty plea to the court if they know you are guilty. I have had to work with some lousy, implausible defences over the years, but some have turned out to be true—so you never know. Therefore, the only way to be sure that your lawyer knows that you are guilty is for you to tell him.

Finally, I suggest that you expect professional detachment from your lawyer rather than tea and sympathy. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

(c) Extract from The Law is an Ass...Make sure it doesn't bite yours!

# 54. They make things worse

Mediate and be damned

The CIA is alleged to have launched 638 assassination attempts against Fidel Castro including one using an exploding cigar.

Unfortunately assassination is not available to litigants-they are condemned to fight their enemy in the Courts.
Many people find that issuing a writ feels better than sex (depending, of course, on who their current partner is). However in some entrenched cases, after a year or so, all parties can feel like they have been through the mill.
At this stage neither party is prepared to give up but they may be ready for Mediation which is where you meet the other party with their lawyers with the object of settling the dispute.

In the ‘70’s there was no mediation that I recall. Clients were advised not to speak to their opponent. A writ would be served and skirmishes would occur up to the hearing where a huge number of cases settled at the court door. Few facts were admitted. Communication with what we still call “the other side” would be for the most part aggressive. Early settlement would be initiated by the defendant, if at all.

Acting outside these bounds was seen as a sign of weakness. In many cases it still is.

What happens:

1. The lawyers agree on a suitable Mediator usually (yes, you guessed it) another practising lawyer.
2. The parties attend the Mediator’s office.
3. A lawyer on each side makes a brief case overview presentation (five minutes). This can be like the assegai waiving and chanting at the start of “Zulu” or a “Budget Speech” depending on your lawyer.
4. The parties split up into different rooms and once apart the Mediator will tell each party that their case stinks and it will cost them far more that they thought.
5. The Mediator will then flit between the rooms conveying offers back and forth and nag the parties into offering far more than they ever expected until an agreement is reached.

The ideal finish to Mediation (from the Mediator’s twisted point of view) is that both parties walk away feeling that they have been done.

In a perfect world your enemy would leave the Mediation and be promptly run over by a bus. This seldom happens.

If you can't let it go and Mediation is not for you then there is always the exploding cigar.

# 53. Their advice is too academic

Extreme Alternative Dispute Resolution (“EADR”)
For those of you who do not have the money, temperament or time for litigation and have no wish to engage in “limp wristed” mediation then another possibility is to “bump off” your enemy.
I do not include husbands and wives as the trouble with murdering your spouse is that you are usually the prime suspect for understandable reasons.
In my view, murder of your enemy is strictly a DIY activity. Unless you are well in with organized crime then it is best not to hire a hit man. They just do not seem to take the same care these days and so often turn out to be police agent provocateurs.
Unless, you are a particularly creative person, do not expect to commit the perfect undetected crime, first time. Although, this does happen in crime dramas with so many others tuning in, the modus operandi of TV programs can be a little oversubscribed.
Do not broadcast your hatred and you will have surprise on your side having spent your life staying within the law without any criminal convictions, except the occasional bit of shoplifting. Your participation in a murder could leave the police baffled with no motive. Even telling your spouse about your hatred can be risky as now they are entitled to give evidence against you and they do. Frankly, if I can be sexist about this for a moment……. especially the wives.
In my view, the best homicidal method is not stabbing, poisoning or strangling (however satisfying those methods may seem). It is running your adversary down in a stolen motor vehicle such as a four wheel drive. The big advantage of a four wheel drive is that owners often leave them open with the keys in the ignition in a sub conscious bid to get rid of them.

But for those of you who are not ready for murder on ethical grounds. One of the great benefits of age is to watch your enemies die before you do. Life prolonging, entertaining and entirely legal.

# 52. They are always too busy

Being busy-the 8th habit

Is your lawyer busy? As a junior lawyer, I may have struggled to draw up the correct documents, or write a letter which did not need substantial amendment but, I got the hang of being busy, straight away.

There are many advantages to being busy. You can arrive late at meetings, not return telephone calls, cut short conversations or simply be MIA (Missing in Action) at Court for days on end, leaving things to your secretary. You no longer need a “to do list”. Things do not slip by, as other people are constantly calling you up and asking you where it is. You are of course too busy to take their calls but it is an option not usually available to diligent people.

But now everyone seems to be at it.

Plumbers used to arrive on time and were “under the gun” of the lady of the house until the job was done. Now, by using the “busy” business model they not only get paid more, they can arrive late but still find house owners forgiving and circumspect. Mobile phones allow plumbers to escape to other emergencies.

Doctors applying the ”busy” model have time for a chat, despite the full waiting room.

Being busy has been recognized as a spiritual tool and an essential part of the “Law of Attraction”. Apparently, you will find the universe amending the work practices of others so that they do some of your work to try to get you to the stage, you should have been at, if you had not been so busy.

In fact, developing the habit of convincing people that you are busy has been hailed as the new alternative to customer service and a lot less taxing.

(c) Paul Brennan 2009.

# 51. They enjoy causing upset

How to fight your own battles

Other people upset you. One day you realize that the real problem is that some people will not surrender to your charm offensive and behave in the way that you think they should, even if it is for their own good.

You have tried standing up for yourself but win or lose you just don’t enjoy it as much as people toeing your line voluntarily.

The answer is to stand up for someone else. Fighting other people’s battles is far easier. For example, the risk of losing money is quite bearable when it is not your money, as is the risk of physical harm. In fact, you will find yourself being quite aggressive and even brave on their account.

Being released from their own commitments they may want to fight your battles. This is where your problem really begins as you do not want these potential champions, to mess it up. Therefore, fighting everybody’s battles is a mistake. You must pick and choose carefully, by assessing the fighting capabilities of potential champions which can be divided into three categories: physical, verbal or just not speaking to people and causing an atmosphere. It is best to have some champions in each category.

Next you will need to carefully analyse your opponents. Some opponents think that by making other people unhappy it makes them feel better, maybe it does. But, to get maximum enjoyment they must stick to their own area of expertise in order to reduce the risk of losing. For instance, the opponent who creates atmospheres is supreme in many work and family situations but is understandably afraid of a person who will beat them up for doing it. They will even avoid anyone who might shout at them. Whereas, you are a good loser, opponents are generally bad losers and therefore, must spend a lot of time working out who to pick on.

But, what happens if the person who you are fighting on someone else’s behalf makes it personal against you and you start to experience all the pain of fighting your own battles? In that case, you immediately hand it over. With the right champion you can even have them beaten up as an example to other opponents who want to step out of line. This works particularly well in the case of family members or work colleagues.

Once, you have a stable of champions you will be tempted to revisit old scores, the older you get the better the element of surprise. Resist it.

Extract from Suffering 101 © Paul Brennan

# 50. They have no pity

How to feel sorry for yourself

Feeling sorry for yourself is ok. But, getting other people to feel sorry for you and then reluctantly joining in is so much more satisfying.

Although, some people display natural self pitying ability from an early age, for many of us it is a matter of practice, trial and error especially if we don’t just wish to do it alone.

Self pity should not be confused with misery however much some people seem to enjoy it. Misery usually requires a demonstration of hurt and pain whereas competent self pityists aim for the bearing stoically and silently of one’s burdens in a dignified manner which can be done alone as a silent meditation but generally it is best if other people appreciate what you are going through.

But for the newcomer tired of going it alone how can this “Enhanced Self Pity” be achieved? There are two criteria to get right - audience and subject. Getting either wrong can lead to misery which is to be avoided (see above).

Audience

Audiences are best selected from people who have nothing better to do such as your co-workers.

Many people turn to a small but significant audience consisting of their own mother and work out from there.

Your lawyer or accountant can be an excellent audience but are likely to wish to charge you for it by the minute and therefore should be treated as a last resort.

Often parents make the mistake of trying Enhanced Self Pity after they have repeatedly tried screaming, pleading, crying and bribing in their attempt to exercise control over their teenage children. However, sadly teenagers like some retirees seem immune to any suffering other than their own.

Spouses can be excellent audiences provided the subject is life threatening and you have had the foresight to take out a substantial life insurance policy otherwise they are not known for their bedside manner.

Subject

For Solitary Self Pity the subject can be entirely selfish and range from imagining your own death (however distant) to not being invited to a party. However, in Enhanced Self Pity the subject is opened to public scrutiny and therefore needs to be gritty without the consequences being too serious for you. For this reason, a terminal illness or the loss of a leg has limited appeal. It is best to focus on other people letting you down. This is acknowledged to be emotionally painful without any physical suffering on your part.

Whereas your teenage children make a lousy audience they are an excellent subject and elicit immediate sympathy even from the most cynical audience as will your boss, your spouse or aging parents.

After age 45, feeling sorry for yourself is up there with sex and getting your son to mow the lawn but only if it is done right.

Extract from Suffering 101 by Paul Brennan

# 49. They think that no one will take them on

Mission financial crisis accomplished!

“Stiffing” is a common term in the software industry meaning “charging like a bull” when you have your customers “over a barrel”.

This month, one of my legal software providers was taken over by a larger software company which immediately notified me of a 300% increase in my payments. I made email complaint to the CEO and he called me to say that he would be upset too, if he were me. Having unexpectedly achieved solidarity with the CEO, I tried to understand his position which seemed to be that the increase would encourage me to pay even more to buy his full package, leading to savings for my practice and making Queensland small legal firms more efficient.

I wanted to explain to him that when rubbed up the wrong way Queensland solicitors can be an ill-tempered, quarrelsome, truly disagreeable bunch and I do not say that just because I am married to one. I wondered if other Queensland solicitors were ready to understand the subtle potential benefits of what felt like a software company marching into Queensland and launching an unprovoked attack.

I had to ask myself the 3 questions that I put to my own clients when reacting to an injustice: “Is it really worth it?”, “What are the chances of a quick victory?” and “Who has the most to lose?”.

As much as I would usually try to reason with clients who disregarded the answers to questions 1 and 2, the fact that the answers in my case were “No” and “Not Great” did not bother me one bit once I realized that the infidel invader had much more to lose.

The mission statement of the larger software company which I shall call “X”, no doubt, is to love and respect its customers and not to wind them up, even though its customer base are lawyers. I suspect that this increase or surge as it may come to be known, must be the action of some fresh faced chancer working in the X Sales Department, greedy for a quick killing over Christmas and ignorant of the consequences for the X brand of this apparent breach of the trust built up by its predecessor over the years.

Days passed without any apparent reaction. I conducted several internet searches:
“Queensland solicitors taken advantage of”, “….squeezed”, “…… shafted”, “…screwed”.
The result for each search was “nil” and I began to worry that my searches were giving me an unwelcome insight into my own psyche rather than any useful information on the impending jihad.

The letter advising of the increase arrived just before the Christmas holiday and the bad news had been “buried” on the 2nd page. However, as contracts were due for renewal on 31 December 2008 I assume that shortly, things will hit the fan.

Should things not hit the fan, I suggest that we all increase our fees by 300%. If we cannot beat the financial crisis-let’s help expand it.

This is an extract from the free “Law & Disorder” Ezine which can be subscribed to at http://www.lawanddisorder.com.au/ezine.html. Paul Brennan is a solicitor practicing on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast and author of “The Law for IT Professionals”.

# 48. They don't understand love

Fighting with your spouse

The New Year marks the start of the divorce lawyer’s busy season. Married couples have emerged from the trenches of what is paradoxically called The Season of Good Will to launch themselves with gusto into the divorce courts.

However even though most of us will decide to give it another year it may be an opportune time to consider The Three Rules of Divorce (“The Three “D’s”).

Paul Simon suggested that there are 50 ways to leave your lover. In a divorce situation they all seem to involve the slamming of doors and shouting.

Divorce Rule 1 - Do nothing to wind your partner up. Now if you really cannot resist fighting with your spouse maybe you are not ready for divorce. In divorce, the more satisfying the insult the more it will cost you in legal fees to sort it out. So in divorce be nice to your spouse. Where children are involved this will help keep a semblance of goodwill which you will need in the ensuing years.

Divorce Rule 2 - Don’t make any quick decisions. Try not to be motivated by feelings of bitterness and anger. Whether you finally decide on counselling or a ruthlessly executed departure (a little like The Godfather when the family moved to Las Vegas), a bit of thought can help you do it better.

Planning will help you to carefully list the assets to identify and secure anything that is not nailed down such as bank accounts (I am assuming that you may not be the only one in your marriage who is thinking about divorce).

Divorce Rule 3- Do speak to your lawyer before doing anything. At a time when you are too emotionally involved to make rational decisions lawyers are a disinterested party (in some cases you may feel a little too disinterested-so choose carefully). They can give you the sensible advice that you need.

There is one question that every intending divorcee asks - “Is divorce expensive?”. The legal answer is “Only if it is done right”.

Extract from Unleashing the dogs of law...How to win or lose your legal dispute in the Bad Times

# 47. They can be a touch pompous

Some lawyers pressed to produce billable hours become paranoid about people wasting their time.

There was a lawyer in Sydney who had his secretary call me and ask me to wait on the line, so I would be ready to speak to him. I assume she then told him that I was on the line and he could pick up his telephone without wasting valuable seconds of his time. I transferred the call back to my secretary just in time for him to come on the line, so he could wait for me while I toyed with the idea of getting my secretary to say that I was too busy to speak to him. This is the sort of legal drama which is not usually covered on TV.

In some cases, lawyers are right and there are people dedicated to wasting their time.

As an articled clerk, I would knock on one partner’s door and he would shout “enter”.

I would then go into his office and stand silently in front of his desk while he finished writing with a scratchy fountain pen.

He would them look up and that was the signal for me to tell him in one sentence, what I wanted.

He would then say either “ Continue” and I would stumble on or he would say “I am too busy” and I would stumble out.

Whether it was a “stumble on” or a “stumble out” job, he would tell me to put the file in his in-tray and that would give us both a break for a few weeks.

You don’t get training like that anymore.

In extreme cases, lawyers can be like bus drivers who do not stop at the bus stops to pick up passengers as it interferes with the timetable.

So rather than thinking pompous, think psychotic. I hope this helps.

# 46. Lawyers are often strange characters

A legal road less travelled

My resume states, “Schooling: St Thomas More, Chelsea, London”, however my school report read, “Lazy, talkative and notable”. I thought “notable” did not sound too bad until I realized it was “not able”.

They were the days before parent rage stalked school halls and teachers would give their unrestrained opinions, such as my gym teacher who wrote “physically immobile”. Today, I would probably get a more subtly insulting “You must be very proud of him”.

I left school having failed every exam, except art.

I had lost both parents by the age of 11. This gave me an independence and freedom, of which most teenagers could only dream.

I made a promising start by taking up smoking and hitch-hiking around Europe. However, my “walk on the wild side” ended when I joined London’s Metropolitan Police Cadets. I was 16. My father had been a policeman at West End Central and I wanted to follow in his footsteps. The reality, however, was marching, exercise, study and discipline. I was terrible at it all or so they said, however, there was a gradual improvement.

After two years, I had achieved average and was assigned to Greenwich Police Station. The Police Sergeants, who were our instructors, did this by shouting “Move yourself” and “Shut up”; Still good advice for me today.

At 18, I saw an advertisement for a US Summer Camp Counselor. I left the police. At the Camp I was a judo instructor for 8-12 year olds. As Woody Allen said, “the bigger the opponent, the bigger the beating” but I did not tell them that. The US experience changed my life and within four years my resume would record LL.B (Hons).

My first job was as a law clerk at McMillan Binch, a large Toronto firm. Unlike Australia, an Englishman in Canada is not immediately disliked, they wait a few minutes.

Finally, I started two year articles in a general practice called Rimmers in Aylesbury, UK. Years later I was to base the look of my legal cartoon character on my long suffering and kind Principal, John Fortgang who eventually became a judge. Now people ask if it is me.

In 1982, I qualified, met Lord Denning and married a lawyer.

I became a solicitor at New Scotland Yard and then at the criminal firm, which once represented Christine Keeler. In 1985, my wife and I opened the first Brennans solicitors in Lewisham, South London. On the first weekend someone carved their initials into our brass plate and a man was murdered in the pub next door.

I represented up to 5 defendants a day in London’s Magistrates Courts: Burglary, drink driving, assaults. Soon, I employed other people to go to court as the property boom was creating a lot of legal work.

After two years, we emigrated to Sydney. Within 6 months of arriving, the flat property market boomed and my wife and I had set up Brennans no. 2.

The boom ended and we went to Hong Kong, where we stayed for 10 years. At first I was a consultant at a criminal firm: Smugglers, Madams and a transvestite shop lifter. It was an improved class of criminal clientele and better dressed too.

After that I was at the Hong Kong Law Society conducting investigations, disciplinary proceedings and intervening in failed solicitors firms. Eventually, there was an ICAC raid with many arrests in order to try and curb corruption in some law firms.

I ran the Macau Marathon. The following day I found the pain eased by walking backwards.

For the next 5 years, I was at the US Multi-national, Intel conducting anti-piracy raids in Asia: Limos, stock options, 5 star hotels and no billable hours. Like most people working in-house, I resent any of you for thinking that it was easy.

After Intel, I was called to the bar and became a tenant barrister in the Temple, London. From there, I was head hunted to be General Counsel of the Federation Against Software Theft to conduct enforcement and lobbying in the UK and Europe. I became a post graduate in IP law and wrote my first book. Later I was sent as an EU IP enforcement expert as part of a delegation to Beijing. I haven’t been invited back.

Now, I am in general practice with my wife in Mooloolaba on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. We have four children and yes I did lecture them on the importance of hard work by skating over my own school record, as most parents do.

My experience is that the law in other countries can feel very familiar, depressingly so for some people. A legal issue can turn on one word or the lack of it, I know. But, clients have the same legal issues worldwide and lawyers tend to apply similar solutions. I try to make my writing on law internationally applicable and if possible, funny.

My books, CDs and ebooks have titles like “The Law is an Ass…Make sure it doesn’t bite yours!”, “The 10 Greatest Legal Mistakes in Business …and how to avoid them”, “A Legal Guide to Dying….Baby Boomers Edition”. It is the sort of daily advice that small firm lawyers give to their clients.

My current blog http://www.101reasonstokillallthelawyers.com/ is for the legal profession. It has legal cartoons and humourous legal articles. It takes all the bad things people say about the law and the legal industry. It examines each one. I decided on 101 reasons as I didn’t want to depress the entire legal profession by having 1,001.

I have a monthly eZine called “Law & Disorder”. I am a speaker and MC. I draw legal cartoons for the Australian Financial Review. My cartoons have just been launched in America by The Billable Hour Co as greeting cards; Lawyer jokes are international too.

So, for any young lawyers, who has an interest in drawing legal cartoons, speaking and writing about law humorously, this is an ideal career template. For anybody else, career planning may be an attractive alternative.

# 45. They take their time

The UK's longest trial lasted for 2.5 years. It was the McLibel case where McDonalds sued two people who complained about the food. McDonalds won. It should have been a lot shorter but it kept repeating on itself.

Other cases, as opposed to just the trial have lasted much longer.

A case in NSW has just finished after 65 years. However, the prize must go to Indian lawyers who in the Hindu Temple case ( 1205-1966) kept the case going for an incredible 761 years. Since then, Indian lawyers have moved on and by applying modern day court techniques, such as mediation this could have been wrapped up by the time of the Mutiny.

One of the frequently stated reasons for the delay in these cases is the inconvenient death of the lawyer involved, helpfully put forward by the deceased former partners.

# 44. The Twelve

Lawyers are hated for being arrogant, pompous, aggressive, tactless, confrontational, pedantic, expensive, unscrupulous, ruthless, negative, devious and slow.
For many centuries, lawyers have been tight lipped about these 12 legal characteristics or “the 12” as they are known, but many now admit to feeling pressured by clients and others to live up to such a high expectation.
Lawyers have come to resent the daily drudge of being right all the time and find themselves bucking tradition by speaking to their staff normally rather than in the more customary “irritated” tone of voice.
“Sometimes, I have what my secretary calls a “normal day”, said one lawyer, “staff found it strange, at first”.
A recent study has found that lawyers are living off a reputation earned centuries ago and many, now, rely on their secretaries to add the sort of unpleasantness normally expected of lawyers. However, without Law School training, many secretaries struggle to meet such an exacting standard. Clients, who believe that their lawyers are too arrogant to see them, would be shocked to learn that it is a fear of being found out that is driving lawyers into isolation. However, the cracks are starting to appear. “ I find my lawyer quite nice”, said one client who did not wish to be named.
Senior lawyers blame legal education. “They come out of law school, they don’t know how to behave and would not know a Res Ipsa Loquitur if it hit them on the back of the head”, said one Managing Partner of a large law firm, “We have become so concerned that we have decided to take legal education in house. Basically, clients do not want advice, which is easy to follow, they can get that anywhere”.
Top Legal bodies believe that increasing demand for lawyers has flooded the profession with people who cannot be trusted to display the right attitude. While stressing the importance of women in the legal community a spokesman said, “They made a promising start in the 1980’s and we had hopes of adding “scary” to the list. However, while they have an excellent command of the 12, they have developed a less than obvious style, which has made them approachable and that is the slippery slope”.
The profession has turned to training organizations which have demonstrated success with medical, dental and other receptionists. One legal spokesman said, “We were interested to know how receptionists are able to generate such aggression and ill will among clients and patients with such minimal interaction”.
With lawyers in disarray, some accountants have seized the opportunity to develop their own 12 with a view to increasing their charge out rates. One accountant said, “We have been working on “pedantic and slow” for quite a while, however we are now ready to tackle “expensive” and “negative”. With “boring”, “incredibly tight” and “no sense of humour” under our belts we only need 5, or is that 4, more”.

# 43. They don't always return telephone calls promptly

Last year, I attended a speech by one of Australia's funniest business speakers, Martin Grunstein. During his speech, completely out of the blue his eyes rolled back in their sockets and he said that lawyers were “very arrogant and never returned phone calls”.
I took immediate exception to his use of the word “very".
When I first started I knew one lawyer who did not even use a telephone, so in some cases there may be a reasonable excuse. In any event, telephone calls are so over, we now focus on not returning emails.

# 42. They have done some dirty deeds

The importance of avoiding legal potholes

In 1895 “The Importance of being Earnest” opened to packed theatre audiences. The playwright, Oscar Wilde received rave reviews except from the Marquis of Queensbury who was the father of Oscar’s “partner”, Lord Alfred Douglas (“Bosie”).


What was acceptable homophobia in those days is probably illegal today and what was an illegal practice then is “A” ok now which just shows you how fickle the law can be, especially if you are on the wrong end of it.


The Marquis added his then understandable (but now unreasonable) righteous indignation, to his eccentric, cantankerous and feisty (he did invent the Queensbury Rules) nature and tried to make their life a misery. Oscar considered having the Marquis bound over to keep the peace, but wanted to avoid scandal.


The Marquis finally went too far when he left a card at Oscar’s club saying "To Oscar Wilde posing as a Somdomite".


Either the insult or the misspelling or both drove Oscar over the edge. He decided to have the Marquis charged with criminal libel. Oscar’s lawyer exercising caution required Oscar to swear on a bible that the insult was not true, which he did.


The trial was abandoned after the defence threatened to produce evidence from rent boys, to support the allegation. However, the lawyers for the Marquis sent the papers to the Director of Prosecutions. Oscar was convicted of gross indecency.


You would need to be very unlucky if your legal dispute resulted in your financial ruin, divorce, two years hard labour and caused you to leave the country in disgrace, quickly followed by your early death in poverty. But what was a disaster for Wilde, regrettable for his own lawyer and a tragedy, was probably considered a good result for the other lawyer.


Avoiding disputes in the first place especially with the cantankerous, violent, mad and bad is often the most effective, but least popular option.


Paul Brennan
This is an extract from Paul Brennan’s eBook:
“RELEASING THE DOGS OF LAW...
How to win your legal dispute or at least struggle through it,
remaining relatively sane without losing your shirt”

# 41. They tend to Judge

Despite considerable progress in court efficiency with a high level of motivation achieved among court staff, inherent problems remain in the Judiciary itself.

One of the main issues is a cohort of older men who dropped out of the system in the 1980’s, 1990’s, in some cases the 1770’s and are now classified as “long term judiciary”. Each receives a weekly or monthly payment from the state. Some adopt a sad resigned air whereas others can be cranky. All have a tendency to isolate.

Judges blame the nature of the job and government policy however psychological studies have suggested that problems started in early childhood. For instance, none of them seem to have fathers.

# 40. They take their time

The case has been going on so long I have forgotten whether I am innocent or guilty.
Ashleigh Brilliant

#. 39. The are always on about their books

The hardest thing about writing a book is to introduce the fact that you have done so into conversations with appropriate modesty. At first, you can carry a copy with you however as the months roll by you need to be far more creative (some authors manage this better than others). More satisfying still is letting it slip that you are the author of two books.

The Law is an Ass – Make Sure It Doesn’t Bite Yours! (my second book) or, as my receptionist at the time of the launch described it, "The Law is an Arse" is distributed around Australia. If you are ever in this position you will be tempted to place the book in a more prominent position on the shelf of any bookshop that you visit – do it.

Last week, I happened to be in Dymocks in Sydney and on requesting my own book (posing as a discerning reader) I was told “You are in luck they are now 50 per cent off”. “Oh good” I said.

Extract from article by Paul Brennan in Lawyers Weekly 20 July 2007

Full article at http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/One-man-said_z69862.htm

# 38. They go all legal

Many lawyers when faced with an audience or the writing of an article become, well, all “legal” especially when they are with other lawyers.

My first newspaper editor, Peter Owen said, “Lawyers - like financial planners, relationship counsellors and chiropractors – always tend to think their prose is purple and their content compelling. In truth, they usually offer little more than boring plugs for their own business”.
I still find it hard to believe that Peter Owen was right, especially about the chiropractors. I concede that I find it difficult when giving a legal presentation not to throw in everything that I know.
In legal presentations “knowing it all” can be a disadvantage (young lawyers please note).

If Peter Owen is right, then we lawyers bore the public. In our defence, we do it precisely and confidently. The measure of success of any presentation is did the audience get value and enjoy it. It is not a good speech if the audience feel as if they have been taken hostage, however academically sound or erudite it may seem to us.

Considering we have a profession of some truly funny people (some unwittingly so), we do not seem to be able to capitalise on it.

When we are not being “all legal”, we go into sales mode which makes us even more unbearable.
Now some of you lawyers will be saying “We are not as bad as all that”. I can tell you “yes we are”, it is just that many of us are not ready for that message. Fortunately we are joined by legions of bankers, financial planners, accountants and all sorts of other professionals.

There is an opportunity here for lawyers, who are prepared to walk on the wild side and relate to their audience.
Extract from “We have the time if you have the money…how to promote your legal practice” by Paul Brennan published at http://www.lawanddisorder.com.au/books.html.

# 37. They can be late

Sean Carter’s Lawpsided View of the Law reports that a US Prosecutor was fined $5 for turning up 5 minutes late to Court.

It must have been a difficult moment when the Prosecutor arrived back at his office at the end of that day to explain that he had managed to have himself convicted, a little like a taxi driver running himself over,

Concern has been expressed that this is part of a worldwide legal movement to exclude the public from the legal process. The legal profession is taking turns to act as the accused and even sending each other to jail to avoid legal work.

After centuries of public complaint about the quality of legal services the lawyers have finally snapped and are “picking up their ball” and going home. “The Public frequently call for justice only to be bored stiff when they get it” said one lawyer ”Some of my clients ask “Are we there yet?” before I have even opened the file”.

The Prosecutor has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

# 36. They are shambolic

In England defendants will be forced to change their lawyers if the Judge believes they are causing delays in complex cases.

It is an ancient right for defendants to have the lawyer of their choice however shambolic that lawyer may be. Lawyers will fight to the last man (or woman) to defend that right.

# 35. Billable Hours

Australia is considering following the example of the UK and introducing a Court to deal with legal costs only, called the “Costs Court”.

The Law & Disorder eZine spoke to John Fytit, sole practitioner about the effect of a Costs Court on his practice.

Q: Do you support the proposed new Court?
A: I do. My firm intends to give up law and focus solely on costs to complement the new Court.
Q: But wouldn’t clients complain that you are charging them for doing nothing?
A: Well, they say that anyway. To my mind, not providing any legal service other than producing a bill would result in less complaints as there would be less to complain about. There would be fewer insurance claims and it would be a lot cheaper too as our costs would be a fraction of what they are now.
Q. How would it work?
A: After drawing up the costs agreement we would move straight on to the bill. We would get rid of billable hours and try new innovative methods of billing. Presently, we are looking at Double or quits.
Q. How would the Law Society view this?
A: They would need to manage this change. Continuing Legal Education without the tedious legal content would focus on the more important transferable skills, such as ethics. They could introduce motivational courses but I do not think that we would need them.
Q. Why would clients instruct you?
A. We would need to work out the product offering, hire a sales team with telesales support. We would need to be more strategic and focus on deliverables such as committee meetings, annual conferences and team building away days.
Q. Are you not concerned that the larger firms would form Departments focusing solely on costs?
A. I thought that they had.

John Fytit is a fictional cartoon character. Any similarity to an actual lawyer, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

# 34. They copy things

The sincerest form of flattery

After years of waiting, someone has finally copied my work. They have used a nom de plume. Being copied even by a fictitious entity does not take away that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone likes my work as much as I do, maybe more.

Last month, I wrote an article about a law firm being blessed by the Pope (see Reason No. 25 They are blessed). It was accepted by a legal magazine for publication on-line. When I did not hear from them I found that they had taken lines, which we clearly both thought funny, from my article and used in their own piece as if they were their original work.

Moral Rights or as we the plagiarized call it “Moral, I know my, Rights” provides for a right to be named if your work is copied and to control the form of the work but there are exceptions. Also, there is “reverse passing off”, which covers plagiarism.

The Editor would not explain, apologize or print the article in full but did take down the offending web page. She offered a mention of my site in a “regular blog spot” a sort of “plagiarize one, get one free” offer.

It may be understandable that Editors do not readily apologize just as Captains often do not go down with their ships.

Like many potential litigants, I hoped that there might be a copyright lawyer out there, even a fictitious one, who would share my angst and take my case as a matter of principle i.e. for free.

However, as a copyright lawyer myself, I realized that was just not going to happen. So, it is left to me to do what any red blooded copyright lawyer would do, write an article and then advise myself as to the next step.

# 33. They send out threatening letters

In 1946 the Warner Brothers lawyers told the Marx Brothers not to release their movie under the name "A Night in Casablanca" as it was too similar to their hit movie title "Casablanca".

Groucho Marx replied to the Warner Brothers’ letter before action:
“...You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were.

….I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I would certainly like to try.

…It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute.

I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes".

# 32 They advise banks

Little old ladies


Q. Does law offer a solution to Banks dealing with little old ladies? Some refuse point blank to pay back the money they owe us. Some even dare us to do something about it. Trying to get them to honour their guarantees on their children’s misguided ventures is almost impossible.

Worried banker. Wellington, NZ

A. In case you haven’t noticed there is a love affair between judges and little old ladies, literally in some cases. Don’t turn to the courts. My advice is back off and wait for them to pass on.

J.F.

An extract from John Fytit's International Problem Page. This was a previous blog created by Paul Brennan.

# 31. They will represent anyone

THE COPPER WITH THE GOLDEN CHOPPER

WARNING: This case has sexually explicit references. If such references distress you then stop here. However, if you are prepared to put up with the sordid in the pursuit of legal knowledge, read on.

If people are accused of a crime, the obvious question to ask is, “Did they do it?”except, of course, for judges. The obvious question for a judge to ask is, “Can the prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?” If not, the judge will let you go whether you did it or not. This is an important legal distinction, especially for criminals.

As a lawyer in Hong Kong I acted for a lady, who was either the Madam of a brothel or sadly and repeatedly let down by the behaviour of her female employees.

What goes on in Chinese brothels? Here’s what the Prosecution said happened. The gentleman is shown into a cubicle with a curtain at the doorway by the Madam. There he sits in a barbers chair fully clothed facing the wall. A lady comes in and massages him. Both remain fully clothed. At the end of 30 minutes or longer she conducts a procedure which the Chinese call “flying the aeroplane”i.e. masturbation. Some of you will say that this is not a brothel at all but a massage parlour. Whatever! Anyway you get the idea.

In this case my client’s customer turned out to be an undercover Chinese police officer. There followed a raid where my client was arrested and charged with being a Madam.
The question that the Kowloon Magistrate had to decide was not, “Did she do it?” but could the Prosecution prove it.

Imagine you are a Hong Kong policeman. You have arrested the Madam but you cannot prove that she knew what was going on. Do you (a) let her cheat justice or (b) invent the Madam delivering a toilet roll into the cubicle at the crucial moment; giving her a bird’s eye view?

In cross examination the undercover policeman maintained that he did stand to attention (as it were) but it was in the course of duty and at no time did he become excited sexually or otherwise. At the crucial moment, demonstrating dedication and complete professionalism, he was still able to clearly identify my client’s fleeting appearance in the cubicle clutching a toilet roll.

I didn’t call my client to give evidence and the Magistrate dismissed the case as he did not believe the policeman.

Was the policeman lying? Unless a charge could be proven beyond reasonable doubt once the defendant is acquitted, lawyers tend not to dwell on it.

There were certain parts of the policeman’s evidence which strained credibility. Is a Chinese policeman’s training such that he can maintain a dead pan, inscrutable Confucian expression during take off and landing? Unlikely but impressive if true. Have Chinese brothels developed a covert “Just in time” delivery system for toilet rolls? Do Madams disturb their clientele by leaping into cubicles clutching toilet rolls during mid flight? Answer: Not if they want any repeat business.

In the past many policemen neatly ended their evidence with the defendant admitting the crime. This practice known as “verballing”went out of style as juries and judges stopped believing this type of police evidence. Now some policeman may resort to visual aids e.g. toilet rolls to achieve a similar result. The point to be aware of is some policemen (a minority) may decide to add to the evidence against you to ensure your conviction. Not out of malice but just to tie up a few loose ends.

Therefore if you are arrested you should stay stumm and call a lawyer as soon as possible.

Victims of crime should not suppose that just because a defendant did it that he will be convicted. Evidence should be gathered and preserved however obvious the crime.
So the alleged Madam got off and the policeman was not tried for perverting the course of justice.

But the unsung hero here is the tax payer for funding all this. As one relieved Hong Kong taxpayer commented “And I thought they had been wasting my money all these years”.

# 30. They are misunderstood

To continue our famous lawyers in history series we remember Henry VIII’s lawyer Richard Rich, who burnt heretics and participated in the dissolution of the Monasteries. He was voted History Magazine’s “Worse Briton”of the 16th century. Way to go, Richard.

What were his views on water boarding? We shall never know.

# 29. They make odd decisions

In the UK in 1806, 24 men were arrested for sodomy, including a lawyer and a waiter. They told the court that homosexuality was rife across all the classes. The Magistrates felt that to further investigate and uncover the behavior might encourage others. So they executed 5 of the men and moved on.

# 28 They charge too much

Lawyers in NY wish to charge $1000 per hour. I was once turned down by a client because he had to make a $2.00 contribution for his legal aid application. In view of the cost he decided to go it alone without me. I hope these NY city slickers have thought this through.

# 27 The evidence that they rely on can be a little suspect

The Spectator reports that in 1958 a Disney wildlife film crew wanted to shot lemmings jumping off a cliff into the sea to their deaths. As they were in Alberta where there was no sea, no cliffs and no lemmings they needed to be inventive. Especially, as Lemmings do not commit suicide in this way. It is a myth.They imported a lemming, who was filmed being thrown into a river in a very cliff like fashion. The lemming duly drowned.

At one time in almost every criminal case, lawyers would present police evidence in which the criminal admitted the offence, which was very helpful in a guilty plea but not so helpful in the, I know unlikely, event that the defendant didn’t do it. We have now discovered that alleged criminals rarely admit the crime, it is a myth.

For the most part, juries have stopped believing police “verbals”.

# 26 They invented privacy laws

Is it time for people to select the level of privacy that they require? There could be three levels:

Cavalier-this would be what most people would consider normal.
Balls aching- which is what passes for normal these days.
Obsessive ridiculous- for privacy zealots.

All bank employees and anyone who worked in a call centre would have their personal category defaulted to “Obsessive Ridiculous” until they attended a "Doublethink" re-education course.

# 25. They are blessed

Law Firm blessed by Pope: It’s a miracle

The blessing by the Pope of Corrs Chambers Westgarth (“Corrs”), an Australian law firm, has caused lawyers to fear a bid by the firm for cannonisation.“It would give them an unfair advantage”, said one senior partner, “it is the ultimate accreditation”. Traditional law firms, which frown upon promising miracles, are rushing to adopt prayer as yet another type of Alternative Dispute Resolution. “It is more satisfying than mediation, although we are not sure as a business model that there is much money in it”, said a litigation lawyer at another firm. Corrs received the blessing for sponsoring the Catholic Church’s World Youth Day, which was held in Sydney and attended by Pope Benedict XVI. “As far as I am aware, it is one of the few church initiatives suitable for law firm sponsorship since the Inquisition”, said another disappointed lawyer. Cannonisation usually takes years, however it can be expedited. Corrs could set up a “Cannonisation Group” contacting clients to gain evidence of miracles performed by the firm. Although no client is known to have stepped forward as yet we can expect to see “set piece” miracle events such as the “suing of the 5,000” and breathing life into hopeless cases. Partners will be challenged to test their belief that they can walk on water. A vow of silence and retreating to a cave in the mountains seems unlikely. However, a vow of poverty which so many other law firms have been embracing in this current credit crunch could be a winner. A plate being passed round in reception could yield extra revenue for the firm. The Senior Partner, named John is said to have referred to one coming after him, which has fueled rumours of a new charismatic managing partner of even greater power and ability.Younger lawyers at the firm have replaced the usual bowing and scraping to partners with a simple genuflection.“The Catholic Church has been known to reach out and forgive murderers and thieves. However, reaching out to lawyers appears to be breaking new ground. But, we are all "God’s children” explained one church member. However, on being asked if accountants and bankers could be next he said, “Are you kidding?”. The Devil was unavailable for comment.

#24 They made me fall out with my neighbours

Q. I know God says love thy neighbour and I have tried but I can’t stand mine. I don’t like his dog, his loud wife, his noisy kids and most of all his big mouth. We have almost come to blows on several occasions. Please help.

P K, Arizona, USA

A. Of course, we all feel like this about our neighbours but we manage to confine our hostility to the occasional sneaky act.

In your case, I recommend “The Art of War” by Sun Tse Tzu, which basically deals with neighbourhood disputes in ancient China.

Start building a legal case. You need independent witnesses (no relatives). If you have a video camera, use it.

A video of your neighbour shouting is good, especially if there are threats of violence. However, what you are really looking for is some violence towards you or, more preferably, your wife.

So will your neighbour’s criminal trial and conviction be the end of the matter?

Of course not, but some would view it as a very satisfying start.

Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#23 They hate kids

Q. My son has taken over my garden shed, where he and his friends smoke drugs. Ironically, I have always encouraged my son to bring his friends home. He is 16 years old.

T.B, Berkshire UKA.

Madam, if drugs are being consumed on your premises, you are committing an offence. I realise that as you have decided to write to me rather that go into the shed and belt him, discipline is not an option. Watching the Bill or other police type dramas may help to prepare you for the eventual knock. You will notice that the criminal always confesses in the last few minutes and in police jargon is “as good as gold”. This is not for you. Keep a lawyer’s number handy, say nothing and let a jury decide. Just hope that some of the jury have teenagers themselves.

Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#22 They can be Pussycats in Court

Q. I have just changed lawyers and, although satisfied with my choice, my wife tells me that the man down the road says my new lawyer is a pussy cat in court.

How can I know if I have made the right choice? Any advice he gives me now will be devalued with this slur standing against him? Will he be ready if I need him? Should I change again?

B.K of Toronto

A. Stop changing lawyers all the time. It doesn’t do any good. Tell your lawyer that the man down the road said that he was a pussy cat in court. If he successfully sues the pants off this man for defamation then you not only have the satisfaction of proving your wife wrong but you also get to see him in action in court. If your wife gossips, the lawyer may sue her too. Serves her right.

#21 They don't listen as hard as their client’s would like

Dear John,

My lawyer never really listens to me.

What can I do?

KS, Hong Kong

Dear KS,

If they did teach listening at Law School, I certainly don’t remember it.

In any event, young lawyers have the unique ability to know what a person’s legal problem is before they sit down and therefore, do not need to listen.

It’s true that older lawyers do find listening tiresome. However, except for the occasional client who comes in for a will and ends up divorced, it has worked pretty well over the centuries. Lawyers with extreme hearing problems are, of course, quickly appointed magistrates or judges.

On the positive side, if lawyers took time to listen your legal bills would go up and then where would we be?

J.F.

Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#20 They do not pay enough attention to their mothers

Dear John,

Is there any legal way I can make my children face up to their responsibilities and show me some attention?

Aged mother, Melb. Aust.

Dear Aged Mother,

Any mention of your will should do the trick.

Find a worthy cause to champion. Your lawyer will have a whole book of Charitable Institutions. My advice is to opt for the slightly off beat. My own clients have become very fond of a Donkey Sanctuary on the South Coast of England.

A word of caution: do not leave your money to your own pet. It is a certain death sentence. Unless, of course, your pet shows you no attention either.

Use a codicil, which is a short addition to a will in order to write out any particular offender. Alternatively announce that you intend to make a new will to shake up all of your children.

With a bit of thought your next Mothers Day could be a very special occasion, indeed.

J.F.

Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#19 They are boring

Married and bored

Q. I am married to a lawyer and he is very boring. Is it true that old lawyers never die they just lose their appeal?
Lawyer’s wife of Mooloolaba. Australia.

A. Being married to a lawyer myself for 25 years I can confirm that they are exceedingly dull but, like an old Labrador, very clubbable.

Consider yourself lucky that he can’t count or you may have ended up married to an accountant or banker.

J.F.
Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#18 They are breeding

Lonely Hearts

High Court Judge seeks understanding lady for brow beating maybe more.
----
Financial Planner (no previous convictions) wltm# well heeled mature (if possible aged) partner.
----
Accountant, bald, glasses, nsoh* seeks financially prudent soul mate to share a life which may not be long but will certainly seem so.
----
A sole legal practitioner in regional Australia wltm person of their dreams. A knowledge of conveyancing desirable but not essential.
----
Senior Partner, who has worked hard to establish a thriving law firm, now wishes to marry. Suitable candidates must be non-lawyers who are prepared to comment on all aspects of the firm decision making process and lord it over the other partners and staff. The right candidate will be supplied with a BMW and a life style which is conducive to sticking their oar in.
----
Interested? Please apply in confidence to John Fytit
# wltm Would like to meet.
* nsoh. No sense of humour.

Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems

#17 They deserve it

A study by Flinders University, which concluded that Australian Judges are happy, has been met with disbelieve in some quarters.

"They could of fooled us" said one lawyer who wished to remain anonymous.

One judge’s wife suggested that Professors Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach, the authors of the study, should try living with them.

#16 They are ungodly

The Bible says, “Law is not for the righteous, but for the lawless, disobedient, ungodly, unholy, profane”. Despite this, a career in the law does have appeal.

Extract from John Fytit’s Legal Career Advice Column

#15 They even win car park confrontations

RAGE IS ALL THE RAGE

With the advent of “boxasize”, the traditional ladylike slap on the face is being replaced by the right hook.

This week, I was backing into a public car parking space. A lady driver beeped her horn and when I stopped to let her pass, cut into the (my) space.

At first, she explained she was in a hurry and needed the space, then that she saw it first and then that I was a dickhead (I do not know how she worked that out). She was a lady in her 40s with that scary blond, gym user look. Alarmingly, she then said “get out of my face” in that tone the police use before they apply the Taser.

A nearby crowd of people waiting at a bus stop, outraged at her actions, began shouting at her to move her car.

My wife attempted to reason with her. “Are you going to try and hit me?”, she hopefully replied to which my wife responded “No, you are in bad enough shape as it is”(she always gets the best lines).

“Outgunned”, she drove off and victory was ours.

Road rage, trolley rage and all sorts of other rage is becoming well…all the rage. One supermarket incident ended with a customer being hit with a flying frozen turkey.
But there are those who take advantage of peoples’ propensity to be “wound up” and use provocation to win disputes aided by the system.

In these politically correct times the police are less likely to take a view and let people off with a warning. People can end up in court over something as petty as a car parking space dispute if they do not keep their cool.

If you are a crazed individual with a short fuse and a criminal record, go for it. However, for ordinary people, confrontation with strangers is best avoided as you can no longer be sure of their reaction. A lone gunman who recently opened fire in a US church was immediately, and unexpectedly, shot dead. Incredibly, God was given credit for the kill (sic). Statistically, there are more loonies alive today than ever before, or at least it seems that way.

Now, it is acceptable for security guards, emboldened by the terrorist threat, to resort to physical violence to resolve disturbances rather than urge moderation. I recently intervened when I saw a flight attendant bait an irate passenger with the clear intention of calling security to have her dragged away in those plastic handcuffs.

As a lawyer my job is to advise clients to walk away from potential legal issues. In retrospect, would it not have been better for me to avoid the dispute all together and drive on? Well, certainly yes, but only over her dead body.

A week later I read in the Darwin Awards that a man who shovelled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.

#14 We just don’t like them

While lawyers have been vilified and treated with suspicion over the centuries other professions have simply got away with it. For instance, Mao tse-tung, Casanova and J.Edgar Hover were all librarians.

#13 They can say the wrong thing at the wrong time

When newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, attended one of his first functions, he introduced himself to a lady.

"Hello I'm Tony"
She replied "And I'm Betrix"
Tony: "And what you do you Betrix?".
Beatrix: "I'm Queen of the Netherlands".

Extract from "Lawyers in History" series on Law & Disorder Blog

#12 They have an unhealthy interest in obscenity

There are people in our society who do not have a high appreciation of art, such as the ladies who convinced a US museum to cover up the genitals of an exhibition of Greek statutes. In fact, sticking a clay fig leaf on certain statues has been popular for centuries and probably requires a steady hand.

Therefore, when an art exhibition by an internationally renowned artist is raided by police and photographs of pre-pubescent girls in a “sexual context” have been seized, people are either outraged at the photographs or the raid itself.

Obscenity is difficult to prove. The pictures may need to “deprave and corrupt”, which takes some going, especially nowadays as anybody who has watched shows like “The Simpsons” and “Southpark” will know. The Jury may be told that “depravity and corruption” are given their ordinary dictionary meaning, which is not much help. One judge said of obscenity, “I cannot describe it but I know what it is when I see it”.

In the “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” trial, a judge said it was the sort of book that you would not want your servants to read, which explains why those charged with obscenity can be glad that a jury decides.

The divide for most legislation and many of us is that if it can be called “art”, however weird it seems to us, it is probably alright. In this case, the photographs were on sale for $25,000 each so that must be art or at least he has got me fooled.

In obscenity trials the Prosecution produce po-faced Puritans, who are disgusted and the Defence produce “Oscar Wilde” types who say, in art, anything goes. There can be a party atmosphere. But, if there is a guilty verdict, the defendants will probably be sent to prison as in the Oz trial because they have gone too far in the view of a jury.

So what is normal? Well, I thought I had a handle on this until a few weeks ago, when a primary school teacher was suspended from her job for appearing naked in Cleo magazine and speaking candidly about her sex life with her husband. Asked if she ever brought “toys” into the bedroom The Australian reported her reply as “Yes, the usual stuff - dildos, clitoral stimulators, whips and cuffs”. Understandably, now, I am not so sure.

# 11. They go on and on about Human Rights

When I saw the Australian Government’s budget allocated $2.8M to talk about Human Rights. My initial feeling was: Do we have to?

I was taken aback when a Human Rights lawyer activist suggested that $2.8M was doing it on the cheap.

If they are going to be picky, are they not concerned that accepting government money, tea and sandwiches may have a corrupting influence on their cause.

Would they not prefer to meet secretly but cheaply to avoid arrest, torture and unlawful detention? Then bravely rise up and wrest Human Rights from a reluctant government. There is a good argument that a government kicking in $2.8M straight away takes a lot of the fun out of the struggle.

If $2.8M is cheap, what are we going to miss? Hopefully we will not need to cut down on working together to achieve strengthened engagement, demonstrating commitments being matched at both domestic and international levels, supporting dialogue between stakeholders to highlight areas where further work will be needed. If so, bummer.

If the budget really is constrained then:
would not everybody really be pleased to find that Human Rights had been done to death (sometimes literally) in a whole load of places including the State of Victoria, the UK (more than once) and Hong Kong.
we would probably decide to “cut and paste” a draft bill from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what has been done in various other countries. We could offer this bill to the parliamentary process.

This does not mean that I am against Human Rights, working families, pensioners, peace, or any of that sort of thing. Nor am I against all the paraphernalia that goes with it. Such as the whole “vocal” rights industry trying to give small groups all sorts of rights, as of right. I concede that it may not be enough to allow judges to continue to apply fairness, justice, that sort of thing as they have been doing (or in some cases not doing) for millennia.

However, should it not be a fundamental freedom to speak about Human Rights for free? Or at least, not on my tab.

#10. They are stuck in the past

It can’t be long now before some enterprising lawyers invent the “SueLaw” legal chain. There would be a limited menu above reception. Receptionist wearing microphones would shout orders through to lawyers busily flipping legal papers in the background. Drive through law firms would not be far behind. In some countries there would be an express queue for men with less than five wives.

But, what if the client’s started to believe that making Legal Mistakes was not good for them? In fact, they began to suspect that Legal Mistakes caused heart attacks and people who did not have legal “issues” were thinner and more attractive.
Of course we lawyers would deny it.

We would develop new experiences for our clients, give them more choice and introduce more interesting legal problems. We would run TV advertisements with messages like: “Law can be thrilling, exciting-sue someone today”. I may be called upon to reminisce about my High Court tussle over two gold fish (unreported), or my incisive questioning of an undercover police officer about his groin, or the time, as an articled clerk, I sued a Rector who knocked down and removed a gravestone then mowed over the grave as he allegedly did not like the deceased.
Bar Associations and Law Societies would call for client’s who may be able to testify that legal problems were in fact character building and a frequent trigger for spiritual experiences. I would proffer my own back list of clients including a one armed shop lifter, a two handed but allegedly light fingered bank manager, a top government prosecutor who let people off for a fee, a Police Superintendent who did a runner overseas as well as a number of cheerful African Princes accused of credit card fraud (at one time in my life at the rate of one per week). Such would be the impact of this marketing campaign the queues at SueLaw would be restored within a week.

However studies may start to reveal that most people do not have novel legal issues they have boringly similar ones. Clients would hear rumours of a centuries old secret code known only to lawyers. Could it really be that irrespective of country, social standing or occupation clients tend to make the same old Legal Mistakes again and again?

Amid allegations of a centuries old legal conspiracy an ancient legal scroll would be discovered revealing that the 10 Greatest Legal Mistakes of that time mirrored the 10 Greatest Legal Mistakes of this era. The discovery would rock the client world.

Anti-lawyer Activists may nail a Declaration to the door of the Law Society in London reading:
WARNING: AVOID THE TOP TEN LEGAL MISTAKES

1. Fighting with the parent of your offspring. You have so much to lose.
2. Disputes with your neighbour. The only full resolution is to move.
3. Buying one house without selling the one that you own. Bank bridging finance is required when you cannot sell quickly enough and there is the possibility of losing money on a distressed sale. I know you must have it but just wait for once in your life.
4 . Trying to get blood out of a stone. Winning is good. Getting paid is better. Ensure your opponent can pay up.
5. Fighting legal cases you cannot win. There may be other ways to beat your opponent and save the cost of legal fees.
6. Using a “Do it Yourself” will. You can’t even find your car keys most of the time. However if you are broke anyway-no problem.
7. Being your own lawyer. Even lawyers don’t do that.
8. When arrested, not calling a lawyer and trying to talk your way out of it.
9. Not getting a lawyer to review a lease or business contract. As many small businesses fail this is a sure way to invite trouble.
10. Any type of litigation relating to defamation.
Lawyers will be incensed and immediately sue the activists. But it may be too late, the realisation that people had been paying lawyers for centuries to process the same old Legal Mistakes may cause the public to become very angry. They may cease to make the same old Legal Mistakes and withdraw legal proceedings. The stock market would rise but the sales of BMW’s would plummet and lawyers may be seen riding bicycles.
Lawyers would desperately fight back and begin to sue each other for failing to properly advise their clients of the dangers. Huge class actions would arise pitting one legal dynasty against another. Other lawyers would jump in to defend their colleagues. After all they were just following instructions! Surely clients knew the similarity. But lawyers would successfully argue that clients should have been informed in writing. Judges would enjoy making robust judgements hammering law firms in damages and legal costs.

The courts would be busier than ever. Insurance premiums would go through the roof and legal costs to the public would increase dramatically. Clients may start to return to law firms with the same old Legal Mistakes some would not be able to kick the habit. Lawyer would get other lawyers to issue certificates confirming that clients had been independently advised that their instructions contained the same old Legal Mistakes. Client’s complain at the cost of obtaining these certificates but what could lawyers do? Two problem suers would start a 12 step program called “Adversaries Anonymous”.

Lawyers would survive their darkest hour. Signs outside legal offices throughout the world would proclaim “business as usual”. BMW would be saved.

As for SueLaw, it would open offices worldwide and become famous for the uncharacteristic cheerfulness of their legal receptionists “Do you want files with that?”. “Have a nice day, in Court” they would say.

# 9. They can be so scruffy

Q. My lawyer is so scruffy that I am ashamed to be seen with him in court. I am worried that the other lawyers look down on him. What can I do to make him more presentable?

A. I, for one, believe that there is no excuse, even for inept lawyers, not to look their best when in the company of clients. It is the least they can do. Standard of dress is something that judges look for in addition to legal argument. I have seen cases lost for the want of a trouser press.

Tell him that you do not expect Beau Brummel but to get a grip.

J.F.

An extract from John Fytit's International Legal Problem Page

# 8. They get guilty people off

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913 have been placed online.



My first appearance at the Old Bailey was for a bail application. Just before I was called into court the police officer in the case said, “Shouldn’t you be wearing a gown?”. This made me very nervous especially when I found out a minute later that he was right. The judge took off his wig and for the rest of the application treated me as if I was a foreign language student. I found this very comforting and soon, I grew in confidence enough to join with the judge in having a go at the police officer, who was appropriately dressed and had made the mistake of appearing competent.


My client was a 45 year old Irishman charged with rape and buggery of his 74 year old landlady. He maintained that they were lovers and she had made these allegations in a fit of drunken, jealous rage. Before you say “yer right”, he was in fact telling the truth. Most of my other clients (at that time) were either persistent criminals or greatly misunderstood by the authorities. He did not even have any previous convictions. I produced letters that she had written to the prison and a few pictures of her in drunken poses. Despite the police officer’s objections, he was granted bail.


A few weeks later, I represented John Murphy (not his real name) at his committal hearing. The charges were dismissed and he walked free. Was it my brilliant cross examination? Well it could have been if she had turned up. Could he have been guilty? Well, he would have been found guilty as consent was no defence to certain sexual acts.There is no smoke without fire or in the face of a serious allegation, it is difficult not to feel that he must have done something wrong.

Also, there can be innocent victims. A local Bank Manager, also called John Murphy, unexpectedly called at my office but my then secretary refused to let him in. He too, despite being a Bank Manager, was innocent.If you are ever wrongly accused of a crime, however guilty you appear, your lawyer is prepared to fight for you like a tiger or in some cases like a foreign language student.


The http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/ harks back to simpler days when "wicked" children were transported rather than being sent to bed early, police evidence was believed and cross examination was not permitted.


Policeman: He stole something.


Judge: Did he by Jove? Transportation.


Juvenile Defendant: Thank you your Lordship.



Policeman: No gown.


Judge: Transportation.


Defendant: Mooloolaba, Queensland?


Judge: No problem.

# 7. They couldn't judge their way out of a paper bag

Much time is spent by the legal profession worldwide, agonizing about how to fix court systems which are universally acknowledged to be slow, expensive, over complex and not customer focused.

Many claim that courts are all about lawyers and judges showing off their huge egos and unconcerned with the real problems facing the punter. They argue that the public would be content with the certainty of a quick, cheap, simple decision-good or bad-so that they could get on with their lives.

Is it time to implement a two tier system of justice? Keep the present one for the “details people” with money and for the rest of us adopt a “thumbs up/thumbs down” model. A “one minute” submission from each side and no appeal. It would be quick, cheap and simple. Legal advisers would have a 50% chance of being right, a definite improvement in some circles.

But hold it. Hasn’t the “thumbs up/thumbs down” method been tried before? Did we not get rid of that as the public wanted something a little more considered and transparent?

Over the centuries the legal profession to its credit, has tried many methods of dispute resolution: trial by combat, trial by ordeal, ducking or even swallowing a feather in a piece of bread (if the person choked he was guilty). However, litigants remain dissatisfied.

Isn’t the underlying problem that litigants often demonstrate a lack of aggression and questionable commitment? They dip out of the legal process through mediation or early settlement just when it is getting interesting. The legal profession not only copes with the disappointment of so few cases coming to trial but also with a repetitive, dull caseload brought by cautious, under funded litigants.

Meanwhile, our society seems to have more to complain about than ever. Listen in any pub, coffee shop, taxi etc. and you will hear people complaining like never before. Rather than flogging a dead horse, the legal profession should harness these complaints and channel them through the courts.

But how? Well, I suggest a competition inviting members of the public to come forward with their complaints to a certain hotel on a certain day. In a room, behind a table we could place three litigation funders to listen to each of the complaints and decide which candidates should be asked back. One of the litigation funders or possibly a retired judge would tear a strip off the contestants and the whole thing would be televised. The combination of TV coverage and a forum to vent their complaints should attract 1,000s of complainants.

Each week, contestants would appear before the panel with a different complaint and be judged. Eventually we would have identified a core of competitive, talented and enthusiastic complainers. The TV royalties would be divided between the contestants to allow them to launch court actions as they choose. This would provide the legal profession with interesting cases which were well funded and clients ready to go the distance. It would give the whole public access to justice by venting their anger on prime time TV.

Courts would be opened to TV coverage. The standard of court advocacy and judgments would be much improved, shorter with more sound bites. Lawyers generally would be better dressed and appear more dedicated, especially if their Mums were watching.

Transfer of judges between courts could result in huge transfer fees for the more disagreeable ones. Court seating would need to be expanded and there may be a need for live evening fixtures.

The idea could be sold internationally, under the name “Sue Idol”.

Cheer leaders and maybe even lions could be introduced to entertain the crowd in the breaks.

Finally, after centuries lawyers would find themselves popular TV celebrities and a public released from the burden of paying for justice would start to enjoy and even see the fun side of the legal process.

I have two words for those who think that this is not worth trying:
“Judge Judy”.

# 6. They have trouble thinking outside the box

Lawyers must face the fact that the Gay Rights Movement appears to have made more progress in the last thirty years, in the acceptance stakes, than lawyers have made in the last three millennia.

They have attempted change. The “Plain English” push in the 1970’s was a call for lawyers to discard legalese and Latin. Since then lawyers have been demystifying the law only to find their clients have since adopted the “3 figure acronym” and text messaging. Clients have not really appreciated the move to “Plain English”, especially as financial institutions now insist on documents being read. So lawyers are understandably careful about what they try next.

Clients seem to want change. But what? Here are 5 suggestions to consider:

• A community focus. An unhealthy focus on “conflict of interest” e.g. Lessor/lessee, seller/buyer can double the legal costs and create a negative “us and them” culture? A Legal Community of lawyers, judges, police, victims and criminals could work together to foster compromise solutions. Under this inclusive approach even Axe-murderers would be stakeholders and surely that would be far safer for everyone.

• Improved listening? On the face of it this would drive fees up. Large firms could create Dispute Listening Departments and bring in specialist “listeners”, especially to cover for younger lawyers, who find this so difficult. Sole practitioners may delegate this to their secretaries.

• A value based pricing structure? Lawyers resist this but what firm would not gain valuable customer service points if they discontinued bills and just sought donations.

• More government funded legal programs? For instance, disputes between neighbours could be resolved by encouraging one party to move, using stamp duty concessions and assistance with estate agents’ commission.

• A new paradigm. Could legal issues be resolved by using visualization and meditative techniques? Well, could they? It is now generally accepted that in any journey, the universe can conspire to assist in achieving a goal. For instance, the stressful conveyancing process could be avoided if the seller died and unexpectedly left the property to the purchaser in his will. Rather than suing adversaries a client could just wait for them to die. A visit to a lawyer could be a more holistic experience combining legal advice and group client discussions. This could be followed by “add value” services such as massage, colonic irrigation and finished off with a Tarot reading. A visit to a lawyer, now so often rushed by the pressure of billable hours, may take up to a day and leave clients feeling refreshed.

Lawyers may argue that Shakespeare only wrote “Let’s kill all the lawyers” as there were no Financial Planners around at that time. They may compare themselves favourably to other professions. After all, unlike banker/money lenders, they have never been declared illegal or thrown out of the temple. However, the “writing has been on the wall” for a considerable period of time and change may be long overdue.

# 5. Young lawyers think they are so smart

Are older lawyers a little vague about law? We can be. However, I could give anyone a run for their money on the law circa 1980, which I still use extensively in my law practice today.

I have been a recovering young lawyer for 25 years. I married and became a lawyer in the same year. Each evening, I would go home and share my cases with my wife, who after the honeymoon seemed a little less willing to listen. This hasn’t changed but I have noticed it has extended beyond legal subjects.

I then knew what your problem was before you even sat down. It was written on the file cover. If it said “Debt” then I would tell you everything I knew about Debt. I knew all about property law, especially the section numbers and the cases. The same with divorce, accidents, in fact, if you had a legal problem, I instinctively knew the answer, it was uncanny.

My interviews seem shorter. I find fewer clients making a bid for the door after 2 hours.

I am less willing now to accept my client’s idea of the best approach to a legal problem and see how it goes.

Then I would give legal advice solicited or unsolicited. Now my legal advice has to be solicited usually during working hours.

The solution always seemed to be in doing something, preferably legal. Now I often feel the solution in not doing anything at all. This seems to suit me and my clients.

Money (your money I mean) was no object. Whereas, now even I can see that there are so many better ways to spend money e.g. taking a holiday.

Today, I tend to listen to clients a little more, difficult but useful. I am less certain about the answer to legal issues. I am baffled at my own.

I think if people pay for legal advice they are more likely to take it and value it-if I am wrong about this one, I can live with it.

Did I think I was so smart? Well no, but sometimes it may have appeared that way.

(c) Paul Brennan 2007

# 4. Lawyers are difficult to live with

I never realised why people tended to dislike lawyers until I married one. Argumentative, prone to making smart comments and costly too.

If you are sick of changing lawyers or you live with one 24 hours a day, like me, the solution is to build a “relationship”.

I hear you say, “Shouldn’t the lawyer be doing this as part of the service”?

Hey, these are lawyers we are dealing with here!

Do not just stay and moan; that will affect your business. Your choice is to either sack ‘em or lower your expectations.

After years of moaning about lawyers the best way of lowing your expectations is to accept that all along you were the problem (I did not say this was going to be easy). Now here are six questions that may help you down this road:

1. Are your matters always urgent?
2. Does the material become non-urgent once the ball is in your court?
3. Is the quality and/or service never really up to scratch?
4. Do you invariably complain about the bill?
5. Do you then call the lawyer and try to get him to repeat steps 1 and 2. Followed by your steps 3 and 4.
6. Do you then in exasperation look for a new lawyer?

Does any of this sound familiar?

Legal services can be cheap/quick/excellent. You can have any two of these but not all three. Cheap and excellent but not quick. Excellent and quick but not cheap. You get the idea.

If your solicitor is consistently delivering all three, be suspicious and look for an angle e.g. he is sleeping with your wife.

I hope this helps. Otherwise keep on sacking, you never know one day your prince will come.

Extract called "Managing your lawyer-be firm" from “The Law is an Ass Make Sure it Doesn’t Bite yours” © Paul Brennan 2006

# 3. They can be a little tactless from time to time

Q. I am a young criminal lawyer. Custom dictates that after I lose a case I go down and visit my client in the cells. Although, I would regard myself as a fairly able conversationalist, it is difficult to know the right thing to say; I am reluctant to say “sorry”.


A. Small talk such as, “What are you doing for your holidays?” or “Nice weather outside” is inappropriate. Avoid sage advice such as, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” as it could lead to a violent reaction. If an appeal is mentioned say that you will consider it, however hopeless it may be. Saying, “This is regrettable” is preferable to “Sorry” as the latter could be interpreted as an admission that it was your fault and could be cited in an appeal. On leaving, a simple “Good bye” is best rather than “Cheerio”, “Call me” or “we must do lunch sometime”.

Extract from John Fytit’s International Legal Problem Page

# 2. They get up the nose of the President of Pakistan

On 5 November 2007 President Pervez Musharraf's police baton-charged lawyers protesting against emergency rule.

What is with this guy? Have they not got any monks in Pakistan?

First it may be the lawyers, but then it will be the accountants and bankers. After that it could be the financial planners and then where would we all be?

Amid pictures of Pakistani police baton-charging lawyers wearing suits, the Economist reports that many of those, arrested of a certain class, may have friends to help them “wriggle out of trouble”. It reports a scene outside the Supreme Court in Islamabad where a small crowd of lawyers, “including several well groomed women wearing expensive sunglasses, took turns to bundle into the back of a police van. From there they flashed victory salutes to assembled photographers”.

Would the lawyers of Mooloolaba be prepared to man the barricades and resist a police charge? Well, we would all need new suits, first.

# 1. To put Judges out of their misery

To me, Judges have seldom seemed very happy.

However, maybe over the years, I have just had a bad batch.

A recent study concluded that Australian Judges enjoyed their work.

"They could have fooled us" said one lawyer who wished to remain anonymous.

One judge’s wife suggested that the authors of the study should try living with them.

So maybe they do enjoy their work in a Hanging Judge Jeffreys sort of way.