'Rather silly' solicitors....

drkpower

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barristers-dismiss-rather-silly-solicitors-claims-on-law-and-life-1.1974755

Barristers dismiss ‘rather silly’ solicitors’ claims on law and life:

Seems like a mini-storm in an even smaller teacup is brewing between the LawSoc and the Bar Council over recent judicial appointments. Ken Murphy seems to have kicked things off by claiming that solicitors should be bettter represneted on the bench due to their 'more diverse set of relevant legal skills, together with wider experience of law and of life', only for David Barniville to up the ante claiming that Ken's comments were“unfortunate and rather silly”.

You rarely get a good public spat between solicitors and barristers because thankfully, both usually have the good sense not to be so petty, so this one should be a bit of a laugh......

Sangre

Silly statement by the LawSoc, even sillier of the Bar Council to respond.

That being said, barristers do occupy their own world!

234

I'm not sure how Ken Murphy sees solicitors' more diverse experience. For the most part, barristers have a more intimate knowledge if litigation and case management. Considering that a HC judge's main roles are adjudication and case management I don't see how appointing a candidate with experience which might primarily be in other areas is necessarily a good thing.

Grolschevik

234 wrote: »

I'm not sure how Ken Murphy sees solicitors' more diverse experience. For the most part, barristers have a more intimate knowledge if litigation and case management. Considering that a HC judge's main roles are adjudication and case management I don't see how appointing a candidate with experience which might primarily be in other areas is necessarily a good thing.

He probably meant direct, more intimate contact with clients at key moments in those clients' lives. Or something.

Gordon Minard

I would, totally, concur with Ken Murphy . . .

My dealing with, both, was as humble as you can imagine - I sold them paper and fixed their printers . .

Barristers are "big school boys" and live in their own world completely - partly academia, partly arrogance . .

If you were to ask your typical barrister the price of a ream of paper he couldn't tell you - if you asked a Solicitor not only would he tell you but he would tell you where he's being buying it and why . . .

I will always remember queuing for a coffee in a café Church Street and speak to a barrister that I know is a very nice guy . . Once his colleagues appeared he blanked me completely - he couldn't be seen talking to the office supplies man . .

I've never had anything remotely like that with a solicitor - they are closer to the cutting edge, often grittier and have their finger on the pulse but they respect the "man on the street" - that's their client base. Barristers never need deal with the public beyond consultations, arbitration and court . . .

Watch the program that was on RTE a few years ago about Barristers. A lot of Barristers were ashamed of it - they told me so . . . The unfortunate thing - it was very close to reality . . .

However, I will say one thing; I would hate to be a young barrister starting in the Library and trying to get a few briefs - I feel sorry for them in that way.

Gordon

234

Grolschevik wrote: »

He probably meant direct, more intimate contact with clients at key moments in those clients' lives. Or something.

Not really something that a judge has to worry about for the most part, and nor should they. While they need to be appropriately sensitive to vulnerable witnesses, defendants, etc. they are exercising a state adjudicatory function and not hand-holding.

Direct contact with clients is something a judge would have even less of than a barrister.

hullaballoo

Barristers are all arrogant academic school-boys, living in their own heads and not knowing how much paper costs.

Solicitors are all men of the people who are down to earth, in touch with reality and can tell you to the cent how much paper and miscellaneous office supplies cost.

Right. :rolleyes:

Gordon Minard

And your point is?

FreudianSlippers

Gordon Minard wrote: »

And your point is?

I'm gonna ring a few partners in the top 10 at random and ask them how much a ream of paper costs, brb.

Gordon Minard

Sounds like Daddy is "At the Bar" ?

FreudianSlippers

Gordon Minard wrote: »

Sounds like Daddy is "At the Bar" ?

Nopers. I am FreudianSlippers BL though.

nuac

1. Many barristers consider themselves to be posher than solicitors. E.g I knew some bar students who considered it infra dig to cycle around Dublin.

2. Many barristers meet their clients only on the doorstep of the court. They expect the client to give them a brief, coherent and complete summary of their case on the spot. Many clients would need some hours with their solicitor to be able to produce such a statement.

3. Many barristers have little idea how hoi polloi live.

I recall at a court in Mayo a recently appointed judge ( former Dublin based barrister ) admonishing defendant from a big drinking area in Erris being sentenced in a drink-related matter

"Now my man, you are to stay off the drink - completely. Not even a dry sherry before dinner"

I am glad to see more solicitors being appointed to the High Court. Michael Peart has been a great success,

Beano

No dry sherry before dinner? What a monstrous imposition to make.

FreudianSlippers

I didn't know Dot Cotton was a former Dublin barrister.

Gordon Minard

Dear FreudianSlippers BL:

Do you need any paper or toner?

FreudianSlippers

Gordon Minard wrote: »

Dear FreudianSlippers BL:

Do you need any paper or toner?

We already pay out the nose for that to the Bar Council - probably why you aren't doing so well on sales to barristers to be fair.

Gordon Minard

You'll probably need to store it at home as you are probably sharing chambers with about 10 other juniors?

Gordon Minard

Are you in Church Street or the Distillery?

FreudianSlippers

Gordon Minard wrote: »

You'll probably need to store it at home as you are probably sharing chambers with about 10 other juniors?

I'm starting to not believe your earlier story vis-à-vis paper. No chambers in Ireland and the majority are either in the Four Courts, Distillery Building or Church Street Building; all of which are managed by the Bar Council, with communal printers and photocopiers.

Gordon Minard wrote: »

Are you in Church Street or the Distillery?

I was in Distillery, but I've moved in-house. I still don't know how much paper costs. #FirstWorldBarristerProblems

Gordon Minard

Enjoyed the banter Freudian Slipper . . .:-)

Only having a laugh . . . Best of Luck . . .

Gordon Minard

Yeah right . . . Communal? Are you serious? I am now beginning not to believe your story . .

Ask Des in Distillery Reception who Gordon Minard is? I had an over 60 barristers there at one stage . . .

We always referred to them as Rooms / Chambers . . .

Walk along the corridor and see how many Secretaries have printers

FreudianSlippers

Gordon Minard wrote: »

Yeah right . . . Communal? Are you serious? I am now beginning not to believe your story . .

Ask Des in Distillery Reception who Gordon Minard is? I had an over 60 barristers there at one stage . . .

We always referred to them as Rooms / Chambers . . .

Walk along the corridor and see how many Secretaries have printers

Oh, you're talking about the fancy side of Distillery. Sure I've only been up there when I needed to schlep things around for a Senior or to visit the Hong Kong tailor.

There are the communal printers/photocopiers up there too though.

GreenwayM

What's the difference between a good barrister and a great barrister?

Hi All:


A good lawyer barrister knows the law. A great barrister knows the judge.


All crooks in my mind . . . My brother was involved in a fatal road accident in 2001. The inquest deemed that nobody was at fault! Still the family deamanded 50% of burial costs etc. - apparently it's the "done thing".

Insurance were not contesting it . . .Yet, Barristers kept writing silly letters to each other and "negotiating" until we arrived at the proverbial steps - then decided that all round was happy . . .

The motive here is pure greed - more money . . . Keep writing to each other so that we can charge for every letter and charge for every hour! My brother had to live through this nonsense for nearly four years . . .

The office supplies man and the solicitor have their feet on the ground - the barrister has 3 inches of carpet under his leather soles.

Soul-less they all are . . .

Miriam

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Gordon Minard and GreenwayM banned for breach of forum charter, which incorporates trolling. Messing with sockpuppets and duplicate accounts is
not welcome on this forum.

conorh91

Gordon Minard wrote: »

I had an over 60 barristers there at one stage

In the biblical sense?

nuac

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I didn't know Dot Cotton was a former Dublin barrister.

Dot Cotton? I don't watch the soaps so don't know what you mean.

MarkAnthony

conorh91 wrote: »

In the biblical sense?

There is scope, I'm reliably informed.

stringy

drkpower wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barristers-dismiss-rather-silly-solicitors-claims-on-law-and-life-1.1974755

Barristers dismiss ‘rather silly’ solicitors’ claims on law and life:

S

The headline of the article and this thread is misleading - solicitors were not called silly. It was the comments that were made that were described as silly.

Terrible poo stirring headline.

drkpower

stringy wrote: »

The headline of the article and this thread is misleading - solicitors were not called silly. It was the comments that were made that were described as silly.

Terrible poo stirring headline.

The headline of the article isn't misleading at all. It quite correctly refers to the solicitors' claims being silly, not the solicitors themselves.

My own title of course was misleading, designed to attract the eye. I thought the '....' might hint at the fact it was slightly tongue and cheek. I was wrong. I unreservedly apologise for any deep confusion arising....

Hippo

It was a stupid comment from KM, he should really know better. Of course many barristers consider themselves above the masses, but in a previous life I on countless occasions had to listen to solicitors (usually on speakerphone) rant about matters on which they were entirely incorrect. Don't start me on the state of the papers for court filing which frequently passed through our office.

FWIW plenty of barristers come late to the Bar after varied careers elsewhere -rather more than in the case of solicitors, I would suggest. A very, very silly spat all round.

conorh91

Hippo wrote: »

FWIW plenty of barristers come late to the Bar after varied careers elsewhere -rather more than in the case of solicitors, I would suggest. A very, very silly spat all round.

True but not necessarily the ones who are going to make the bench. There are a few exceptions, mostly in the Circuit Court.

I actually don't think there was anything 'wrong' with Ken Murphy's original comment about solicitors. But their weaker representation on the bench is mostly their own fault. They have a right of audience that the vast majority of them choose not to exercise. I don't understand why more solicitors don't avail of this right, especially in areas of which solicitors tend to have better knowledge.

Part of the blame also goes back to the Law Society itself. They don't seem to teach advocacy skills very well, compared to the Inns. A solicitor from a well-known commercial firm (whose solicitors do tend to exercise their right of audience) told me this is a problem for them, and they preferentially recruit barristers for this reason.

Tom Young

It isn't working out well for them.

The main issue is that the complexity of the work means they still end up briefing both senior and junior counsel at the behest and correctly so, of the client.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

Yep. Largely ignored since 1971

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1971/en/act/pub/0036/sec0017.html#sec17

Tom Young

Seems that pretty much every random punter has right of audience this weather .... McKenzie friends awash

conorh91

Part of the problem seems to be that more often than not, it goes on unopposed by the other side.

Pat Mustard

That's true. but there are fears that not only would those objections be ignored but that they would irritate the judge.