Hillarious email from college student law society

DS86

I've just received one of the most over-the-top, self-important and verbose emails I've ever received in my life, so much so that it almost made me burst out laughing. I've been sending out a few requests to join some of the university clubs and societies and while most emails were met with a simple "yeah it's up and running, it costs XYZ, you interested?", this response was a completely different animal. I'm talking about long-winded and completely over the top. Some examples, instead of just using the name of the town which most people do and in an informal manner, the college initials are used. Instead of speaking to the society head, I was addressed by the "secretary general" . I mean seriously - a college student society/ club having a "secretary general"!?

Does studying Law actually produce students and societies that are so over-the-top and full of self-importance, that as opposed to simple teminology and language for what is simply nothing more than a college society, everything must be over-the-top and outlandish, simply for the sake of it as opposed for any justifiable reason?

FunLover18

DS86 wrote: »

Does studying Law actually produce students and societies that are so over-the-top and full of self-importance, that as opposed to simple teminology and language for what is simply nothing more than a college society, everything must be over-the-top and outlandish, simply for the sake of it as opposed for any justifiable reason?

Yes. Not all law students are that bad but the law system is full of self importance and ridiculous traditions that go back to less civilised times. Addressing the judge as 'Your Honour', the wigs and and robes, etc. I know several people who attended Kings Inn to train for barristers and they have these 'dinings' which are handy I suppose for making contacts but attendance is compulsory in that you have to have attended a certain number before graduating (that's how I understand it anyway). Also there's the legal language, I suppose laws have to be as specific as possible.

brandnewaward

post ....please ???

FreudianSlippers

FunLover18 wrote: »

Yes. Not all law students are that bad but the law system is full of self importance and ridiculous traditions that go back to less civilised times. Addressing the judge as 'Your Honour', the wigs and and robes, etc. I know several people who attended Kings Inn to train for barristers and they have these 'dinings' which are handy I suppose for making contacts but attendance is compulsory in that you have to have attended a certain number before graduating (that's how I understand it anyway). Also there's the legal language, I suppose laws have to be as specific as possible.

I'm sorry but you clearly know nothing about being a barrister from your comment. Your Honour? You've seen too many US TV shows...

Dining is a tradition. It's a very good way to get to know your peers and I think the people who criticise traditional things are jealous.

I also really don't understand the hate for gowns? Nobody has a better suggestion for distinction between the professions, nor do they seem to acknowledge that basically every country bar North American ones have their own versions.

Begrudgery at its finest IMHO

LegallyAbroad

DS86 wrote: »

Does studying Law actually produce students and societies that are so over-the-top and full of self-importance, that as opposed to simple teminology and language for what is simply nothing more than a college society, everything must be over-the-top and outlandish, simply for the sake of it as opposed for any justifiable reason?

That'd be a yes. Causation/Correlation problem, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, one might say.;)

234

DS86 wrote: »

I've just received one of the most over-the-top, self-important and verbose emails I've ever received in my life, so much so that it almost made me burst out laughing. I've been sending out a few requests to join some of the university clubs and societies and while most emails were met with a simple "yeah it's up and running, it costs XYZ, you interested?", this response was a completely different animal. I'm talking about long-winded and completely over the top. Some examples, instead of just using the name of the town which most people do and in an informal manner, the college initials are used. Instead of speaking to the society head, I was addressed by the "secretary general" . I mean seriously - a college student society/ club having a "secretary general"!?

Does studying Law actually produce students and societies that are so over-the-top and full of self-importance, that as opposed to simple teminology and language for what is simply nothing more than a college society, everything must be over-the-top and outlandish, simply for the sake of it as opposed for any justifiable reason?

Can you post a redacted version of the text? From what you are saying the whole thing seems to say more about your perception of lawyers than vice versa.

Using, for example NUIM, rather than Maynooth, or having an actual title for the head of a student society hardly makes somebody pompous. You will find that the vast majority of student societies are headed by somebody who is titled President, Auditor, etc, rather than simply Head.

FreudianSlippers

I say post the letter or /thread really

Stovepipe

@freudian slipper, unfortunately the "Dining" is a double-edged sword, as those who can't afford to attend are effectively pressurised to attend (as seen on an RTE programme about young trainee barristers), on the unspoken basis that it will be held against them if they don't. Apart from that, the logic that attending a meal is regarded as compulsory for graduation is derisory.......the problem with legal traditions is that they are expensive for regular humans, such as apprentices working for free, sans contract; the alleged tradition of having to hire a Junior and a Senior Counsel or that other fine tradition whereby wigs don't have to be worn but certain current Judges will throw the counsel out of the court if he/she does not wear one.....I agree with referring to the Judge as his or her Honour but more commonly, they are referred to as Judge by all and sundry, which is good enough. As for clothing, I'd prefer if the Judge was the only distinctly dressed individual in the room. He has to be identifiable to everyone. The lawyers can wear sacking for all that it matters and insisting on gowns and wigs is archaic, intimidating and focusing more on a rigid dress code than actually dispensing justice. Once upon a time, surgeons wore distinct clothing like gowns but the need for clinical hygiene rapidly disabused the medical world of that notion.I'd prefer if the counsel turned up, cleanly dressed and on top of his game, rather than worrying about his wig.

regards

LegallyAbroad

Stovepipe wrote: »

@freudian slipper, unfortunately the "Dining" is a double-edged sword, as those who can't afford to attend are effectively pressurised to attend (as seen on an RTE programme about young trainee barristers), on the unspoken basis that it will be held against them if they don't. Apart from that, the logic that attending a meal is regarded as compulsory for graduation is derisory.......the problem with legal traditions is that they are expensive for regular humans, such as apprentices working for free, sans contract; the alleged tradition of having to hire a Junior and a Senior Counsel or that other fine tradition whereby wigs don't have to be worn but certain current Judges will throw the counsel out of the court if he/she does not wear one.....I agree with referring to the Judge as his or her Honour but more commonly, they are referred to as Judge by all and sundry, which is good enough. As for clothing, I'd prefer if the Judge was the only distinctly dressed individual in the room. He has to be identifiable to everyone. The lawyers can wear sacking for all that it matters and insisting on gowns and wigs is archaic, intimidating and focusing more on a rigid dress code than actually dispensing justice. Once upon a time, surgeons wore distinct clothing like gowns but the need for clinical hygiene rapidly disabused the medical world of that notion.I'd prefer if the counsel turned up, cleanly dressed and on top of his game, rather than worrying about his wig.

regards

I'm a Solicitor. I'm standing in the Round Hall at half ten on a Tuesday. If I want to identify Counsel all I need do is see who's wearing a gown. That way, say, if I can't find my Counsel and if I don't recognise any of the other Barristers, all I need do is walk up to someone in a gown and ask "Have you seen x around" etc. It's quite useful. Barely anyone wears wigs anymore and Judges are never called your honour.

Pro Hoc Vice

Stovepipe wrote: »

@freudian slipper, unfortunately the "Dining" is a double-edged sword, as those who can't afford to attend are effectively pressurised to attend (as seen on an RTE programme about young trainee barristers), on the unspoken basis that it will be held against them if they don't. Apart from that, the logic that attending a meal is regarded as compulsory for graduation is derisory.......the problem with legal traditions is that they are expensive for regular humans, such as apprentices working for free, sans contract; the alleged tradition of having to hire a Junior and a Senior Counsel or that other fine tradition whereby wigs don't have to be worn but certain current Judges will throw the counsel out of the court if he/she does not wear one.....I agree with referring to the Judge as his or her Honour but more commonly, they are referred to as Judge by all and sundry, which is good enough. As for clothing, I'd prefer if the Judge was the only distinctly dressed individual in the room. He has to be identifiable to everyone. The lawyers can wear sacking for all that it matters and insisting on gowns and wigs is archaic, intimidating and focusing more on a rigid dress code than actually dispensing justice. Once upon a time, surgeons wore distinct clothing like gowns but the need for clinical hygiene rapidly disabused the medical world of that notion.I'd prefer if the counsel turned up, cleanly dressed and on top of his game, rather than worrying about his wig.

regards

Dining as a total cost of the degree is tiny and does include a half bottle of wine, I have brought friends to dining as guests on a couple if occasions and all have loved it.

Ma lord is sometimes used but you honour is never or should never be used, most judges as simply called Judge.

The wig has in my opinion mostly disappeared, no judge will today refuse to hear a un wigged barrister. The wig has also in my opinion many functions 1 when I am in civilian clothing clients don't recognise me 2 when I put on the garb its like a ritual and gets me ready for the court setting puts me in the right frame of mind.

Robbo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I also really don't understand the hate for gowns? Nobody has a better suggestion for distinction between the professions, nor do they seem to acknowledge that basically every country bar North American ones have their own versions.

Begrudgery at its finest IMHO

Tired complaints about self-importance, bizarre and archaic practices and the need for a new get-up? The answer has to be a high-viz.

Strike a chord with the common man. Project "minor-authority wielder". Be seen and safe across the Round Hall. Prepare thyself for the arrival of Eddie Stobart (Refrigerated Transport and Barristers Division) Ireland Limited. You won't even have to go far from Louis Copeland's with the fine array of hardware stores on Capel Street.

Right, I'm off to the Bar Council with my 6 point marketing plan. Cheque's in the post.

joeguevara

When I was in Kings Inns, dining costs were covered by the cost of degree. We didn't have to pay extra and got half a bottle of wine (not the best but drinkable). Was never at a dining after I left and never felt pressured to go. Also, the cost to go after you leave the inns is only about 30 or 40 bucks (was back then anyway) for a 3 course meal and half a bottle of wine. Pretty cheap for an enjoyable night out.

Never wore a wig, and only one judge gave out to me for it. Always used 'judge' when addressing judges. Only 1 gave out (same judge as gave out about the wig).

I know a lot of people give out about the fact that there is a barristers only restaurant in the law library. Main reason is allows barristers to discuss cases openly without fear of being listened to. Nothing to do with feelings of superiority etc. Food in there is class as well. Its a million miles away from the canteen in the basement.

I did find the law society in university (UCC) quite pompous and over the top.

Snickers Man

DS86 wrote: »

Does studying Law actually produce students and societies that are so over-the-top and full of self-importance,

Well, Duh!!!

FreudianSlippers wrote:

I also really don't understand the hate for gowns? Nobody has a better suggestion for distinction between the professions,

How about name badges?

LegallyAbroad wrote:

If I want to identify Counsel all I need do is see who's wearing a gown. That way, say, if I can't find my Counsel and if I don't recognise any of the other Barristers, all I need do is walk up to someone in a gown and ask "Have you seen x around" etc. It's quite useful.

What a lot of twaddle! That's an argument for a janitor's uniform or, at best, for an "insignia of rank" system with stripes and pips like the police or army wear.

And come off it. Are you really telling me that a) you're such a shrinking violet that you have to know precisely somebody's job function before you ask them "Have you seen so-and-so?" even assuming that b) Ireland is not such a small place that all the main Senior Counsels are not instantly recognisable by just about everyone in the profession anyway? Hell, I think I know who most of them are just by reading The Phoenix.

No connection with the law at all, apart from knowing the Golden Rule. "The best way to deal with a court is stay the hell out of one"

LegallyAbroad

joeguevara wrote: »

When I was in Kings Inns, dining costs were covered by the cost of degree. We didn't have to pay extra and got half a bottle of wine (not the best but drinkable). Was never at a dining after I left and never felt pressured to go. Also, the cost to go after you leave the inns is only about 30 or 40 bucks (was back then anyway) for a 3 course meal and half a bottle of wine. Pretty cheap for an enjoyable night out.

Never wore a wig, and only one judge gave out to me for it. Always used 'judge' when addressing judges. Only 1 gave out (same judge as gave out about the wig).

I know a lot of people give out about the fact that there is a barristers only restaurant in the law library. Main reason is allows barristers to discuss cases openly without fear of being listened to. Nothing to do with feelings of superiority etc. Food in there is class as well. Its a million miles away from the canteen in the basement.

I did find the law society in university (UCC) quite pompous and over the top.

Wouldn't be hard.

LegallyAbroad

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well, Duh!!!


And come off it. Are you really telling me that a) you're such a shrinking violet that you have to know precisely somebody's job function before you ask them "Have you seen so-and-so?" even assuming that b) Ireland is not such a small place that all the main Senior Counsels are not instantly recognisable by just about everyone in the profession anyway? Hell, I think I know who most of them are just by reading The Phoenix.

No connection with the law at all, apart from knowing the Golden Rule. "The best way to deal with a court is stay the hell out of one"

Insignia of rank? So you basically want stripes on shoulder instead of a gown? What's the advantage of the insignia?

I'm not a shrinking violet but if I can't tell barrister from Solicitor, or to a lesser degree lay person, well then I'm going to end up asking somebody who doesn't spend time sitting in the law library if they have seen someone who isn't a colleague. Rather pointless. A lot of Seniors are recognisable. Believe it or not, people are sometimes looking for someone who isn't a top five advocate.

Bepolite

OP there is a lot of tradition in law. There's good reason for most of it, lots of it has been reformed in Ireland. I've friends who are lawyers in other common law countries and I occasionally have contact with the odd case arising from other common law jurisdictions - you should see some of the documents and mode of address.

On the other hand I wrote a letter out that needed to go through one of the barristers I work with before it went out to the client. I think I wrote three paragraphs. I got back two sentences and an admonishment.

Students are there to learn and everyone takes their own preconceptions on things in with them. Saying that law, more than any other degree, breeds self importance is a bit of a joke imho. There are some traditions that sound a bit funny 'master of the moot' etc. most people would laugh at you if you used them with any seriousness.

Are we really going to start with the gowns again? Its a legal tradition in many countries throughout the world. They serve a purpose and are no more strange than a neck tie or wearing highly polished cow skin on your feet.

as a wise man once said "Begrudgery at its finest IMHO"

Manach

As one who has a marginal interaction with the world of law with much more experience outside it, I'd note that there are customs/traditions and modes of dress that are part of other professional roles. Just because it is not as obvious as in the legal does not mean it does not exist. As for elements of pomposity, that might be so (along with elements in the IT field) but there is also a keen self-awareness of which which is the subject to some excellent depreciating humour.

DS86

Some of you folks need to calm down . I was referring to some student from a college society responding to a simple two-way email conversation whereby a simple response would have sufficed, and not an attempt at emulating the Gettysburg address.

As for solicitors, barristers and judges using formal and serious language and vocabulary in their careers, I can fully understand that. I realise that those employed at keeping the law of the land together must carry a certain air of authority and dignity both within the eyes of their clients and within society at large, and therefore a sense of authority is achieved through formality in writing and speech. However, there is absolutely no need for such formality amongst students, some of which have just recently received the right to vote, let alone be in the position of a senior legal authority figure such as a lawyer or judge etc.

johnnyskeleton

DS86 wrote: »

Some of you folks need to calm down . I was referring to some student from a college society responding to a simple two-way email conversation whereby a simple response would have sufficed, and not an attempt at emulating the Gettysburg address.

To be fair you were doing a lot more than that. You werent simply telling a funny story but were attributing it solely to the person doif a law degree and asking if the specific translates to the general. And youve gotten a lot of varied and interesting answers. But no one has lost their temper so i dont see why people need to calm down. Perhaps you didnt get the answer you were looking for and would like to reprase the question?

However, there is absolutely no need for such formality amongst students, some of which have just recently received the right to vote, let alone be in the position of a senior legal authority figure such as a lawyer or judge etc.

Well you havent given us the full email or even particukarly clear examples other than the fact that they used the title of secretary general so who knows if it was necessary or not. The title secretary general seems a bit strange to me - have only ever heard of that in the UN. But if thats their title then thats fine - nothing wrong with doing things properly, even as a student.

Pro Hoc Vice

DS86 wrote: »

Some of you folks need to calm down . I was referring to some student from a college society responding to a simple two-way email conversation whereby a simple response would have sufficed, and not an attempt at emulating the Gettysburg address.

As for solicitors, barristers and judges using formal and serious language and vocabulary in their careers, I can fully understand that. I realise that those employed at keeping the law of the land together must carry a certain air of authority and dignity both within the eyes of their clients and within society at large, and therefore a sense of authority is achieved through formality in writing and speech. However, there is absolutely no need for such formality amongst students, some of which have just recently received the right to vote, let alone be in the position of a senior legal authority figure such as a lawyer or judge etc.

The Gettysburg address is regarded as very simple text, it is 270 words long and a perfect example how a short simple response is the best. So if the society tried to emulate that address being verbose is not the way to do it.

OldNotWIse

FunLover18 wrote: »

Yes. Not all law students are that bad but the law system is full of self importance and ridiculous traditions that go back to less civilised times. Addressing the judge as 'Your Honour', the wigs and and robes, etc. I know several people who attended Kings Inn to train for barristers and they have these 'dinings' which are handy I suppose for making contacts but attendance is compulsory in that you have to have attended a certain number before graduating (that's how I understand it anyway). Also there's the legal language, I suppose laws have to be as specific as possible.

It's "Judge" :rolleyes:

Santa Cruz

in his orde est ordinem non servare

Losty Dublin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The title secretary general seems a bit strange to me - have only ever heard of that in the UN. But if thats their title then thats fine - nothing wrong with doing things properly, even as a student.

The head of government departments here are also known as Secretary Generals.

Ficheall

Are you sure whoever emailed you wasn't just taking the piss, OP?

Bepolite

I love the fact that there's at least two references in this thread that could have come from the West Wing along with my favourite piece of television of all time which is the post hoc, ergo proctor hoc exchange.

In fact watching it just now I've just twigged the John Rawls reference.

The point to this ramble OP is many people like to put themselves into the role they eventually want to play. To be blunt I think it's a little inverse snobbery on your part to publicly lambast them before meeting them and seeing what they're like.

You nee to give these things time and understand why people come across in the way they do. You have to bear in mind that you're entering a profession where no matter how right you are, no matter how high the moral high ground, no matter how self evident the point before you, you are going to be told you are wrong. Just look how the average boardsie reacts to that when talking about something as trivial as the best pub in Athlone* and ask yourself again why some people build up an air of pomp and circumstance around themselves.

*Sorry if there is actually a thread on this.

EDIT: There is also good reason to maintain a certain formality in the running of things. I've ran various societies and had 15 years as a mid-level manager before that. Meetings that run a certain way get through the agenda and finish on time. That then translates into how correspondence is issued. Also bear in mind the guy/gal running the sailing club probably isn't dealing with a large percentage of wannabe lawyers, who even at undergrad level, generally know how to find a weakness and mercily exploit it for their own ends.

logically

Ficheall wrote: »

Are you sure whoever emailed you wasn't just taking the piss, OP?

My thoughts exactly.

steddyeddy

OP that's a joke if ever I heard it. I've received emails from Nobel laureates with less self importance than that.

steddyeddy

OP tradition isn't bad unless it excludes people. If people have a title that they earned there's nothing. My professor is a member of the Irish academy and he signs of his emails with MIRA. He most certainly earned the right to use this as do people with the title professor. So I don't think earned titles are bad. However any traditions which would exclude or discriminate based on income of the family you are born into would indeed be an old boys club because they are exclusive of academic ability.

234

Bepolite wrote: »

EDIT: There is also good reason to maintain a certain formality in the running of things. I've ran various societies and had 15 years as a mid-level manager before that. Meetings that run a certain way get through the agenda and finish on time. That then translates into how correspondence is issued. Also bear in mind the guy/gal running the sailing club probably isn't dealing with a large percentage of wannabe lawyers, who even at undergrad level, generally know how to find a weakness and mercily exploit it for their own ends.

This.

Also OP, law societies in particular (along with those catering for business students and other societies with links to professions) get into the habit of doing their society communication in a formal manner.

A lot of the time they will be talking to sponsors or members of their desired profession and it pays to project a professional image in everything that you do. You get taken more seriously, you show that you are a serious individual and not just some kid running a club. Professionalism permeates a large part of what these societies do, so don't be surprised if you get a less than informal response.

Though we could judge if everything that we have been saying has any application to your situation, and finally answer your original question, if you posted the text of the email.

Pat Mustard

Thread title disappoints.

conorh91

joeguevara wrote: »

Always used 'judge' when addressing judges. Only 1 gave out (same judge as gave out about the wig).

Except for an appearance before the county registrar, the master's court, the President of a Court, or the Chief Justice, Judge is always correct

FreudianSlippers

conorh91 wrote: »

Except for an appearance before the county registrar, the master's court, the President of a Court, or the Chief Justice, Judge is always correct

Pedant :P the point is, not Your Honour...

joeguevara

conorh91 wrote: »

Except for an appearance before the county registrar, the master's court, the President of a Court, or the Chief Justice, Judge is always correct

County registrar is not a judge.

Master of the high court is not a judge.

conorh91

joeguevara wrote: »

County registrar is not a judge.

Master of the high court is not a judge.

Yeah that was my point.

They, along with a President/ CJ, are the only people who could correct Counsel/ a solicitor for use of the correct term of address.

joeguevara

conorh91 wrote: »

That was my point.

Please re-read the post.

But my point was use judge when addressing judges. Why would anyone use judge when not addressing judges. I don't get your point.

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pedant :P the point is, not Your Honour...

"Please, just call me your majesty".

conorh91

joeguevara wrote: »

But my point was use judge when addressing judges. Why would anyone use judge when not addressing judges. I don't get your point.

It's just a common mistake.

New entrants will, on occasion, call the Master or the County Registrar 'Judge', purely out of bad circuit court habits.

My point is if any Judge, with the exception of the four office-holders mentioned, objects to the address 'Judge', then it is they who are wrong.

johnnyskeleton

conorh91 wrote: »

It's just a common mistake.

New entrants will, on occasion, call the Master or the County Registrar 'Judge', purely out of bad circuit court habits.

My point is if any Judge, with the exception of the four office-holders mentioned, objects to the address 'Judge', then it is they who are wrong.

New entrants?

FreudianSlippers

conorh91 wrote: »

It's just a common mistake.

New entrants will, on occasion, call the Master or the County Registrar 'Judge', purely out of bad circuit court habits.

My point is if any Judge, with the exception of the four office-holders mentioned, objects to the address 'Judge', then it is they who are wrong.

In fairness it isn't new entrants alone. If you're busy and up and down, it's easy to revert to judge as default. The Master and County Reg aren't ever going to object to being called judge accidentally the President is technically a judge and I've never heard of an objection to an accidental slip up. I think everyone is minding their manners before the CJ though.

steddyeddy

Guys I have to see a law academic tomorrow. His office door just has his name with no Dr or Professor on it. Do you need to complete a PhD to enter academia in law? I'm just wondering how I should address him.

conorh91

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

New entrants?

New entrants to the Bar.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Master and County Reg aren't ever going to object to being called judge accidentally

I've experienced that, although it wouldn't have been a serious grievance; it was intended and taken in a light hearted fashion.

As for calling the President of a Court "Judge", I don't know if that's every corrected. I wouldn't like to try it.

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I have to see a law academic tomorrow. His office door just has his name with no Dr or Professor on it. Do you need to complete a PhD to enter academia in law? I'm just wondering how I should address him.

Look the person up online, university webpage linkedin etc. If there is nothing to show a PhD then do not refer to said person as Dr. Some places use Prof in the American style ie anyone teaching is Prof. Refer to the person as Mr or Ms and wait for them to tell you what to call them.

FreudianSlippers

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys I have to see a law academic tomorrow. His office door just has his name with no Dr or Professor on it. Do you need to complete a PhD to enter academia in law? I'm just wondering how I should address him.

Call him Mr. Whatever. If he corrects you and says Dr Whatever, say "oh what field of medicine?" - unless he is your boss or grading your exams... Then kiss some arse.

steddyeddy

Thanks guys. He is doing us a favour so I want to show respect. I have looked him up online but I can't find any indication of title. I'll call him Mr until he corrects me so. That's a big thing in science by the way. A lot of scientists don't call doctors Dr. They call them clinician. Old rivalries die hard :P

LegallyAbroad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks guys. He is doing us a favour so I want to show respect. I have looked him up online but I can't find any indication of title. I'll call him Mr until he corrects me so. That's a big thing in science by the way. A lot of scientists don't call doctors Dr. They call them clinician. Old rivalries die hard :P

Call him Mr and if he corrects you you'll know he's an insufferable git.

steddyeddy

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

Call him Mr and if he corrects you you'll know he's an insufferable git.

I have only seen that happen in science which is full of insufferable gits :P

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks guys. He is doing us a favour so I want to show respect. I have looked him up online but I can't find any indication of title. I'll call him Mr until he corrects me so. That's a big thing in science by the way. A lot of scientists don't call doctors Dr. They call them clinician. Old rivalries die hard :P

I call them physicians. Glorified undergrads. :P

johnnyskeleton

Reminds me of the old story of the senior clark showing the junior clark the ropes:

"If I call him Eddy, you call him Mr. Steady, if I call him Mr. Steady, you call him sir. And if I call him sir, you dont call him anything at all"

FunLover18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry but you clearly know nothing about being a barrister from your comment. Your Honour? You've seen too many US TV shows...

Dining is a tradition. It's a very good way to get to know your peers and I think the people who criticise traditional things are jealous.

I also really don't understand the hate for gowns? Nobody has a better suggestion for distinction between the professions, nor do they seem to acknowledge that basically every country bar North American ones have their own versions.

Begrudgery at its finest IMHO

I am actually related to several people who have studied and practise law and I have attended several courts to watch. I think it depends on the judge but there are a few who are quite anal about this stuff.

I did say that Dining is a great way to make contacts. Accusing me of jealousy is just petty and irrelevant. If you disagree, fine, explain your point, as I did admit "it was my understanding".

I don't hate the gowns, and I never said I did, merely that it is a tradition that strikes me as ridiculous and unnecessary and lends to the sense of self importance that the OP was talking about. As for a better way of distinction about just black suits, they usually wear black suits under the robes anyway and I'm sure there are plenty of other kinds of suits a solicitor can wear.

The OP asked a simple question, does law really produce such self-importance, and the answer is yes. Trust me, I've seen the **** lawyers put up with and how hard they work and jealousy is not an issue.

johnnyskeleton

FunLover18 wrote: »

I am actually related to several people who have studied and practise law and I have attended several courts to watch. I think it depends on the judge but there are a few who are quite anal about this stuff.

Then youll know that no lawyer would ever call an Irish judge "your honour"?

I don't hate the gowns, and I never said I did, merely that it is a tradition that strikes me as ridiculous and unnecessary and lends to the sense of self importance that the OP was talking about. As for a better way of distinction about just black suits, they usually wear black suits under the robes anyway and I'm sure there are plenty of other kinds of suits a solicitor can wear.

In many ways id agree with you that the gowns and such are hardly the most functional or practical garment, but i dont think they suggest any level of self importance - they are traditionally worn and serve a purpose in distiguishing barristers and judges. They lend an air of formality to proceedings and are not really that different to other types of uniform.

The OP asked a simple question, does law really produce such self-importance, and the answer is yes. Trust me, I've seen the **** lawyers put up with and how hard they work and jealousy is not an issue.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the people you know who studied and practice law have taken on an air of self importance solely due to studying law?

FunLover18

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Then youll know that no lawyer would ever call an Irish judge "your honour"?

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't seen it for myself. It really does depend on the judge.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In many ways id agree with you that the gowns and such are hardly the most functional or practical garment, but i dont think they suggest any level of self importance - they are traditionally worn and serve a purpose in distiguishing barristers and judges. They lend an air of formality to proceedings and are not really that different to other types of uniform.

Apologies if I misled. I didn't mean to imply that they suggested self-importance. The robes are a requirement so I know they don't wear them by choice thinking it will make them look important, but they do lend to the idea that the legal profession is quite self important and I'm sure some (not all) may buy into it themselves. Again I know several barristers and while some of them are self-important, some of them are dead sound, so I am not indulging in jealous generalisation here.

As regard to the point about uniforms, I would ask does a do barristers and judges need a "uniform", solicitors don't. It's a genuine question, I'm not being smart. I mean TDs and Ministers don't wear uniforms. Gardai wear uniforms because they have to be recognisable, same goes for doctors and nurses in hospitals. Is it a respect thing?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you saying that the people you know who studied and practice law have taken on an air of self importance solely due to studying law?

No, of course not. A lot of the people I know are really down to earth. It happens in loads of professions, but I don't think it's unfair or generalisation to say that a lot of students come out of law with a certain attitude. I have witnessed it myself with some people I know but as mentioned above not all of them. And of course it doesn't apply to every law student or even specifically to the legal profession.