Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent
one.
Albert Einstein
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
A New App Uberizing Legal Services
The
new Law App (“the LApp”) heralds the
Uberization of legal services.
The
LApp will enable you to summon the lawyer
of your choice who will not only provide legal advice at an agreed hourly rate
but also take you to where you want to go at no extra charge. This service
transforms the much-maligned billable hour into the essential ingredient of fee
transparency.
If
you do not like the advice, you can stop
the clock, get out, hail another lawyer or just discuss your legal problem with
an Uber driver of your choice. There will be no more waiting in shabby lawyer’s
offices; you select the quality of the vehicle, the uniform and even the
disposition of the lawyer/driver (“LD”).
The
clock only starts once the LD with the requested specialisation arrives at your door.
The ability to review the LD is a Premium Feature of the LApp
available at an additional charge. Due to its popularity, extra servers are
being laid on in Arizona.
The
LApp also offers judges (JDs”) and
mediators (“MDs”).
A
JD will pick you up and determine your dispute during
the journey. The JDs will be just as cantankerous as any taxi driver. However,
you can end the tirade at any time, an option not available in court.
An
MD will conduct the mediation during the journey. Some mediations may need to start off in two separate vehicles taking different routes to avoid unpleasant
exchanges at traffic lights or in heavy traffic.
There
are plans for volunteer juries to be empanelled
to assist in making a decision in your matter. A coach with a well-stocked bar and an enticing destination
should eliminate reluctant jurors.
You
will arrive at your destination with your legal problem solved without the
usual delay.
 |
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
Sex in the Dock - The Lady Chatterley’s Lover Trial
In
1960 at the Old Bailey, Penguin faced prosecution under the Obscene
Publications Act for its publication of Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence who had died in 1930.
In
the book, Lady Chatterley has an affair with her husband’s gamekeeper as her
husband is unable to have sexual intercourse due to a WW1 injury.
Did
the book tend to deprave and corrupt? If so, was its publication 'for the public good' on the grounds of its
literary merits?
Apart
from the “f” word being used 30 times, the Prosecutor listed sexual intercourse
taking place “thirteen times” including in “her husband’s house,…a hut,…the
undergrowth,…when stark naked and dripping with raindrops…" He concluded, “And
finally…we have it all over again in the attic in a Bloomsbury boarding-house.”
The
Prosecutor asked, “Would you approve of your… young daughters – because girls
can read as well as boys – reading this book?... Is it a book that you would even wish
your wife or servants to read?”
The Defence said that society cannot fix its standards by what is suitable for a
14-year-old.
Over
a six-day trial there were a number of witnesses, including:
1. Author
Rebecca West who gave evidence that the book had literary merit, but was badly
written by a man who had no sense of humour and no background of education in
his home.
2.
The Bishop of Woolwich who agreed that Christians ought to read it. This led to the
headline in the evening papers, “A Book all Christians should read”.
The
Defence contended that Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra may as well have been
a “story of a sex-starved man copulating with an Egyptian Queen.”
The
Judge summed up suggesting that the jury think of “factory girls reading in
their lunchtime.”
After
a six-day trial, the Jury found Penguin not guilty.
(c) Paul Brennan 2015. All rights reserved.
(c) Paul Brennan 2015. All rights reserved.
 |
| Sponsored By Brennans solicitors |
Losing your inheritance - the smart way
A. It used to be that thieves were branded on the cheek, murderers were hanged, and if a will was not signed at the bottom or foot thereof in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, it was not valid. We all knew where we stood, and although it was difficult to get a will executed without someone inadvertently trying to leave the room, or wanting to sign in the wrong place, we managed. Now, if a Testator had a clear intention of creating a will, despite not observing the legal niceties, a judge may allow it over the line.
Once a Testator is deceased it is no longer his wife who decides his intentions for him, it is a judge, so it can still go either way. This means that if those in charge of your inheritance are unreliable (and let’s face it, we are dealing with your parents here) you may need to have an entire court case to beat off the other claimants, and that can be expensive.
Therefore, it is best to pay for your parents to make their wills properly and then wipe them out before they change their minds. This is not without risk and care must be taken to avoid suspicion of patricide, matricide or the ever popular, step-matricide. However, no one is surprised by what parents get up to these days. Accidents involving Bucking Broncos, parachuting and microlights seem commonplace for the over 70s.
But, tweeting is just one of the ways to lose your inheritance, so be vigilant and proactive it may not be enough to support your parents’ extreme lifestyle choices and wait.
Extract from - I'll have the law on you -unmitigated advice on law and lawyers by John Fytit AO, lawyer to be published later this year.
 |
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
# 67. Judges
Quiet in the Court!
This impartiality could have been
achieved by listening quietly and politely. However, judges have found it
difficult to restrain their traditional pent up anger, general grumpiness and
twisted sense of humour which has always made listening such a challenge for
them.
Therefore, judges took to criticizing
both sides in what they believed was an even handed manner. In practice, this
usually amounted to launching blistering attacks against anyone who raised
their head above the parapet.
Advocates became fearful to say
anything at all, which only encouraged judges to greater outbursts.
Lawyers became too embarrassed to
bring their clients to Court who turned out to prefer short upbeat briefings
rather than wasting a day at Court. Lawyers began to send clients text message
updates often during the hearing itself.
Lawyers who had always made their
bravest and most confident speeches in conference with their clients at their
own offices, days or weeks before the court case, now wondered, why go to court
at all? So they didn’t.
Client meetings were no longer rushed
and could take all day. Without the oppressive atmosphere of a court room and
in the comfort of their own offices, lawyers started to enjoy advocacyonce
again. They were able to quote Henry V and even Mel Gibson without snide
remarks from the Bench. They even got a few laughs which had become almost
impossible in the Courtroom.
Lawyers were no longer “In Court” when
clients called. They became quite efficient and were able to get on with their
real work. They no longer had to bother reading court rules or old cases; there
was no need to prepare lengthy affidavits and written submissions. Litigation
became cheap and even cheerful.
With the advent of Twitter some
lawyers reduced lengthy reporting letters to 140 characters. But other lawyers
included romantic interludes, car chases, Vampire Ushers and Zombie Clerks in
their reports which were snapped up by publishers and some became best sellers.
Judges promised to be less cranky and
offered 5 day trials in Bali but it was too late. Lawyers had become so popular
that the Attorney General finally accepted that Judges had been to blame all
along and they would all need to go out and get proper jobs.
So ended the Era of the Judges.
|
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
# 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.
|
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
# 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.
|
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
#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
Extract from "The International Legal Problem Page" blog where lawyer John Fytit solves your legal problems
|
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
# 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.
|
| Sponsored by Brennans solicitors |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
