The Art of War - coping with conflict

Most people engage in litigation only once unless they have a very understanding spouse. At the outset, there is a lot to be gained by reading the Art of War by Sun Tzu, which is not only a manual of warfare, but a sage guide to engaging in conflicts both business and personal.

For those potential litigants who do not have the time to read the Art of War, here is the take home:

Twelve lessons for litigants from the Art of War by Sun Tzu

1.    Do not first fight and then look for victory.

2.    Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting, next attacking in the field, the worst strategy is to besiege as prolonged warfare is expensive.

3.    Rapidity is the essence of war, take advantage of your enemy's unreadiness, march by unexpected routes and attack unguarded spots.

4.    The object of war is peace.

5.    When attacking leave an outlet free to make your enemy believe that there is still a safe road of escape as enemies in desperate straits will show a lack of fear.

6.    If the enemy has achieved an unassailable height before you do, do not follow, but retreat and try to entice your enemy away by threatening another place that he must relieve.

7.    If his forces are united, separate them.

8.    When faced with a superior enemy about to attack, begin by seizing something your enemy holds dear and then he will be amenable to your will (the “goolie manoeuvre”).

9.    Devise unfathomable plans while knowing your enemy’s disposition. Thereby, he must spread his resources whereas you can attack at his weakest point in strength.

10.  Win people over by kind treatment and use them as spies, as intelligence is of utmost importance.

11.  Warfare is based on deception, when able to attack seem unable, when active seem inactive, pretend to be weak so he may grow arrogant.

12.  To begin by bluster and then take fright at the enemy’s numbers shows a supreme lack of intelligence.

Having said that even a small homily from Sun Tzu within marriage is dangerous ground.  For instance, it is difficult to explain to a wife that the “object of war is peace” especially where a daughter in law is concerned.

© Paul Brennan 2014. All Rights Reserved.

This is an extract from the second edition of Unleashing the Dogs of Law which the author intends to get around to but for now the 1^st edition is not bad. Click here to view the 1st edition.

Sponsored by Brennans Solicitors

# 80. They cost money

When you should speak to your lawyer?

A good gauge of when you are ready to speak to a lawyer about a legal issue or dispute is that you are awake at 3 in the morning thinking about it.

I know you will say it is alright for people like me who are married to lawyers.  However, we have done the hard yards.  Besides, anyone who has been married to a young lawyer will know they can be very grouchy if they are woken up at 3am.  Although, admittedly we older lawyers are usually just flattered by the attention.

If you are concerned about the money that a lawyer may charge you, I suggest that you plan ahead.  The next time you decide to change your spouse or partner, (for some of you the decision may be thrust upon you), consider choosing a lawyer as a replacement, believe me they are not all bad.  Even if it only lasts a few months he or she will be able to help with your divorce and or property settlement which can be a big saving.

(c) Paul Brennan 2010  practices on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. 

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 74. They try to stop me being legal

Behind every heroic legal action there is a lawyer advising against it

Most lawyers advise their clients against suing others unless there is no other alternative. Clients find this frustrating and it has over the years led to disappointment with the legal profession.


Many clients are no longer ready to be denied, what they rightly suspect is the absolute joy of slapping a writ on their enemy. Of course, litigation is expensive but with increasing wealth, clients have ample resources to engage in court actions even if it means the sale of their home. As for the stress, many see a court experience as excellent material for a book and therefore worthwhile.


Commencing a court action is something that you only do once, unless you have a very understanding spouse. Therefore, it is essential to get it right.


Sadly, many clients come to a lawyer having already chosen a target. They may want to sue passing motorists, retailers or old boyfriends. This is such a waste. Other clients will risk having to move house by suing their neighbours or put a blot on their resume by suing their boss.


If asked, lawyers can direct clients to safer ground on which to conduct litigation such as their social club committee where disputation and outrage is regarded as quite usual be it golf, Rotary, tennis etc. Clients should avoid the more argumentative members and target the treasurer or secretary as these positions attract the more sensible members of the club who are more likely to give up in the face of senseless litigation. Club members seem to enjoy any disaster which befalls their treasurer or the secretary and your decision can prove very popular.


After service of the writ a lot of the fun can go out of litigation and therefore it is important to choose the right target for a quick victory.


Lawyers advise clients to avoid litigation but if you are dealing with unscrupulous people sometimes you have no choice. 


(c) Paul Brennan 2010

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 73. They ignore you

My lawyer ignores me

Dear John

I recently asked my lawyer to sue someone and almost immediately regretted it.  He always seems so busy.  I hate bothering him.  Even money does not seem to make him any happier. 

How is it best to get his attention?  Should I sue him!

David C.

Sydney

Dear David C.,

All lawyers are busy until they learn the principles of good practice management. 

I give priority to clients who have some sort of run in with say another motorist  or their bank and are content to be told that they have a great case but cannot afford to sue.  This is a comparatively cheap and quick service.  For many it brings closure, so my clients can get on with their lives.

In the more involved case, it is necessary to spend many hours collating documents and preparing a stinging and authoritative letter to the offending party.   This can be tiring but very rewarding for the client.  Often, I decide not to send the letter out.  I do not tell the client that I have not sent it out, so that the client has the satisfaction of savaging their enemy without the upset of a shot being fired in return.  If I do receive an unpleasant letter from the other side I often do not pass it on to the client.  Over the years, I have found that this keeps everybody happy.

If my client happens to find out that the letter has not been received by their enemy then they blame and even consider suing the Post Office.  However, they usually accept my advice that although they have an excellent case, it is not wise to open up a second front and they cannot afford it anyway.    

I imagine the lawyer on the other side may be doing the same. 

Of course, if my practice does slow down, I dig up a few of these old letters and send them off.  This helps to moderate the case flow in my office.  So, unlike your lawyer, I have time to take instructions from my clients and be ready to deal with new matters as they arise.

J.F

Extract from John Fytit’s International Legal Problem Page. (c) Paul Brennan 2009. written on this blog (see other posts).

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.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 67. Judges

Quiet in the Court!

Nowadays, judges often feel that they should give the appearance of being impartial even when one party has a hopeless case.

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.

 (c) Paul Brennan 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

Click here to go to the Judges Just Want to have Fun Gift Shop

# 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!"

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 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.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 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

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 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”.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 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.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

#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

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

#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.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

#10. They are stuck in the past

Sue Law


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.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

 

# 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”.

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors

# 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

Sponsored by Brennans solicitors