Hillarious email from college student law society

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

FunLover18 wrote: »

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

I'm sorry, but this makes everything you say seem either (i) totally fabricated or (ii) contrary to your point.

(i) There is no judge in Ireland that has ever asked to be called Your Honour and there is certainly no barrister in the State that has called a Judge Your Honour.
(ii) You've seen a lay litigant call a Judge Your Honour and the lay litigant was not corrected. You don't understand the difference between barristers and lay litigants, so thus gowns are 100% necessary.

FunLover18 wrote: »

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 think you'll find I didn't accuse you of jealousy. I said that I find that people who criticise traditional things such as these are jealous that they do not have an opportunity to partake in same. Put it this way, why would you care if Inns Degree students are forced to dine? Is anyone forcing you to dine? No... then why does your opinion matter?

Aside from that, I've never heard a single complaint about dining from people in my year or in other years that I know of, other than maybe the night they were given is inconvenient as it wasn't with all of their friends.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

I'd say it's fairly common in the West, but I think I've only heard it once or twice in Dublin and never in the Midlands.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

So you're saying people are making important and permanent life decisions on the basis of what sounds cool.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........

You find people with no interest in a subject in every course. People join things for the wrong reasons all the time.

Did anyone have a chance to use the new mock courtroom in UCD?