Hillarious email from college student law society

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A breihamh, ata ar neamh,
Go naofar do anim...

Go dtaga do dlínse,
Go ndeantar do thoil ar an sráid,
mar a dheantar sa chúirt.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where was this and what exactly was said about "your honour"?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

I don't remember the precise details and you both obviously know more so I concede the point. Apologies.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

You're accusing those who criticise the dining of jealousy, I did so, so you're accusing me of jealousy. Besides, the attitude that "people who aren't apart of it and criticise it are jealous" and pointing out how little my opinion matters is pretty reflective of the self-importance the OP was talking about. Do you think if my opinion mattered I'd be wasting it on Boards? I'm not trying to change the world here I was just giving an example to the OP.

As I mentioned previously I know someone who did an Inns Degree and they weren't a massive fan of the dining. Don't get me wrong she didn't care too much and I don't care particularly strongly myself but it strikes me as ridiculous (I think that was the word I used) that they have to attend a certain amount (I haven't been corrected on that so I'll assume I'm right). As we've agreed it's a great way to make contacts and get to know peers so there's clearly enough incentive there for students to attend, and if students don't want to, surely that's there own loss? I know my friend would have gone despite her personal feelings about it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No its a recognition thing. Maybe solicitor advocates in thr high court should wear some similar kind of robes. The reason is that while a district court judge in a local area will usually know all the local solicitors (where solicitors traditionally do most of their advocacy), in the high court there are potentially 2,000 barristers and maybe 3 times that number of solicitors who might appear in front of any given judge. The uniform helps the judge figure out whether the person addressing them is a barrister, solicitor or litigant in person. It is just as necessary for a judge (or indeed litigants, gardai and other lawyers) to be able to identify advocates as it is to be able to identify doctors.

I understand that but I still don't see why my black suits suggestion wouldn't work just as well?

I suppose it's just the tradition thing in which case we'll only be going in circles "Why change it, it's traditional?" "Why not change it, it's old fashioned" etc etc

Friend of mine hated it because the food was crap and the robes they provided were a bit mank and smelly.

The food wouldn't blow your socks off, but it's wasn't awful. Now, the wine was crap but the copious amounts sorts that out right away.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

One advantage of going when no longer a student is a choice of some very nice wine. When I was a student the wine was good.

True, I was at a great table once post Inns. Whip out the snuff!

hullaballoo wrote: »

If we're getting rid of old-fashioned traditions, can we do for Christmas next? Does my head in.

We keep Christmas, but ffs can we do something about that red gown that Santa Claus wears? Like what's the story with that old-timey nonsense?

I think that when a solicitor is acting as an advocate in the HC or SC they should be wearing a gown as well; for the same reasons as already given re barristers. Obviously a different gown so that they can be identified separately.

They did wear them in the past (19th century and before) and could be revived.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah, the solicitor advocate gowns from England & Wales are a good example.

Exactly.

And the fact that they are a relatively recent revival just proves that they are purposive rather than just some antiquated tradition that we don't want to let die.

drkpower wrote: »

In. Emergency high court sittings over a weekend/bank holiday, barristers don't wear gowns (nor do judges usually). A no uniform day of sorts. It is interesting that the justifications for wearing gowns don't seem to apply at the weekend.

Family courts never wear gowns or tabs/bib, but as a non-family practitioner if I ever appeared in a case I would still wear my tabs. Especially on circuit, I think it's good form if you're only a blow in for a handover or something.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The rules deal with long vacation sittings. Also on Sunday sittings it is accepted it an emergency and people may not have wig and gown to hand.

That sonds like the original rationale, sure. But the reality is that on 'emergency sittings' barristers will invariably come to court from home, but via their offices in the distillery or wherever, so they could very easily pick up their gowns.

I don't have much against he practice but I don't think that most of the given reasons for their retention are really that relevant. It's a bit of a tradition and not much more.

A bit like a white coat for doctors (and many of the same reasons were used - identification etc...) but when it was ditched, nobody miss edit and the supposed reasons for its retention were forgotten overnight.

drkpower wrote: »

Out of interest, would you not see merit in the rationale for not wearing them in family courts (ie. to demystify the process / put people at their ease etc) applying to the regular courts?

Not really. There should be a certain feeling of seriousness IMHO in court. I think part of the problem with our system (both civil and criminal) is that the average person has very little respect for the judicial system. Criminals make a mockery of the court on a daily basis and it's much more common in civil courts now (see Freemen, inter alia).

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not really. There should be a certain feeling of seriousness IMHO in court. I think part of the problem with our system (both civil and criminal) is that the average person has very little respect for the judicial system. Criminals make a mockery of the court on a daily basis and it's much more common in civil courts now (see Freemen, inter alia).

I wonder does the use of gowns do anything to counter those issues. It seems more likely to encourage mocking the system, than preventing it.

My own view is that the seriousness in court is maintained by the fact that the judge has the power to send you to prison/decide your case, than by anything anyone in the rest of the court is wearing.

Bepolite wrote: »

There are very good reasons why doctors wear white coats, it gives a professional air and maintains a certain level of detachment, amongst other things. People lose sight of the fact that barristers should be one level detached from the client as they are also there to represent the court.

I've just come back from A&E (tripped in the street; nothing broken, thanks for asking) and not a single doctor was wearing a white coat.

I'm still unsure if the first person who saw my injury was a doctor or a nurse, or a solicitor.

Everyone was wearing blue scrubs.

I agree that it's sometimes helpful to be able to identify barristers from solicitors, but in fairness tabs alone would be enough for that. It's not a big deal, but there probably isn't a fully rational reason for the barrister's dress. There's no particular shame in admitting that.

Bepolite wrote: »

As for A&E - I'd compare that more to an emergency sitting, obviously the analogy is somewhat tortured as it's more practicality that means that scrubs are worn. If you were admitted and came across a doctor on rounds, I suspect they would be in a white coat.

As far as I know, most doctors don't wear white coats anymore.

And in any case, a white coat was only ever worn because it shows up dirt easily. So there was a practical purpose.

Moving on to the practicality of the gown and wig, they disguise the person underneath to a great degree.

There's not much of an issue with wigs, since they have a practical use, and because they're not compulsory; in fact they're disappearing.

I agree that most people criticize barrister's dress for stupid reasons, including professional resentment.

But public confidence does matter to the administration of justice, and it's probably wise to take public opinion of this outfit on board.