ponderings
Forum rules
The articles and opinions written on this website , might not reflect the views of the site, We do not give legal advice and in no way are we responsible for what is written by our members
The articles and opinions written on this website , might not reflect the views of the site, We do not give legal advice and in no way are we responsible for what is written by our members
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: ponderings
by legaleagle » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:21 pm
Geronimo that is the difference between a barrister and everyone else (solicitors included)
Just to be vey clear and transparent, this information is widely available to those who are not in the legal profession and I am not telling you anything you could not (and most likely have) found out for yourself.
- legaleagle
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: ponderings
by Geronimo » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:54 pm
legaleagle wrote:Thanks for the tip. we better stop talking or people round here might start to think we're some kind of organised group
As if people havent sussed that already!
Laugh my friends even if it kills you, for at least you'll die happy
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
- Geronimo
- Posts: 12827
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 pm
- Location: Wherever i get into bed.
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: ponderings
by legaleagle » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:05 am
Ah the next accusation 
have you ever considered working for the security services? they would value someone as paranoid as you
have you ever considered working for the security services? they would value someone as paranoid as you Just to be vey clear and transparent, this information is widely available to those who are not in the legal profession and I am not telling you anything you could not (and most likely have) found out for yourself.
- legaleagle
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: ponderings
by Geronimo » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:42 pm
legaleagle wrote:Ah the next accusation
Id dare say you would prosecute anyone put before you...regardless..
Laugh my friends even if it kills you, for at least you'll die happy
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
- Geronimo
- Posts: 12827
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 pm
- Location: Wherever i get into bed.
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: ponderings
by legaleagle » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:57 pm
Why yes I would. I said that earlier Clearly you don't understand the way we get allocated work, the cab rank rule for barristers or the reason behind it. I know you don't want to know but in the hope I can clear this up for someone here it is.
We as barristers don't have the option of saying no to work just because we don't like it. The work comes in to our chambers through the clerks who look at the case, assess who is free, who is experienced enough for the case and if who works within the fee schedule that the person sending the case has specified. They then allocate the case to the next barrister in line.
Now unless I have a personal interest in the case (I couldn't prosecute a family member fir instance) I need a very good reason to return that piece of work. This would not matter to the average everyday man on the street, he just wants a barrister so he would not know if I turned down his case or that it was a big deal. The CPS however and many solicitor firms do know what a big deal this is (the CPS especially) and they want to know the reason I turn down their case, and if it's not a valid one they will report me to the bar standards board and my inn of court. This could spell the end of my career as a barrister.
Now before we all start frothing at he mouth and getting all paranoid there is a very good reason for this system. It prevents a barrister from giving up cases that he does not fancy or that he thinks the person deserves to be prosecuted. It also prevents barristers from only working for the rich and prevents us refusing cases because the prosecutor asked us not to take it. All good things I am sure you will agree (or not )
Clearly you don't understand the way we get allocated work, the cab rank rule for barristers or the reason behind it. I know you don't want to know but in the hope I can clear this up for someone here it is.We as barristers don't have the option of saying no to work just because we don't like it. The work comes in to our chambers through the clerks who look at the case, assess who is free, who is experienced enough for the case and if who works within the fee schedule that the person sending the case has specified. They then allocate the case to the next barrister in line.
Now unless I have a personal interest in the case (I couldn't prosecute a family member fir instance) I need a very good reason to return that piece of work. This would not matter to the average everyday man on the street, he just wants a barrister so he would not know if I turned down his case or that it was a big deal. The CPS however and many solicitor firms do know what a big deal this is (the CPS especially) and they want to know the reason I turn down their case, and if it's not a valid one they will report me to the bar standards board and my inn of court. This could spell the end of my career as a barrister.
Now before we all start frothing at he mouth and getting all paranoid there is a very good reason for this system. It prevents a barrister from giving up cases that he does not fancy or that he thinks the person deserves to be prosecuted. It also prevents barristers from only working for the rich and prevents us refusing cases because the prosecutor asked us not to take it. All good things I am sure you will agree (or not
)Just to be vey clear and transparent, this information is widely available to those who are not in the legal profession and I am not telling you anything you could not (and most likely have) found out for yourself.
- legaleagle
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: ponderings
by Geronimo » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:00 pm
Id dare say you would prosecute anyone put before you...regardless../quote]legaleagle wrote:Why yes I would.
Thats all that needs to be said...how cases are allotted or why or when or for how much is a moot point!
Laugh my friends even if it kills you, for at least you'll die happy
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
- Geronimo
- Posts: 12827
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 pm
- Location: Wherever i get into bed.
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: ponderings
by legaleagle » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:28 pm
of course it is, it confirms your theories. anything else that might challenge them is not required
Just to be vey clear and transparent, this information is widely available to those who are not in the legal profession and I am not telling you anything you could not (and most likely have) found out for yourself.
- legaleagle
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: ponderings
by Geronimo » Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:39 pm
legaleagle wrote:of course it is, it confirms your theories. anything else that might challenge them is not required
No one forced you to reply as you did...you were asked a question gave the answer and now seem to be trying to blame the questioner for the answer...
Laugh my friends even if it kills you, for at least you'll die happy
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
- Geronimo
- Posts: 12827
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 pm
- Location: Wherever i get into bed.
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: ponderings
by legaleagle » Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:16 am
No I don't blame anyone for anything. I just observe that as usual you pick out the part of someones post to prove your theory. It is a gift
Just to be vey clear and transparent, this information is widely available to those who are not in the legal profession and I am not telling you anything you could not (and most likely have) found out for yourself.
- legaleagle
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:50 pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: ponderings
by Geronimo » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:04 am
legaleagle wrote:No I don't blame anyone for anything. I just observe that as usual you pick out the part of someones post to prove your theory. It is a gift
No it isn't... its a horse
Laugh my friends even if it kills you, for at least you'll die happy
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
everything is "IMO" if you want to argue ring your local jobsworth council officer...they love it..
- Geronimo
- Posts: 12827
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 pm
- Location: Wherever i get into bed.
- Has thanked: 0 time
- Been thanked: 47 times
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: mog and 5 guests