reductio ad absurdum

Gosh.........

2011-11-04T21:01:00.001Z

.......has it really been that long? May have to post something again soon!

Helloooooooo......

2010-01-22T21:07:00.000Z

Anyone out there?

Christmas stockings or sackings...?

2009-11-30T16:35:00.004Z

Greetings all revellers, it is been almost one year since our last post. Gosh, can it really be as long as that!

The ability to rant at will over things that irk and irritate has been much missed, and to compensate, I propose a little rant (but more may be on the way - I have been storing them up!). Today, I want to rant about beefeaters, sacked beefeaters, particularly sacked beefeaters who think they might have an unfair dismissal claim...NOT.

The story seems to run something like this...

ONCE UPON A TIME a Scottish lass turned up to work at a place that had hitherto been regarded as a 'male bastion'. Some of the chaps there appear to have forgotten that these days us girlies are entitled to EARN a living (instead of, you know, just marrying it) in the same way that these chaps have always been entitled to do without question. This little tit-bit of information seems to have been completely lost on said chaps who proceeded to exclude, marginalise, not talk to, swear excessively at, and deface the property of said lass. She starts to exhibit the symptoms of stress (alopecia). Tower investigates and sacks said beefeaters for gross misconduct. One of the said beefeaters claims that HE is the one that is being victimised for being 'a man', tells the Daily Mail (who else?) and says that he will sue.

If said beefeater is reading this post, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY...YOU HAVE NO CASE! If I had been your employer, not only would I have done exactly the same thing, I would be well within my legal rights to do so. I *might* have been minded to give you a stiff formal warning if you had been minded to accept responsibility for your behaviour, apologise and ensure that said conduct would not reoccur, but you were not willing to do so. You have made my decision for me.

I understand that this chap is going to appeal his dismissal. If he grovels suitably, they might change their minds, and after having gone to the press, they might bung him a few quid to shut him up. However, if I were his former employer, I would be inclined to tell him to 'go away' and go ahead and take his chances at the ET if he seriously thinks he has a runner...

Planet?...ZOG

Merry Christmas...

2008-12-23T19:31:00.001Z

to all dedicated bloggers (and the erm...not so dedicated) ... and a happy New Year!

The Barristers [Part 2]

2008-11-24T22:47:00.008Z

There is a danger in reviewing the first and second part of a four part series: people may very well expect that you will review parts three and four too. I can't promise I'll get that far but, for what it's worth, here's my take on the second episode...

I confess to being a little disappointed that the programme was, once again, quite so student-centric. Iqbal surprised us all with his offer of a pupillage at a very good set in Birmingham. At the end of last week's programme he appeared to be one of the weakest candidates. However, he came across much better in this week's programme and, whilst we know very little of his academic background, he is proof, if indeed it were needed, that a competent grade on the BVC is no bar (no pun intended) to getting pupillage.

Anna has now passed her Civ Lit resit and has been fortunate enough to have a number of interviews (3 in one day was a bit of a feat), albeit without success so far. The footage of her interview feedback was very helpful but should not be taken as representative of common practice. I do not personally know of anyone who has ever received such constructive and comprehensive feedback following an unsuccessful pupillage interview. I do, however, know of a good many people who have never received any feedback at all, despite requests!

Then we have Cat. Of all the pupillage candidates featured in the series so far she is the one I find myself rooting for the most. I think it's just because she is arguably the least savvy of them all. One does have to wonder at her having wasted precious applications on chambers like Blackstone when a cursory glance at their most recent tenants is enough to deduce that a 2:1 (albeit from Oxbridge) and nothing more is never going to even get her little toe through the door. Well, thanks to "Mr Construction QC", now she knows.

As for Jo who we know had secured a pupillage before the end of the last programme, we have seen no more of her. It will be a shame if the moment we see a candidate secure pupillage they then disappear from the programme. I would like to have seen some footage of "life as a pupil" and I have no doubt there are plenty of others out there who would have found it interesting too, if only to convince those who are still pursuing pupillage that it's not necessarily all that it's cracked up to be!

I was left wondering whether over the course of the four episodes we will eventually see all four of the featured students secure a pupillage. Whilst that would seem a just reward for each of the students who have been brave enough to lay bare their trials and tribulations throughout the process of searching for pupillage, it would, if it were to transpire, be a very artificial view of the reality and brutality which culminates in the majority of Bar hopefuls being sorely disappointed. We'll see...

As for the coverage of those in practice I found this week's episode more engaging. Maybe it's because we were, in my view, given more information about the nature of the work, and the particular cases featured, so as to provide a better insight into the reality of practice at the Bar. I enjoyed that aspect of the programme much more.

The pomp and circumstance was toned down a little this week which was no bad thing. Of course, the dinner which Iqbal attended really did portray the tradition and ceremony of the Bar at its most decadent. However, I didn't get to the end of the programme feeling that any non-barrister watching would come away with a sense that it was a world so far removed from Joe Public's perception of reality so as to be a profession to which no sensible and grounded person could relate. The balance between ceremony and reality was much more appropriately apportioned.

My final verdict on episode 2? Better, but nothing to write home about just yet. If the remaining episodes simply follow the format adopted so far with a disproportionate amount of time spent contemplating the plight of the BVC student and not so much time focussing on all of the good that is achieved by the profession, then I fear it will have failed to deliver its message to the public at large. If the point of the programme is to demystify the profession then it needs to adopt a broader approach to content. I live in hope...

The Barristers

2008-11-16T09:46:00.009Z

Oh dear. The Barristers, the first episode of which was screened on BBC2 on Friday evening, was intended to demystify the profession and demonstrate to lay people that it wasn't a profession laden with toffs and impenetrable to ordinary folk. As I say, oh dear. Opening scenes in the grand surroundings of Cumberland Lodge and cameras flitting (rather annoyingly I found) around the Dickensian surroundings of Middle Temple. Dinners being put on in the Middle Temple hall with an apparent lavishness that the majority of people will never experience in their lifetime. Lots of stuffy (albeit no doubt very nice) old men poncing around in gowns and adhering to the most alien of customs, including processing in to dinner following a man who bashes a large stick on the floor. It may as well have been a programme about men on mars, so divorced was it from most people's understanding of normality. That's fine, except that this programme was meant, I thought, to portray to the public an impression of the profession which was contrary to the stereotypical impression of stuffyness and elitism.

We were introduced during the first episode to 4 BVC students. One imagines they were chosen to illustrate the diversity of students studying for the Bar. Perhaps the public are expected to be left with the impression that these people are future barristers and that the profession is therefore made up of a diverse cross section of people who everyone can relate to. Let's look at each of them in turn.

We have Cat, the northern lass with a lovely smile, who, incidentally, is an Oxford graduate, albeit with a 2:1. Cat, of course, recognised that most of the tenants at the chambers she was interested in had Oxbridge firsts, masters degrees from anywhere that is anywhere, and had copious amounts of work experience with every worthy organisation on the planet. We see that she gets a VC, which is great, but she is without a pupillage. So, what this tells us is that to date, no chambers has thought that she, an Oxford graduate with a 2:1, is sufficiently inspiring to warrant offering her a place. So she is clearly not typical of the profession then.

Next we have Anna. Bright, bubbly, rather posh. But, she has failed something on her BVC and is unable to be called. She has had at least one pupillage interview but has no pupillage. We do not know what degree she has or from where, except that she did the GDL so she has a first degree in a different discipline. Given her failure of her Civ Lit paper on the BVC and her delay in call, she is clearly no further forward in her pursuit of a career at the Bar. So she, it seems, is not a typical barrister as she hasn't yet got in.

Then we have Iqbal. Again, a bright, enthusiatic chap, and less posh this time. We don't know what degree he has or from where. We do, however, know that he did not win his moot at Middle Temple and that he only got a Competent on the BVC. His prospects are looking less bright. He doesn't yet have a pupillage so he has not yet broken into the profession. So is he typical of the majority of barristers? No.

We'll come to Jo in a minute who is the only one of the four featured students to have secured a pupillage. But first, what of the prospects of the three students already mentioned? Honestly, Cat's prospects of getting into a top commercial set with her qualifications are pretty slim. She'll need a damn good helping of luck if she's going to pull that one off. She'll struggle to get herself through the door and I suspect that even if she does manage to get herself in front of a pupillage committee, she'll probably come across as being significantly less polished than her contemporaries. She'd be better off lowering her horizons and going for a general common law set or heading for a good set in the provinces. The other two? Anna's failed Civ Lit and Iqbal's Competent (without knowing more about their other qualifications) could well present huge obstacles to their future careers at the independent Bar.

Now there's Jo. A 32 year old career changer who has secured a pupillage. We don't know anything of her academics but we do know she won her moot at Middle Temple and she got a VC. She was also the most earnest and aloof of the students featured and perhaps the one who most fitted the stereotypical impression of what a barrister would be like. I don't mean this as a criticism of her. She is clearly a very determined and driven individual and has done incredibly well to achieve what she has. However, she is much more in the typical mould of a barrister anyway, whereas the other three are not. Of the four students featured Jo is the one who it is least surprising has succeeded in obtaining a pupillage. The really interesting exercise would be to see all of the BVC graduates who did get pupillage offers that year and see if they conformed to the stereotypes with which the Bar is so commonly associated.

So, has this series done anything to alter the public's perception of the Bar? I rather doubt it. If anything I suspect it may well have re-inforced it. There are lots of other aspects of the programme I could talk about, but it's Sunday morning and I have stuff to do. However, I would just note that whilst the other more senior barristers featured were again, not necessarily conforming to the "Etonian" stereotype, they did little to disabuse the lay viewer of the notion that the Bar is an exclusive little world which admits only limited people. I am hoping that the remaining episodes will do more to counteract this impression, but the reality is that they can only portray what is there to portray. Oh dear...

Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Sado-Masochistic Sex Orgies & The Daily Mail

2008-11-10T16:59:00.003Z

It's been quiet around here lately but I have been sufficiently incensed by the irrational outpourings of The Daily Mail's Editor-In-Chief to emerge from my state of blogging semi-retirement to vent my spleen. As I drove to work this morning I had to listen not only to the attack launched at Eady J by Paul Dacre, but was then subjected to the most inarticulate defence of Paul Dacre's position by Managing Editor of The Sun, Graham Dudman, that I would have thought possible from someone for whom the English language constitutes the tools of his trade. Both men betrayed their complete lack of understanding of the complete and complex range of relevant issues (rather than just the narrow, self-interested issue concerning the right of the press to print anything they like) in a fit of pique at the fact that when the press were found to have overstepped the mark by publishing details of Max Mosley's sexual exploits they were fined for having breached his right to privacy, thereby giving rise, they say, to judge made privacy laws by the back door (as opposed to doing so through the parliamentary process).

Dacre said of Max Mosley's exploits "most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard". That's as may be, Mr Dacre, but that doesn't give you the inalienable right to publish details of it - you are not custos morum. He bemoaned the earlier decision of Eady J in which a man was prevented from publishing his story about a sporting celebrity having seduced his wife. Eady J was concerned about the effect such publication would have had on the celebrity's wife. Dacre commented "the judge, in an unashamed reversal of centuries of moral and social thinking, placed the rights of the adulterer above society's age-old beilef that adultery should be condemned". Well actually, no, he did not. An age-old belief that adultery should be condemned does not translate into an unqualified right for the press to print the detail of such adultery for the information, entertainment and edification of the public at large. The judge put the interests of an innocent party, the adulterer's wife, above the interest of the press who sought simply to make money from naming and shaming a celebrity in pursuit of their own aim: selling newspapers. It is quite clear from such remarks that the likes of the Editor of The Daily Mail are simply not sufficiently sophisticated in their understanding of the proper balance between the right to privacy and the right for the press to express themselves freely for the judgement as to when publication is appropriate to be left to them.

Dacre said that if the government wanted a privacy law it would be required to pass legislation through both Houses of Parliament. He concluded that "now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with the stroke of his pen". Well, I have some rather surprising news for Mr Dacre - the Human Rights Act, the one that incorporates the Article 8 right to private and family life into English Law, did in fact pass through both Houses of Parliament! His reference to the Human Rights Act being wretched rather betrays his opinion of the protection afforded to our individual human rights by this particular piece of legislation, at least when it prevents him from printing scandal-mongering nonsense in his newspaper.

The stance adopted by Dacre, and by Dunham as evidenced by his comments to the Today programme this morning, fails to recognise the nature of the rights conferred under the ECHR. Article 8 provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. This right can only be derogated from in the circumstances prescribed in Article 8(2). Article 10, in contrast, provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The two rights are often found to be in conflict and a careful balancing exercise must be undertaken. However, Article 10 is qualified to a greater extent than Article 8, not least because the provision recognises that with the right to freedom of expression come duties and responsibilities. Article 10 rights can be subject to such restrictions as are necessary for, inter alia, the protection of the reputation or rights of others. In light of such a qualification on what basis can the press justify publishing intimate details of someone's private life which has no bearing on their capacity or ability to carry out any obligations which the public has a right to expect them to carry out?

It is quite clear that the attitude displayed by the abovementioned parties in respect of any curtailmant of the right of the press to publish anything they please regardless of whose interests are trampled along the way completely justifies the need for the judiciary to take a robust approach to the question of what is and what is not acceptable subject matter for publication. Any overly liberal judicial approach to this question might well set a precedent which the media would no doubt freely abuse. As long as editors display such a comprehensive lack of understanding about the lives they damage by publishing their sensational stories of sex orgies and the like, and consider themselves entirely justified in doing so because of some imagined public entitlement to know about it, it is clear to me that the last thing the judiciary should do, in this context, is give them an inch. For all their bleating and huffing and puffing, when it comes to the curtailment of the press to print nonsense about the sexual exploits of third rate celebrities, they only have themselves to blame. The truth is that people need protection from what the press might well otherwise regard as a freedom to print anything they like in the interests, they say, of democracy. They justify this, it seems, on the strength that whilst stories like those mentioned here are not directly related to participation in the democratic process, such scandalous stories sell papers, and the people that buy those papers then have access to the extensive reporting and analysis of public affairs, which in turn keeps them well informed and able to participate in the democratic purpose. So, if this rhetoric is to be believed it would seem that the publication of people's sordid sex lives is central, nay crucial, to the democratic process - there's logic for you. Nice try Mr Dacre. However, this lady is not for turning. You talk utter nonsense. Bah...

Tenancy: The Ultimate Prize...

2008-08-19T21:18:00.006+01:00

My last post was intended to highlight the fact that even once pupillage has been obtained, that by no means signifies the end of the competitive process. The year long slog that is pupillage towards an uncertain end will culminate in disappointment for a few more hopefuls before the game is finally up. But for those who do against all the odds succeed, what then? The glorious life of a barrister? What is that exactly?

I read somewhere (on a blog, but can't recall where or by whom) a comment from someone whose preference for the Bar was concerned, at least in part, with the flexibility that self employment offers. I can certainly recall having the 'personal autonomy' argument being put before me when deciding which way to jump (not that there was ever any doubt in my mind). There are plenty of other reasons for choosing the Bar too, of course. The thrill of court room battle, of the opportunity to display one's intellectual prowess with sophisticated legal arguments which kill your opponent's arguments stone dead, and, naturally, the fun of dressing up to boot. If, having determined that the Bar is one's destiny, one gets as far as the BVC, a whole year can be spent being educated and even entertained by practising barristers, some of whom enjoy nothing more than to trot out amusing anecdote after amusing anecdote for the edification of their captive and suitably impressed audience.

One can't help being left with the impression that there is something just a little bit glamorous about life at the Bar. Even when being told that life as a barrister can sometimes involve receiving papers at the last minute (better than not at all!) or being in court in some far flung part of the country the following morning which involves 5 hours travel and three train changes, for some reason the actual reality of it all just doesn't really sink in!

So what can a newly qualified junior tenant look forward to? It is difficult to try and paint an accurate picture because different chambers and different areas of practice will naturally influence what the future holds. However, the first myth which ought to be dispelled is the idea that one is truly (or even vaguely) autonomous. Any notion that one can pick and choose when and where they work because they technically work for themselves is, as far as I can see, entirely fallacious. Chambers do not want tenants who are not busy - all of the time. Clerks make a living by allocating work to members of chambers for which those members get paid, the clerks taking a cut along the way. The last thing they want is to be told that it is impossible for you to attend a hearing in Carlisle at 10.00 am tomorrow because you have a hair appointment, or it's little Tommy's school play, or that you're doubled over in pain and think you might have acute appendicitis. In the event of any of the above you will simply have to postpone in order to make yourself available to get on the 5 am train to Carlisle. If you can put off your appendix bursting until you are on your way home, you will have done your job admirably. Solicitors (AKA your clients - the people to whom you owe a debt of gratitude for your continuing practice) too tend not to be impressed when told that you are unavailable unless there really is a very good reason, like you're already booked to attend court on another of their cases. The reality is that life at the Bar does not provide you with the flexibility to work when you like and not when you don't. The more likely scenario is that you will work when you like AND when you don't. Family holidays, evenings with friends, family get togethers; they all take second place to your practice, in my experience at least. There: myth debunked.

What kind of work will you get? Will you be arguing the finer points of the law in front of an esteemed high court judge? Probably not. The answer to this question really is very dependent upon the type of work your chambers attracts, but if you are in a mixed common law set you can probably expect simple matters like infant settlements, bail hearings, road traffic offences, and so on. Complex law? Hardly. These hearings can take as little as 5 minutes which can be mildly frustrating if you had, in your eagerness, spent two hours of your previous evening reading the papers which were given to you at 5.30pm that afternoon, two hours on the road the following morning getting to the court and then paid £10 (out of your own pocket, don't forget) to park your car! In chancery and commercial sets pupils and very junior tenants will often cut their teeth on possessions and bankruptcy petitions. This work is no more glamorous and equally mundane. Whatever their area of practice all chambers will have work of this nature and complexity (or lack of it) for distribution amongst their most junior tenants.

After you have been in practice for a year or two (or maybe sooner if you're really lucky) you may begin to get some small trials and from there the work will become progressively more interesting. However, even once you have been in practice for a few years, some of your time will still be consumed with low level and frequently uninteresting work. If you get lucky you may find yourself instructed as a junior, most likely where one of your more senior members of chambers is already involved. This provides an opportunity to (a) be involved in some more interesting and perhaps more technically difficult work; and (b) to demonstrate that your capabilities extend beyond doing the run of the mill work which is the staple diet of the junior tenant, hopefully leading to more of the same in the future. The downside is that you will inevitably end up doing the least exciting jobs, you will not be the one to stand up in court and argue the case which you may very well have constructed from scratch, and any control you may think you had over your own time will disintegrate even more rapidly.

Ahhh, the joys of life at the junior Bar. Bet you can't wait...

Barbaric Darwinism & Chocolate Cake...

2008-08-12T01:22:00.002+01:00

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of barbaric is (1) savagely cruel (2) primitive; unsophisticated. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Darwinism you need do no more than watch the current Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin being presented by the fabulous Richard Dawkins. Darwin was, of course, a key proponent of the theory of evolution (in contrast to creationism). The theory of evolution embraces the notion of natural selection, culminating ultimately in the survival of the fittest.

It has struck me that the process of becoming a barrister is, in itself, a micro-manifestation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and a pretty barbaric one at that. There has been an inevitable glut of discussion on the law blogs of late about the search for pupillage. There have been triumphs (numerous invitations to interview) and disappointments (the pupillage that got away). It is natural that the quest for pupillage should attract so much attention because it is the point at which the largest number of Bar hopefuls begin to lose hope, some quite properly, and some despite their obvious deservedness.

The process of obtaining pupillage is, in short, barbaric. It is savagely cruel because it gives bright, intelligent, determined and deserving applicants the false impression that they are not good enough when, in fact, they are - more than good enough. There are simply not enough places to go around. The process is also quite primitive and unsophisticated because the method of application does not enable non-conventional applicants (of whom there are a growing number) to paint a positive, or even a full and accurate picture of themselves. The unsophisticated and primitive nature of the process continues to cause detriment to those who are perhaps less conventional, the initial sift upon receipt of applications by individual chambers often requiring quite arbitrary criteria to be applied in the initial de-selection process simply to whittle the remaining number of applications for closer scrutiny down to a manageable number.

Amidst all this unsurprising furore over acquiring pupillage, little attention is focussed on the fact that even once pupillage is obtained, the competitive and uncertain nature of the ongoing quest for tenancy, and therefore ultimate success, subsists. The process of selection continues and the fittest (ie those who will survive) have not yet been identified. Of the five people who left my BVC with a pupillage one has been kept on, one has not, one has chosen not to stay on and two are still waiting for the nod, or not, as the case may be. The tension, the uncertainty and the ongoing scrutiny, for some, continues. Some of those affected are mature pupils, with large mortgages and families to support. The idea that they can wait until the week before the end of their pupillage to be told whether they can stay or must pack their bags is worse than barbaric; it is morally and humanely inconceivable. I can think of no other profession which would embrace without conscience such a discriminatory process to qualification. You can tell, it makes me a bit cross...

And now, to the chocolate cake. (Occasional) co-blogger (I'll get a dig for that one!), Lexy, thought it a good idea to introduce a light hearted "foodie" theme upon which to conclude her last post, so in collaborative spirit and as a fellow food lover I thought I'd follow suit. Whenever my emotional equilibrium is out of sync (because I am cross, ecstatic, irritated, tired, frustrated, etc, etc) I find that chocolate cake makes me feel alot better! You'll not be surprised to learn that I eat an awful lot of chocolate cake and have done for some years now, probably since I was struck by the idea that I might like to become a barrister!. Do you think I could pursue the Bar Council for damages to recover the losses sustained to my bank balance for having to replace my entire wardrobe every time I go up a dress size? Hmmmm, that sounds like a plan for revenge...

Degree inflation, sexism in academia and fajitas...

2008-07-26T22:26:00.003+01:00

Well, I thought I'd end on something a little light-hearted...

After being duly (and quite properly) chastised by my co-blogger for my lack of contribution on the post front, I make amends with something of a controversial effort. Degree inflation is something of a hot topic in many institutions. In relation to law, this blog has emerged and compares the allocation of Firsts, Upper and Lower Seconds in various institutions. What is less obvious however is the manner in which universities make decisions regarding what exactly a student has to achieve in order to attain a particular classification. There appears to be a general move to employ more discretion in the way that classifications are awarded, so that students do not have to attain a particular classification numerically in order to attain a particular grade of degree overall. This is not new, although not all universities use discretion in their determination of class. Some of us attended universities where no discretion (or minimal amounts of it) were used. Other institutions use quite a lot - some would say an inappropriate amount. Given the vast number (largely erroneous) assumptions that are made about the quality of degrees from particular institutions, the way that universities award class should be something that is far more readily digestible than is the case at the moment and taken into account in determining the progress of various applications.

My second topic is more delicate still. Let me reproduce for readers a conversation that I had with a Law colleague (whose own academic background might raise an eyebrow or two amongst the more puritan) over dinner one night. The conversation gravitated toward the numbers of women in academia, and the following was said:

Colleague: "So, how long do you think it will be before there are as many women as men in [...this particular institution]?"

Me: "About 30 years"

Colleague: "That dumb are they?"

Me: "No, but I suspect that you might be..."

And there is more. Lots of it...

On a more positive note, I have just consumed an excessive number of fajitas and am feeling rather pleased with my temporary descent into gluttony.

The BVC Under Scrutiny

2008-07-24T23:18:00.015+01:00

If you have set your sights upon a career at the Bar it is almost certain that you will, by now, be familiar with the Wood Report. If not, you should be. As it is over a hundred pages long it is beyond the scope of this post to do more than highlight a few of the interesting findings or recommendations. What I have found most refreshing about the report on the whole is that it provides a straightforward picture of some fairly useful, and previously unavailable (I think), quantitative and qualitative information about the BVC and the people who study on it, as well as providing some figures on pupillage.

Let's start with the number of applicants for pupillage compared with the number of pupillages available. We all know that the number of students who enrol on the BVC every year far outnumbers the number of pupillages available in the same year. For example, the report confirms that in 2006-7, 1932 students registered on the BVC, an increase on previous years. In the same year 471 pupillages were offered, a decrease on previous years. But these figures alone do not illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy between the numbers applying to the Bar and the number of pupillages available. Whilst some of those who enrol on the BVC each year will not be seeking pupillage, there are many others who have done the BVC in previous years who still are. The picture which emerges at paragraph 28 of the report is much more sobering. In the present round of OLPAS there are 294 pupillages on offer and there have been applications from 3768 individual students. That's a ratio of one pupillage per 12.8 applicants, putting the odds of success at around 8%. Now I'm not a betting girl (not often, anyway) but I wouldn't regard those odds as being particularly attractive by anybody's standards.

The report also gives us some insight into what classification of degree pupils have. Not surprisingly, year on year, the level of qualification is increasing. The report demonstrates a certain amount of wavering either way in relation to the numbers of pupils with Firsts or Upper Seconds, but each year the number of pupils with a Lower Second has decreased. Nevertheless, it is clear that a Lower Second is not a complete bar to pupillage and so the report does not suggest that an Upper Second should be a minimum pre-requisite to acceptance on the BVC.

Interestingly, the report is quite critical of the standard of spoken and written English amongst students on the BVC. This criticism is by no means reserved for overseas students for whom English is not their first language. This recognition is long overdue. It is quite appalling really that students who have obtained a degree of any description should be incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together, either orally or on paper. Mind you, some of the responsibility for this shameful state of affairs must be placed at the door of the universities who award degrees to these people, not least because it devalues the education which they themselves offer. The ability to write in an intelligible fashion ought to be an essential basic requirement at any higher education institution.

One of the most striking statements made in the report is to be found in paragraph 31 which refers to students who "do not have the innate ability necessary for success at the Bar and, even in a world in which there was greater parity between the number of students and the number of pupillages, they would not be offered a pupillage". One hopes that any aptitude test which is adopted to introduce some necessary quality control into the admission-to-the-BVC process will prevent such people getting onto the course, for their own sake as much as for anyone else's. After all, the report recognises that students who fall into this category are never likely to get a pupillage. However, there are always some who manage to slip through the net. It is important, surely, that there is also some process of ongoing re-evaluation which would enable course providers to remove those who demonstrate a complete lack of aptitude for the work of a barrister once on the course. After all, one of the major concerns expressed in the report is the extent to which the poorer students inhibit the progress and the learning experience of those who are competent to be on the course. Moreover, the fact that this report recognises that such woefully ill equipped students have been identified as being on the BVC illustrates that once those students are on the course, at present, even when it must be blatantly obvious to all except the willfully blind that they have no future in the profession for which they are being vocationally trained, the providers take no meaningful steps to do something about it.

The cost of the BVC also comes under some scrutiny. The disparity in cost between the least and most expensive providers is really quite stark. Over £4000 marks the difference between the two. That's a hell of alot of money. Good to know that as part of the re-accreditation process providers would have to give advance notice of their fees and be expected to justify them in some way (assuming the recommendations are accepted and implemented). However, whether this is just a bit of a paper tiger remains to be seen. This particular sceptic rather suspects it will be.

However, whilst it is refreshing to see some of these findings set out on paper, backed up by qualitative and quantitative data, one of the more interesting aspects of the report has to do with the issue of the BVC constituting part of a master's degree. The report refuses to be drawn into making any recommendations in this respect, suggesting that it is not a matter with which the BSB should be concerned. One paragraph, however, speaks volumes. In paragraph 34, in response to criticism that the teaching standards on the BVC are said by some to be low, it states "at least in the knowledge areas the task is to import basic information rather than analyse intellectually demanding problems". This surely demonstrates that the aims of the BVC and the aims of a master's degree are simply poles apart. The report recognises that the BVC is a professional qualification; it is vocational. A master's degree is, or at least should be, intellectually challenging, encouraging people to explore original and creative ideas in response to their subject. The notion that the BVC could constitute the substantial foundation for a master's qualification if a couple more modules are subsequently passed should be roundly rejected as simply another cynical scheme being peddled by those looking to make money by encouraging potential students to think that the course is more valuable than just being a necessary step on the road to the Bar. It already is, in its own right. The professional skills learned are recognised as being transferable. However, they are not the stuff of a master's qualification.

To conclude, as I said at the beginning, this post is but a brief glimpse at the substance of the latest report on the BVC and entry to the profession. The report is, in my opinion, quite useful in that it provides actual data from which some useful findings can be drawn. Let's hope the information is put to good use, sooner rather than later...

Sedley J's Laws of Documents

2008-07-15T21:39:00.004+01:00

I stumbled across this last week and thought it might amuse, especially if you have ever been involved in a trial where the bundles were prepared by a complete muppet...

Sedley J's Laws of Documents

FIRST LAW
Documents may be assembled in any order, provided it is not chronological, numerical or alphabetical.

SECOND LAW
Documents shall in no circumstances be paginated continuously.

THIRD LAW
No two copies of any bundle shall have the same pagination.

FOURTH LAW
Every document shall carry at least three numbers in different places.

FIFTH LAW
Any important documents shall be omitted.

SIXTH LAW
At least 10 per cent of the documents shall appear more than once in the bundle.

SEVENTH LAW
As many photocopies as practicable shall be illegible, truncated or cropped.

EIGHTH LAW
(a) At least 80 per cent of the documents shall be irrelevant.
(b) Counsel shall refer in court to no more than 10 per cent of the documents, but these may include as many irrelevant ones as counsel or solicitor deems appropriate.

NINTH LAW
Only one side of any double-sided document shall be reproduced.

TENTH LAW
Transcriptions of manuscript documents shall bear as little relation as reasonably practicable to the original.

ELEVENTH LAW
Documents shall be held together, in the absolute discretion of the solicitor assembling them, by:
(a) a steel pin sharp enough to injure the reader;
(b) a staple too short to penetrate the full thickness of the bundle;
(c) tape binding so stitched that the bundle cannot be fully opened; or
(d) a ring or arch binder so damaged that the two arcs do not meet.

"You Stupid Peasant"

2008-07-15T21:15:00.004+01:00

Take it from me, the underground is not a place of choice at this, or any other time of the year, but especially so at the moment when it is unbearably hot and stuffy. It seems that the heat makes the stressed commuter's temper fray even more readily than normal. I've heard all sorts, but today's little outburst was one of the more unexpected. I was waiting on the platform and the already packed tube pulled in. As ever, no-one got off but plenty of people wanted to get on. Also, as ever, those already on the tube just stood there resolutely without any regard for the fact that if only people would move down the carriage another 10 people could get on. And, as ever, some people are more openly irritated by this ignorance than others. I was, however, surprised when a well-to-do looking pinstriped "gentleman" standing next to me moreorless fought his way onto the tube and yelled down to the woman stood in the middle of the car (with enough space beyond her to accommodate a further 4 or 5 people) "why don't you move down you stupid peasant"! Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth - the space he created enabled me to get on the tube too - but really!

It's been a while...

2008-06-16T23:02:00.000+01:00

Lexy and I have been woefully neglectful of late - this blog has been eerily silent! I'm afraid that's not about to change at anytime soon if I am being relied upon to do anything about it. You may, dear readers, (then again you may not) be relieved to know that Lexy and I are still alive - just! Of course, my co-blogger, being one of those intellectual types, is about to embark upon a long and lazy summer vacation (or research intense period as she calls it!) - as if we don't know what she'll be up to. I already daren't call her before 10am in case I awake her from a beautifying slumber, while the rest of us do battle on the tube at unholy o'clock, getting our pores clogged with the filth and grime that pervades the opressive and airless underground atmosphere and, quite frankly, in this weather, having to endure the unpleasant odours of fellow travellers who have less than hygienic habits or who at least ought to be introduced to the concept of showering and soap use. I have concluded, dear readers, that I was not born to travel on tubes - why is it that pupillage awards do not stretch to taxi travel? It's most inconvenient.

I feel a grump coming on...

Lexy: De Lunatico Inquirendo?

2008-04-25T22:43:00.002+01:00

As will be apparent from the preceding post, co-blogger Lexy has finally lost the plot. She confesses to being a lunatic. She should, of course, be grateful. Not so very long ago someone in her present delicate state of mind might have found herself on the receiving end of a writ of de lunatico inquirendo, a writ issued by the Lord Chancellor's office in order that the mental state of those thought to be idiots and lunatics could be tried by a jury. In the event of such a finding she might have found her estate supervised by a Master in Lunacy. Don't you just love the sympathetic and subtle way in which we used to deal with our nutters?

It should be apparent, dear readers, even for those of you who do not read latin (or a version of it at least), that the stresses and strains of academic life are largely, if not wholly responsible for this tragic turn of affairs. There was me in my infinite ignorance thinking Lexy had a sedate, reflective and self-indulgent existence. Until, that is, I read for myself the misery of an academic life. The extent of the horrors are revealed in a few short pages in my latest favourite book: Microcosmographia Academica ("MA"). Should you happen upon this magnificent text, don't be deceived by its brevity: it's packed with essential information for the academic pretender of today, despite having been first published in 1908. I now understand the stresses and strains under which my poor beleaguered fellow blogger has to exist. Students, it seems, are the least of her problems. According to MA the players on the academic stage comprise Conservative Liberals, Liberal Conservatives, Non-placets, Adullamites and Young Men in a Hurry. I'm not yet sure which category she falls into (the latter seems rather unlikely!), but it seems she must surely have to place herself into one of them if she is intent upon survival. Once she has escaped the grip of the Master of Lunacy, perhaps she will enlighten us. I only know, having myself been enlightened by MA, the prospect of a lifetime of academic politics might be enough to send any poor unsuspecting teacher of law to the nuthouse...

Ramblings of a Lunatic

2008-04-23T18:16:00.003+01:00

EGO sum stilus specialis in meus muneris. Vita academe agitet mihi dementis. Sum satus ut vado rotundus intorqueo.

Apologies to any experts that are reading this.

Doom and Gloom: Credit Crunches, House Prices and Alternative Living...

2008-04-06T23:05:00.006+01:00

Who is up for buying a tent to live in?

Some of us are old enough to remember the recession of the early 1990s -- negative equity, repossessions, feelings of guilt on the part of those who bought property at auction (so they claimed...). And, as is the case given the circular nature of things, here we are again on the edge of that singularly depressing precipice, or so some commentators would have us believe. Last week, we saw banks closing mortgage applications to new customers, removing competitive deals after being inundated with applications, or putting up interest rates to limit the numbers applying. Another strategy being adopted is offering mortgages only to those who are able to raise between 15 and 25 per cent of the value of the property in a deposit.

Then as now, banks were chastised for lending to individuals that were viewed as high risk, with banks lending far more than individuals could realistically afford to repay, and mortgages over longer repayment periods than one might have expected (i.e. in excess of five times the salary of an individual with repayment over periods in excess of thirty years). In addition, there appear to have been a number of good deals that people have taken out without really thinking about how they would make their repayments once the period of that deal had expired. Last year I was discussing a mortgage at a building society in the town where I work and after we had calculated my budget, she informed me that some people were asking for sums of money that would leave them with a residual monthly income of double figures. Disaster waiting to happen.

But then, I suppose you could use that phrase to characterise our current predicament. It has been apparent for some time that first time buyers were simply being priced out of the market, that demand for housing (especially in the South East) far outstripped supply and the government has, for all its rhetoric, simply ignored this issue. I'd find it incomprehensible that where considerable numbers of people simply cannot afford to buy something as basic as a roof over their head, for the consequences not to be quite severe. It would be ironic indeed if come the next general election, we were deep in recession with many people suffering as a result of this economic downturn, and for Gordon Brown former Chancellor extraordinaire, to be ousted. Given that he has effectively ignored the housing problem for so long while he was (and still is) running the country's finances, who else should take the flack?

DIY Justice...

2008-04-04T21:09:00.001+01:00

In his first annual report senior Law Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has "accused people who represent themselves in court as wasting judge's time". It is inevitably true that litigants in person do place a greater burden on the court in terms of the time that is required to deal with them. This is no doubt because lay people, representing themselves, often have little appreciation of what is relevant and what is irrelevant to the determination of their case. Why would they? They're not lawyers. Furthermore, given this failure to understand what issues the court will be able to make judgments upon, litigants in person often seek to address all sorts of issues, no matter how inappropriate. After all, they have got their day in court and they're going to make the most of it. Does this justify the criticism levelled at litigants in person?

Anyone who has sat in court and watched a litigant in person conduct their case may be forgiven for feeling a little bit exasperated and having some sympathy with the view that they waste the court's time. I have witnessed a few and they are generally pretty hopeless. That's no great surprise. Those of us who are qualified to stand up in court on behalf of others have worked long and hard for the privilege. It would be completely unrealistic to expect anything much of a non-lawyer conducting litigation on their own behalf, in which they have a vested interest and no real understanding of the underlying legal issues. However, the reason many people choose to represent themselves is because they either have no money to pay for expensive legal representation, or they have previously had legal advice / representation but have received such a poor or inadequate service that they have voted with their feet and decided to go it alone. If this is so it's the system itself which needs addressing. It's no good complaining about the detriment to the court system caused by those who represent themselves. There needs to be a system of funding which enables people to get proper legal advice and representation in the first place as well as a system which provides an incentive (by way of severe sanctions or penalties if necessary) to ensure that those who do hold themselves out as providing legal services are actually competent to do so.

You're fired!

2008-03-27T23:41:00.002Z

And didn't he just deserve it...

Last night's episode of the new series of The Apprentice got off to a roaring boardroom start when Nicholas de Lacy Brown, pupil barrister and artist, was the first of the new intake of "Sugarbabes" to get the heave ho. He made sure we all knew that he got a first class degree, a distinction in his Masters and Outstanding on his BVC but, that notwithstanding, he couldn't even muster a half decent argument as to why he shouldn't be fired, so fired he was. Damn good show. It's been said already, not once, but twice, but it really was painful to watch and I couldn't let it pass without a mention. Go and see for yourself. If he is the face of the modern Bar then I think I may have to go and retrain...

General Ramblings

2008-03-22T17:38:00.004Z

Firstly, I must apologise to my learned co-blogger for knocking her blog off the 'top spot' so shortly after posting, but as it is the bank holiday weekend, and there is no better time to 'put one up' so to speak, I thought she would be good enough to indulge me...

Secondly, readers of this blog who were expecting profound musings are to be disappointed: I offer (as per usual) no more than trivia and general comment on current affairs that are of mild amusement/interest.

I came across this piece today concerning the second appeal by the Attorney General against sentences imposed by the same judge in sex offence cases. Judge Julian Hall has, it is alleged, for the second time, handed down a sentence that is 'unduly lenient'. In January, he imposed a supervision order on a 17-year-old who had sexually abused two children. Last October, the Court of Appeal doubled a two year sentence handed down to a 24-year-old for raping a ten-year-old girl.

One must, of course, exercise caution when calling into question the decisions taken by judges who have heard all the evidence when one hasn't, but I am struggling to imagine what type of mitigating circumstances (youth, one assumes, is one) would justify the imposition of a supervision order in these circumstances. I despair at times at what appears to be a lack of common sense with regard to these matters. I was sitting in a criminal court last week hearing a case of a man accused of Sexual Activity with a Child as well as ABH against the same girl. He had been bailed and was staying in a hostel, form where he had been removed as a result of drunkenness and abusive behaviour. Instead of being remanded in custody, judge sought to have his place of residence altered so that he could stay with a friend. Judge appeared to be influenced by the fact that the activity being complained of was consensual (she was apparently a precocious young lady but the author didn't see her give evidence) a factor that is wholly irrelevant to that type of charge.

Onward and upward. One couldn't let this week draw to a close without passing comment on the unedifying spectacle that is the Mills/McCartney divorce. As I have no doubt that there are plenty of 'I hate Heather' posts in the blogosphere, I propose to duck the trend. I don't hate Heather. I find her (and the whole saga) mildly amusing. What I do find faintly disturbing is people's capacity for hatred/contempt toward someone they have never met, all because (it appears) the newspapers think it is good idea to hate 'Lady Mucca'. After all, nothing sells newspapers better than Someone You Love to Hate. One can only assume that these lemmings are the offspring of the same people that vilified St Linda when she married He Who Can Do No Wrong.

Before people think that I am about to run off and join the Heather fan club (the what club, sorry?), I am, of course, in no way suggesting that the former Lady McCartney is a sane and well-balanced human being. Her background makes it most unlikely that this would ever be the case, (and if you are going to marry someone, it is generally a good idea to have a fleeting acquaintance with who they are). At the moment, she is doing a good impression of someone in meltdown and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. What I am saying is that whatever her failings may be, I don't believe that they are worse than any other attention-hungry celebrity. To put the matter another way, given the 'God' she chose to marry, I do not believe that she could do or be anything that would have made her appealing to the public.

The thing that I find unsatisfactory is not the fact that she walked away with £24 m (which I thought was on the low side, and appeared to be influenced in part by the fact that she chose to act as a litigant in person instead of having a lawyer putting her case on her behalf), which let us not forget is a very small fraction of her husband's wealth. What I find disturbing is that this had led to calls from some sections of the community for a review of divorce law, and some suggestion (effectively) that it is time to revert back to the Victorian era where women were left destitute and lost custody of their children when the marriage broke up. If St Linda had lived and had decided to divorce her husband, and as such would have had a far greater claim on his wealth, I have little doubt that exactly the same calls would have been made. For my part, I would have been inclined to increase her settlement just to make sure that those who advocate this path actually never do marry...

And Finally...I cannot remember the last time it snowed over Easter. Answers on a postcard with years, please. For those of you who are religiously minded, please be aware that there are still lots of people all over the world suffering horrible deaths because of their beliefs.

Have a good one!

Jane Austen Mania...

2008-03-21T17:15:00.005Z

Regular readers will by now be aware that Lexy and I are a tad fond of all things JA. So much so that whenever anything remotely related to JA is televised, normal life stops dead in its tracks. The wine and chocolates are laid out in readiness, the curtains are closed, the phone taken off the hook and the front door firmly locked. All essential preparation in our view.

I was very excited yesterday evening when I returned home bearing the battle scars of another week at the coal face of lawyerdom to find a small but perfectly formed Amazon package containing the latest version of Persuasion in my post box. Rupert Penry-Jones as Captain Wentworth - what better way to pass a couple of hours over a typically wet bank holiday weekend?

But my good fortune does not end there, or at least I don't think it does. I do regard my second acquisition of the weekend with a little more suspicion however. A friend dropped by this morning and as she said "I saw this and thought of you" she handed over a DVD called "The Jane Austen Book Club". Hmmm... I'm reserving judgement on this one!

One thing's for sure. It looks as though I am going to enjoy a few hours of escapism, wine and chocolate. I don't need to report on Persuasion as I already know it will be heavenly, but I'll report back on the other one, assuming I make it to the end! Happy Easter dear readers. I do hope you enjoy it as much as I am going to...

Verdict: Pants!

Oh, that old chestnut...

2008-03-15T16:41:00.001Z

It was inevitable that the time would come when I would return to one of my favourite topics: diversity at the Bar. Now seems like quite an appropriate moment to revisit this issue, particularly given that it is a time of year when people are gearing up for the next round of pupillage applications. As I have previously mentioned, I am a 'mature entrant' to the profession, which places me in a 'minority group', for want of a better phrase.

At the risk of repeating myself (I know I have said this before) it is perhaps worth noting that the BVC is made up of a very diverse cross section of people from many different backgrounds. There is a clear mix of people from various socio-economic backgrounds, of various ages, and from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. All positive stuff. In fact, certainly on my BVC, it would be difficult to say whether there was any one group of people who so obviously out-numbered every other group so as to be able to describe them as being a clear majority. Perhaps that was more to do with which BVC provider I chose rather than anything more significant. Who knows...

Anyway, having now spent a number of months meeting other pupils it is very clear to me that the demographic mix of people on the BVC is not replicated in the mix of people who have obtained pupillage. There is, however, a better mix (although by no means one which is representative of the mix of people on the BVC) among pupils on circuit than there is amongst London pupils.

The most obvious assumption one can make when faced with this information is that despite the amount of concern that has been expressed by the profession about the inherent bias which has for centuries, and still persists to the present day, been exercised in favour of those from a white, middle (or upper) class, oxbridge background, there has still been a wholesale failure to actually do anything meaningful about it. Whilst the Inns and the BVC providers might be full of people from a diverse range of backgrounds, the profession is not.

We have had the Neuberger Report. It makes various recommendations (which I once threatened to comment upon, but lack of time, you will be grateful to know, prevents me from undertaking such a task!) and identifies numerous points of concern, but did it ever really go far enough? One thing which has not been produced by anyone (as far as I know, but I would be very happy to stand corrected) is a comprehensive breakdown of statistical data which would actually expose the extent of the problem. The BVC providers, Inns and Bar Council get so much information from and about those studying to be barristers that I cannot believe for one second that it would be impossible to collate such information. I suspect, however, that the inevitable unpalatability of the truth would act as a serious disincentive to anyone with access to that information contemplating going down that particular avenue. And, of course, once you have so irrefutably identified the extent of a problem it becomes absolutely incumbent upon those with the power to change things to do so. That, unfortunately, requires a profession which is of a mind to do so. In my (limited) experience addressing issues of diversity within the profession is not something which seems to be high on most people's agendas.

I do not say this because I have experienced any negativity as a result of being an unconventional entrant. Thankfully, I haven't. I have, however, been in the company of rather a lot of barristers over the last few months, and whilst there are many who actively applaud the concept of a more diverse profession, being open-minded and forward thinking individuals, I have come across an equal number who scoff at the mere mention of the word 'diversity' and the efforts being made to address what they perceive to be an imagined problem, primarily because the profession looks exactly as they are happy for it to; full of clones of themselves.

I would be very interested to see a breakdown by age, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic group, type of school, degree awarding institution, degree classification and other relevant experience. I would like to see this information produced in respect of those studying for the BVC and those who obtain pupillage. Arguably there may be some merit in having the same figures produced in relation to those getting tenancy. However, to me, the biggest cull of non-stereotypical applicants pursuing a career at the Bar takes place at the point of recruitment of pupils. I doubt this is an exhaustive list of information which would be useful and informative, but the results would, I am sure, provide interesting reading. I suspect the statistics would make for pretty uncomfortable reading for the profession itself. Until such time as the extent of the problem is genuinely recognised, it seems unlikely that appropriate measures to combat the problem can be implemented.

One of the suggestions of the Neuberger Report is to encourage youngsters at an earlier age to consider the Bar as a realistic profession. There are already schemes in existence whereby enlightened barristers go to schools and talk to students about going to the Bar in the hope that a wider cross section of the community will think seriously about it as an option. However, if the discrimination which seems to take place at the real point of entry is not adequately addressed then all that will happen is that more people who can ill afford to take the risks involved will be sucked into the belief that they can get there when the reality is rather more bleak. The profession needs to be a bit more rigorous in its naval gazing and it needs to be a bit more honest with itself before it can hope to make any real progress...

Postscript: Simon Myerson QC over at "pupillage and how to get it" has recently posted on mature entrants to the Bar. Worth a read, together with the comments...

I remember where I was when...

2008-02-27T22:58:00.003Z

The earth moved. I remember where I was, I just don't remember it moving...

Admittedly I had had quite a lot to drink, but as I was passing the evening in the company of friends, you'd think there would have been the odd picture shake, glass rattle, seat wobble. Nothing. Nothing at all...And in case readers think that I was in a part of the country unaffected by this, I arrived into work this morning to hear tales of people being 'shaken' awake and having moments of complete terror.

I wouldn't like readers to think this a thoroughly frivolous post -- the quake has apparently caused between £10 and £15 m worth of damage. I used to live in a part of the world that often had tremors and every time they occurred, individuals (myself included) would run to the nearest doorway. It is apparently the safest place to be if a building comes down...

An iron grip...

2008-02-21T01:34:00.003Z

This week has been an interesting one. I have been at a trial which was scheduled to last 3 days. As is often the way, in the cold light of day, once it has actually got started, the three days look like they could slip away in the blink of an eye. Not, however, if you have a judge with an iron grip on the progress of the proceedings. This is, of course, exactly what the civil procedure reforms envisaged. Cases managed by judges rather than the parties. Absolutely right too. The old system allowed far too much scope for abuse of the system, particularly those who could afford to string it out at the expense of those who could not afford it, essentially bullying their opponent into submission, destitution, or both. But there was something about this new, efficient method of delivering justice which didn't quite leave me feeing altogether comfortable...

It was necessary for the judge to prevent the parties from indulging in every little fishing exercise and foray into the irrelevant which may have taken their fancy. Of course it was. It is pointless allowing parties to take days to put their case when it can be done in hours. The problem is, where do you draw the line? The judge in this case was completely pre-occupied with time. "How long is your cross examination of witness X going to take Mr Y". "Oh, about 3 hours My Lord". Some 2 hours and 50 minutes later," you've got 10 minutes left Mr Y". Commendable in many ways. It's the antithesis of everything that was wrong with the old system. But too firm a grip could actually have the opposite effect.

Whilst it was refreshing to see the judge being actively involved in making sure that the case did not run over, inevitably causing more misery to those waiting in the wings for their day in court, one wonders whether over zealous case management might not raise issues under Art 6 ECHR, and if so, where that line is drawn.

Bitch, bitch, bitch...

2008-02-01T00:25:00.000Z

I often read sets of papers with a sense of horror and disbelief. The one thing which regularly leaves me dumbfounded, and more than a little incensed too, is the brief in which it is quite apparent that a large helping of the s**t which has heaped itself all over the client is almost certainly directly related to the appalling attitude and conduct of the solicitors who have been acting "on their behalf".

I am informed, by a reliable source, that solicitors are not taught how to be rude, offensive, unhelpful, confrontational or aggressive on the LPC. I wonder how some of them manage to be transformed from educated, professional individuals into vehicles for delivering up endless misery and stress to their poor, unfortunate, unsuspecting, trusting clients.

I have no doubt that this breed of solicitor is in the minority. For the most part the correspondence I see is evidence that the solicitors are genuinely trying to assist in achieving an outcome which, under the circumstances, is in the best interests of their client. But, as is the way of things, it is those papers which disclose the more unpalatable aspects of solicitor behaviour which have the most impact.

Over the last few of weeks I have been quite involved in a case which has been dragging on for some considerable time. Various pieces of litigation have been fought to date and the legal bills, unsurprisingly, have reached gargantuan proportions. They are now completely disproportionate to the value of the original dispute which has succeeded in spawning endless actions in what continues to be a bitter battle. The thing which has most struck me is the extent to which the solicitors acting for the parties, one side in particular, have undoubtedly contributed to the ongoing nature of the dispute. The tone in which much of the correspondence is written is nothing short of provocative. A fictitious, but broadly representative example...

"Dear Mr Bloggs

Thank you for your letter of XX/XX/XX. Of course, it doesn't 'strictly' comply with CPR this or that (nit pick, nit pick, nit pick). Whilst you may have addressed 19 of the 20 issues which we have raised, there is one which you have failed to address. This demonstrates that your client is being deliberately obstructive. It is clear he just wants to prolong this whole process and is behaving in a thoroughly reprehensible way.

We note that in your last letter you accuse us of failing to address the one point you raised in correspondence. Well, quite frankly, why should we. Your client doesn't co-operate fully, so why should we co-operate at all. Bitch, bitch, bitch...

Oh, and by the way, we do want to reach an agreement really (we have to say that because we'll get into trouble when it comes to assessing costs if we don't at least try to give the impression that we're serious about resolving as many issues as possible).

Yours sincerely

Cussid, Cantankerous and Curmudgeonly

You get the overall picture, I am sure. But seriously, correspondence which is generally as unhelpful as this not only is not productive in terms of getting the parties any closer to agreement, it's actually counter-productive and damaging to the process. While the solicitors make merry scoring petty points off each other, their clients are becoming ever more entrenched in their positions, believing the tone of the solicitors' letters to reflect the attitude of the person on whose behalf they are acting.

Of course it may be true that there is a good degree of acrimony between the parties to begin with. However, surely the mark of a good solicitor, and one who has his client's best interests at the heart, is the solicitor who endeavours to tone down the pointed remarks and unpleasantries. After all, such communications generally achieve nothing positive.

Upon reading the extensive papers in this case I think I can safely say that a significant proportion of the correspondence in the many files was completely unnecessary, other than for the purpose of rubbing the other side up the wrong way. In fact, it probably more than doubled the solicitor's bill for no justifiable reason that I can identify and no doubt contributed to the ongoing feelings of hostility between the parties. This, in turn, serves to keep driving the dispute onwards, and with it the legal expenses keep on multiplying. Whilst this is one of the more extreme and disturbing examples of this kind of behaviour which I have come across, it is not as uncommon as one might think, albeit not to the same degree.

It is most unfortunate that this kind of practice rarely results in consequences which adversely affect the solicitors who conduct their cases in this manner. Whilst civil justice reforms were introduced to give the courts the power to manage litigation and prevent vexatious and spurious litigation on every little point the parties care to throw at each other, unfortunately, no amount of procedural reform can address the problems which are equally destructive that occur before the court is able to step in and direct the course of things.

Cavere...

2008-01-27T15:51:00.000Z

Barristers beware! The High Court has recently held in the unreported case of Pritchard Joyce & Hinds v Batcup & Anor [2008] EWHC 20 (QB)* that barristers are under a duty to advise a client about a potential claim even though it falls outside the scope of matters on which they have been instructed, and that a failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty. On the facts of this case it's not too difficult to see why liability was established. However, as a general proposition, it is easy to see how this might scare the pants off the average barrister. Where is the line to be drawn between the existence of a duty or no duty? As with all cases of this nature, the outcome will be very context specific. However, that will be of little comfort to those whose disgruntled clients are just looking for another line of attack...

* This case is unreported. It is not available on Bailii (otherwise I would have embedded a direct link) but is available on Lawtel.

Voluptas ultionis melius longo degustatur intervallo

2008-01-26T14:57:00.000Z

Advice that I am clearly not following with this post.

My co-blogger recently threw down the gauntlet with a frankly scurrilous post, rather dismissively describing me as ‘right on’ [whatever that means in common parlance] and treading a risky path in terms of anonymity. Readers need to be aware of the context in which my good name is being thus sullied and to that end, I provide an analogy…

Over the festive period, a dear friend, out of concern for my non-existent work-life balance, leant me the autobiography of one Clarissa Dickson Wright, a well-to-do lady, who once practised at the Bar before being ravaged by alcoholism and deciding to become part of the celebrity chef duo Two Fat Ladies. Readers should disregard the heft of the lady in question, as well as the alcoholism that consumed her for some 12 years. Miss Dickson Wright is said to have given up the practice of law for a life of cuisine and countryside rambling when one of her learned friends informed a judge, who asked what sardines were:

“M’lord, they’re a small fish cooked in oil and favoured by the lower classes.”

Haw haw haw…

I act in defence of common sardine eaters everywhere, you understand…

Keep on keeping on...

2008-01-20T01:47:00.000Z

Well, it seems that latin has given way to lyrics in the headlines of my posts of late! Last post, ABBA, this post, Curtis Mayfield! Whoever next? You may have guessed it - this post is about keeping on keeping on. I had a bit of a chat with Law Minx recently - very nice it was too. It's kind of strange getting to actually talk to a fellow blogger. Our communication did, of course, require the swearing of an oath; an oath of silence and secrecy, as to real identities. Terribly cloak and dagger. Honour among bloggers, and all that... Anyway, I digress. The point? We talked about, inter alia*, what one might expect us to talk about - the rocky road to the Bar. My message to those who are genuinely hell bent on pursuing fame and fortune at the Bar, as I said to Minxy, is to just keep on keeping on. A fabulous education, sparkling personality, copious quantities of impressive extra-curricular occupation, not to mention a bag full of prizes, scholarships and the like, are worth very little without a generous helping of tenacity and grit determination.

If you are fortunate enough to have undertaken your undergraduate studies at one of the obvious universities, you will undoubtedly have a head start. This is because you will almost certainly find it a whole lot easier to get yourself in front of pupillage committees. This is a pretty sad state of affairs really, as there are plenty of candidates out there who do not have this advantage and who will struggle to even get a look in, let alone a foot in the door. This is despite the fact that many are almost certainly equally meritorious candidates. It has of course been recognised that the process of selecting pupils is less than satisfactory. The Neuberger Report states at paragraph 291 "the way in which chambers pick their recruits is certainly improving, but, at least in many cases, it still has a long way to go". I'll say...

One thing that amused me about the report was that it then went on to say "the best chambers know they can only stay on top by choosing the very best; and they know that the very best may come from any social background, so it is in their own interests to look for candidates from across all backgrounds". Excuse me? It's precisely those chambers who are (or are generally regarded as) the very best that are often the worst offenders! It doesn't take Einstein to look at their websites and look at the tenants recruited (mostly from their pupils at the very junior end) over the last few years to deduce that these are the sets that are least likely to have departed from the 'norm'.

The Neuberger Report goes on to quote verbatim various anti-discriminatory provisions contained in the Bar's Code of Conduct. It then suggests that further training should be offered to all chambers in fair pupil and tenancy selection. It strikes me as extraordinary that a profession made up of people who are clearly not unintelligent should require any training on what constitutes fair pupil and tenancy selection. Is it not obvious? You can't just dismiss people who have come from a university which is not on one's personal radar. You can't just dismiss candidates who happen to be contrary to the norm in any way, shape or form, be it their ethnic origin, their age, their marital status or any other aspect of their personal 'make up'. If people are incapable of grasping the concept of anti-discrimination in this day and age, to the extent that they need to be 'educated' as to how to implement a fair process of recruitment, one wonders whether they should be involved in the process under any circumstances (trained or otherwise).

One particularly worrying finding of the report (at paragraph 283) is that there is evidence that pupils of disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and of minority groups leave the Bar during pupillage or at early stages of their practice. This is especially disappointing knowing how expensive and arduous it is to succeed in obtaining a pupillage, and not forgetting that people falling into this category have probably struggled more than most to have succeeded in the first place.

Anyone considering a career at the Bar should read the relevant sections of the Neuberger Report, preferably having first set aside the rose tinted specs. It gives a good illustration of the difficulties faced by those entering the profession. If you fall into a category of entrant which is 'unconventional' you can expect the road to be a bumpy one, and one which offers nothing in the way of guarantees, although possibly plenty in the way of disappointments. It takes a tough cookie (or maybe a daft one) to keep on going when the odds appear to be stacked against them and when rejection after rejection is the order of the day. However, if absolutely determined, whilst the odds are hardly attractive, it will be the ones with plenty of stamina who will be best placed to succeed. If that's you, good luck...

As for me, I must stop this business of staying up till all hours of the morning writing blog posts. Don't quite know what's come over me, but insomnia seems to have taken a grip. I rather like this time of day (or night if you prefer) but it's not conducive to me being a functioning person in a few hours time, so for now at least, bon nuit...

* a token bit of latin

Sense and Sensibillity 2008: The Grand Finale

2008-01-14T23:13:00.000Z

As I have been prevailed upon by 'she who must be obeyed' to write, in the guise of some positive duty (enough of that human rights talk!), a post on yesterday's grand finale (and who can resist another injection of blissful frivolity), I must take time out of my impending punishing schedule [for the thing to be impending is draining enough] to comment on yesterday's ending of Sense and Sensibility.

It has been rather a shame that the thing did so little work that it took until the third episode to stop comparing it to the 1995 version. That really should have happened in Episode 1. Still, better late than never, I suppose. My reaction to this Climax of Climaxes? Well, pretty mixed it has to be said. My thoughts on Willoughby are pretty much unaltered, although I was willing to be slightly more generous last week. Since then of course, he was hailed as the new Colin Firth and war broke out (so to speak). He was as wooden as ever, and I was left none the wiser as to what had been all the fuss in to begin with. Why had Marianne fallen for him so deeply?

There were parts that I did like: Marianne and her description of Brandon as the 'true romantic' was, I thought, quite touching. The scene where Mrs Ferrars (senior) disowns her son was again I thought quite good. Elinor got better, but I still wanted more from her (especially when Marianne fell ill).

The part I didn't like very much at all was the Edward's proposal at the end which I though came off almost cocky. Rather like episode one, there was some irony in the fact that although 3 hours long, there wasn't really a satisfactory explanation as to how Marianne had transferred to Brandon quite so quickly. It looked, well, frivolous. I don't know if this was the script or just bad acting.

Again, the humour was lacking. At the end of the show, when they advertised the DVD, it said Sense and Sensibility by Andrew Davies...And there was me thinking it was a novel by Jane Austen. Says it all really. Over-egoed and over-hyped.

Money money money...

2008-01-13T00:34:00.000Z

... not so funny, in a poor man's world - pardon the bastardisation of those well known, and possibly well loved (?) ABBA lyrics. Don't really know why I'm posting now given that by this time tomorrow my post will almost certainly have been knocked off the 'top slot' by Lexy's final critique of the new dramatisation of Sense and Sensibility (you will have gathered by now that we are both gripped by all things Jane Austen - I should also point out, however, that we are both too cynical to imagine that there is a Mr Darcy out there for everyone - some of the more unfortunate of you will just have to settle for a Mr Collins...).

This is the first of what will doubtless be many pearls of wisdom on issues surrounding a career at the Bar, pupillage, etc, not to mention the odd rant, I imagine, about admission to the Bar, diversity, discrimination and so on. A chat with a friend / fellow pupil earlier today brought into focus the disparity between the expenses incurred by some pupils compared to others. Let me explain...

This is important for all of those who are currently applying for pupillage. Looking at the amount of the pupillage award is not necessarily as instructive as you may think. You need to take account of the expenses your chambers will pay (or not pay) on your behalf. For example, will you be travelling to courts all over the place during your pupillage? If so, how will you get there and who will pay your travelling expenses? I get the impression this is more of an issue for those doing pupillage on circuit. It is not uncommon, apparently, to find yourself travelling quite some distance to meet your PM at court. If so, who pays for your train fare or petrol and your parking? Take account too of the fact that you will often be buying coffee and sandwiches in expensive coffee shops. And what about the compulsory courses; who pays for them? One of them is almost £400. And will you need to pay for accommodation to undertake any of the courses run by your Inn? It is worth checking with them early on what courses they run, how and when they are run and whether you are likely to incur any expenses in undertaking the compulsory courses.

You may console yourself with the fact that whatever your pupillage award, the fact that the first six months is tax free, together with the fact that you are no longer having to borrow loads of money just to keep going is sufficient to make any pupillage award look great. Don't be deceived. It's amazing how quickly it can be consumed by expenses that chambers never thought to tell you about when you were offered the pupillage. It's only when you arrive that you actually discover just how much of your income can be frittered away by expenses you never even contemplated.

Think about it, look at chambers' pupillage policies carefully, and, if necessary, ask the questions. It may sound trivial now but a £20,000 pupillage award, for example, is not a great deal of money if you have to pay for accommodation and clothe and feed yourself; and once you start chipping away at it for expenses related to undertaking your pupillage, you can find yourself with far less to live on than you initially thought. The shoe shopping just might suffer...

Sense and Sensibility 2008 Episode 2: How was it for you?

2008-01-06T23:25:00.000Z

Readers should be aware that after the showing of the first episode, at least one of the authors of this blog had to console themselves by watching the 1995 version. This production had a lot of work to do to recover from the frankly incredibly limp start last week (see my earlier rant). I sat down to watch this time around hoping that the thing would improve from the not insignificant shortcomings of the first episode, looking for it to be a bit more sprightly and show evidence of Signs of Life or Someone at Home. For the first twenty minutes or so, it looked as though I was to be disappointed (again!). There are scenes throughout this show that make me think I am starting to suffer from Alzheimer’s, when in fact, Andrew Davies, who has made his name on the back of the work of writers infinitely more brilliant than he, appears to be endeavouring to put more of his own stamp on a piece of work that he considered to have been published prematurely. Thing is, I am really not interested in what he has to say: I am interested in what Jane Austen, one of our most distinguished authors, has to say.

There was a scene early on when Col. Brandon (aka David Morrissey) takes Willoughby (aka Dominic Cooper) aside to ask him what his intentions toward Marianne are. The acting was hopeless. The pep talk that Elinor (aka Hattie Morahan) has with Marianne (aka Charity Wakefield) early on was also really quite apathetic. Furthermore, there were points when I thought ‘if this is not a rip of the 1995 version then I’m a monkey’s uncle’ [anatomically impossible, in case you were wondering…].

Then suddenly, almost like a switch, acting seemed to get much better and the thing started to come to life. The scene with Edward Ferrars (aka Dan Stevens) chopping wood in the rain was intended to replicate Colin Firth’s sultry efforts and give a whole new generation of housewives someone over whom to swoon by getting gals (and guys) thinking that it was time to get the poor chap dried off and undressed was, quite predictably, over hyped. Rather like the scene at the beginning of Episode One with Willoughby having his wicked way with Brandon’s ward, I found it unnecessary and a bit demeaning: the story does not need it.

Both David Morrissey and Dominic Cooper played their respective characters with greater strength as the episode progressed. While I still think that on physical appearance alone, he was miscast as Willoughby, Cooper managed to play the caddish element of the character slightly more convincingly than one might have expected from Episode One. David Morrissey started to show a bit more of Brandon’s quiet despair, and at the end of the episode, you are left with the feeling [and I really hope I am right!] that he and Charity Wakefield will pull a rabbit out of a hat when Marianne falls ill. Poor man – being up against the likes of Alan Rickman was never going to be easy, but his portrayal started to grow on me. Stevens continued to do well as Edward. Even Elinor, who I found completely uninspiring last week got better as the episode went on. There was this scene where she runs off into a cave by the sea having just heard about Edward’s engagement to Lucy Steele and I thought hooray! Someone at Home!! As an aside, Mrs Jenning’s son in law, played in 1995 by Hugh Laurie, was played this time by someone completely unknown to me, but quite respectably I thought.

Silly season ends very shortly and I hope to be inspired to write blogs that are more sensible…I hope…(although there may have to be a final post on the conclusion!).

Lexy x

P.S. The madness is never ending. It NOW appears that Dominic Cooper is being hailed as the new Colin Firth. This sacrilege is just too much to bear!

‘Sense and Sensibility’ by Jane Austen, adapted by Andrew Davies and renamed ‘Sex and a cold, wet British coast’.

2008-01-01T23:04:00.000Z

Well, it was hardly likely that I was going to let this little series pass without comment…

The first instalment of the BBC production of Sense and Sensibility has just aired (1.1.08), a production had some very big shoes to fill since the 1995 Ang Lee version of this Austen classic. Andrew Davies, in his promotion of this adaptation appeared to be gagging for a fight, and going out of his way to wind up us girlies with an appreciation of Austen (as well as talking a load of bunkum), a subject upon which I have happily vented my spleen. It therefore seemed entirely appropriate under the circumstances to approach the viewing of this latest offering with a more critical outlook than one might ordinarily have taken towards an adaptation by someone who is not without a respectable intellectual ability. However [and quite irritatingly] Davies clearly does not aspire to the res ipsa loquitur school of thought. If the thing is any good at all, it will speak for itself.

In watching the ‘seduction’ at the beginning, I was mildly offended (and obviously not because I find these things offensive per se!) because it felt like such a profound misunderstanding of someone for whom reserve and understatement spoke far more than an almost gratuitous exhibitionism. One can certainly criticise the times in which Austen was writing as an era when these kinds of things were swept under the carpet, as well as bringing very harsh and cruel consequences to the people concerned, but to lose her reserve with regard to these matters in pursuit of ratings seemed to me to be a very cheap move and completely unnecessary. I finished watching that scene thinking ‘okay, at least it was short’ and hoped it would get better from there.

However, I was to be disappointed. Let’s just say it - the soul of the book was completely absent. There were some good/spirited performances on the part of the cast, but equally there were some fairly important performances that were completely deadpan.

Janet McTeer gave a good performance as Mrs Dashwood, although the actress is 46 and was dressed in the part to look in her mid-fifties, we were expected to believe that she was in fact 40. I suppose they had to do that otherwise the audience would wonder why Brandon wasn’t going for the mother instead, but it seemed very incongruous. After some scepticism about Charity Wakefield as Marianne, I thought she did quite well, although at times she seemed to be carrying the thing (doesn’t anyone realise that the heroine of the book i.e. the one to whom Austen related was Elinor??). My co-author Advocatus Diaboli and I may well disagree on how David Morrissey fares as Col Brandon. We certainly agree that Alan Rickman was superb in the role. For my part, I thought Morrissey made a spirited effort, although I will have to concede on this point to my learned friend as she is right: when it comes to Brandon, Rickman is King.

Dan Stevens did well as Edward, and the performance wasn’t tepid as Grant’s was in 1995, but you were left wondering what was inspiring the soulful looks. Hattie Morahan was just appallingly deadpan as Elinor. What Thompson got exactly right in the 1995 version was persuading the audience of her deep love for Edward whilst at the same time maintaining the reserve for which that character was known. Hattie Morahan displayed none of this and you were left feeling that Edward’s love for her was completely one-sided. Finally, Dominic Cooper was completely unconvincing as a love interest. His position wasn’t helped by the initial scene (books have timing too…) but nevertheless.

Unlike the slightly irrational comments Andrew Davies has made with regard to age in his discussions on this subject (including the 1995 version), I have no desire to be quite so dismissive (he is old enough now, if Austen were indeed still alive and minded to sue him, to give his evidence by deposition). Plenty of people work effectively and vibrantly past 65. Nevertheless, I fear the peak of his adapting ability, shown in the acclaimed P and P, Bleak House, and The Line of Beauty may have passed.

I hope (perhaps vainly) that it gets better from here.

A new beginning...

2008-01-01T02:14:00.001Z

It's too late for Latin, but just thought I'd get in an early 2008 post. Happy new year...

Fatuus sed lepidus...

2007-12-30T23:58:00.000Z

Lexy has tagged me, requesting that I post my "8 for 2008". Whilst I am not normally given to publishing my innermost thoughts and wishes, as I have been entreated to pour out my secret desires for the coming year to the blogosphere in such a novel manner, I cannot help but oblige. I wonder if Lexy's other victims will be so amenable...

My 8 for 2008 are as follows (insofar as they are suitable for publication):

1. I hope that Lexy's festive overindulgence brings her out in zits so that Colin Firth realises he's made a terrible mistake and transfers his affections to me (you have to read hers first (below) to comprehend this one!).

2. If [1] above fails, I hope any or all of the following, Alan Rickman, Daniel Craig, Ewan McGregor or Johnny Depp (heterogeneous mix, I know), wake up and realise that I am the woman of their dreams (and just have to hope the other half doesn't find out!).

3. That I too miraculously acquire 6 inches in height without heels - only because it will piss Lexy off cos I'll still be taller than her!

4. I hope that that Russell & Bromley still have those lovely boots I saw in the window last month - I plan on buying them next week and fear I may become hysterical if they are no longer available.

5. I hope the little black dress I plan to wear on New Year's Eve actually still fits me - I guess it's too late to stop eating chocolate now :-(

6. Getting more serious now - I hope my professional aspirations fully materialise and I become a super duper barrister, at a super duper set, earning an extra super duper, horribly obscene amount of money with which to keep myself continuously in the manner to which I am fast becoming accustomed.

7. My pick and mix of the serious and the surreal: I sincerely hope that Gordon Brown gets a personality and has his irritating 'mouth thing' corrected, that we hear no more of Princess Di, that (in total agreement with Lexy) 'celebs' who are actually not remotely celebrated are abolished which will have the advantageous knock on effect of bringing to an end about 95% of magazine and tabloid production which will save some trees, that 'Big Brother' is axed along with 'I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here' and every other moronic reality TV show (with or without so called celebrity participation), that third world debt is wiped out, that we find a cure for all forms of cancer, that peace is restored in those parts of the world that are not peaceful, that evil dictators and political bullies are overthrown and dealt with appropriately, and last but not least, that mortgage interest rates come down so that I can go shopping more often. There are probably loads of other things I would wish for but I've had enough now.

8. That our blogging amici have a very happy, prosperous and verbose new year!

Annum Faustum!!

2007-12-30T18:16:00.000Z

I have been tagged by Trixy (thaaaaaank you!) to identify 8 things that I want to happen in 2008. Well, I will restrict my list to things that are capable of publication without a) getting me sacked or b) ruining my reputation. Please desist from sniggering at the back.

What I want to happen in 2008:

1. I win the lottery and am able to purchase property in those part of the South East where properties go for their weight in diamonds;

2. I am finally able to put pay to the use of any drug that involves inhaling;

3. Colin Firth wakes up and realises that I am the woman of his dreams;

4. I miraculously acquire at least 6 inches without the use of heels. Preferably in the leg area;

5. The government forthwith passes legislation that abolishes 'celebs', and outlaws publications such as The Sun and The Daily Mail upon which such parasites feast;

6. Jo Brand becomes Prime Minster. Victoria Wood, Catherine Tate and Dawn French become respectively Deputy PM, Home Sec and Chancellor. Anne Widdecombe is put out to pasture;

7. I am able to give effect to my secret 'hit list' whereby those that contaminate our viewing pleasure with their dead pan performances are 'taken out'* for good (Hugh Grant, Kiera Knightley and others of their ilk. You know who you are.);

8. This Week is scheduled to go out a little earlier (for those of us who have proper jobs...).

Ha! I could go on and on until the world is sorted out and I am finally recognised as the genius I am. Instead however, I will tag my co-author AD, Charon, and Nearly Legal.

Happy New Year!

*By which, of course, I mean 'taken out' of any type of work that involves an audience until said individuals acquire something akin to a personality.

Are novels a waste of time?

2007-12-29T14:54:00.000Z

I pose this question in, of course, a slightly tongue-in-cheek way. Before readers get irate, this isn’t a position in support of substituting watching adaptations of novels on TV or the big screen for good, old fashioned reading. Nor it is a position in support of the précis of a novel in order to appeal to those who can’t be bothered to read 300 or so pages, and where a CD with someone else doing the reading (the hard part) will do.

My question is I suppose aimed toward trying to establish the value of fiction as a literary genre. I know my co-author is an avid reader of certain types of novel. I on the other hand, after spending many hours at work reading through judgments, articles, chapters from academic books, essays and practitioner texts, find it incredibly difficult to pick up anything other than a newspaper (and there is seldom anything worth reading in them either!) or magazine, and even then can only bring myself to read those that bear some relation to my work/specialism etc. For my part, one of the costs of reading for work means that it is much harder to read for fun.

However, this is only part of the problem. On the rare occasions that I do have time to entertain something other than the law as subject matter, the types of book that I do pick up tend to be non-fiction: biographies/autobiographies, historical books, scientific books. Why? I suppose it is because I believe, in my hyper-efficiency, that they are of greater value. With regard to the last two types of book, there is always something to be gained from increasing one’s knowledge and familiarising oneself with other disciples, to compensate, in some way, for the road not travelled, and to counteract the increasing pull to be more and more narrow -- a specialist’s specialist – in one’s research. It is difficult to be a good specialist at anything without some appreciation of the world around you. With regard to the former types of book, I take the view that life’s lessons, if they are to be gleaned from books, are best appreciated first hand and derived from real experiences.

So, with all this in mind, is there any point at all in reading novels? As a youngster, I certainly enjoyed all the classics (Austen, Dickens, Hardy, Brontë, Wilde). However, the source of my enjoyment was more to do with the pleasure of reading prose that is well written, witty, intelligent, as well as the extent to which much of the writing provided some kind of insight (whether deliberate or inadvertent) into the way that people lived in a particular time period, the social mores of a particular era, the way that people thought. A historical interest if you like. By extension, it is also the case that an adaptation well made and largely faithful to the sprit of the author’s work can be enjoyable in its delivery of prose via a different medium [this is why, for all the questions raised about his work, one is eternally grateful to Andrew Davies for his efforts – food for the starving]. My enjoyment of literature has, however, rarely had anything to do with what one might call [over simplistically, granted] ‘the moral of the story’.

Why is this? Is it pure arrogance on my part to think that authors cannot offer some kind of insight into life through the medium of fiction? Well, I hope it isn’t arrogance, but there is certainly a degree of scepticism. Austen, for all her wit, intelligence, and literary talent, fell pray to the Cinderella type of fairy-tale [overcome all the obstacles, get your man, live happily ever after…]. My reasoning goes something like this: if one is able to strip away the pleasure of reading good prose, the supreme wit of Wilde, the scathing social commentary of Dickens, what is left? To put the matter is a slightly clearer fashion, why might the take of any of these individuals on life and its trials and tribulations be any superior to my own, or those of my friends? As someone who values the reality of things as a means to advancement, there is something deeply unsatisfying about the lack of ‘real’ in a novel. What authors of fiction ask us to do is to join them in their fantasy. The question that then perplexes me is ‘why’? How am I going to benefit? Don’t get me wrong, sometimes the invitation is into a very enjoyable fantasy, but a fantasy it is nevertheless.

Over the Christmas period, a dear friend and artist was noting with some amusement the extent to which writers are becoming increasingly celebrity-like. This should be reason enough for people not to take lessons in life from a work of fiction. They represent some else’s view [and sometimes, quite a perverse and self-absorbed view] of the world. Yes, [and perhaps arrogantly], I believe that works of fiction have little instructive value. We are, of course, all enriched by things are done beautifully, and enlivened by beautiful prose; of course, we should note the extent to which the words of those who write fiction reflect back to us a view of the world and make us think. This is not intended to be an anti-creative perspective. However, overall, minus the mechanism by which the message is delivered, this ‘professional reader’ would, I think, prefer that the small amount of time she is able to dedicate to enriching her life through fantasy to be undertaken in a manner that is less, well, high maintenance. Now, where is the nearest art exhibition?

Justitia omnibus?

2007-12-29T00:42:00.000Z

OK, so now that the frivolity of Christmas is behind us it's time for this blog to contemplate something just a little more serious, tempting as it is to peddle interminable trivia. The topic, whether or not justice is available to all, has taxed my little grey cells for some time, particularly in the specific context of the cost of litigation. Can it be said that our legal system (where civil, rather than criminal matters are concerned) delivers such a laudable end result; justice for all? The procedural system itself may (or may not) function perfectly well on a practical level (that's for another day), but that's of little comfort if people can't actually afford to litigate in order to assert or defend their legal rights?

Meeting the costs of litigation, particularly from the public purse, is something that has featured quite prominently of late on the blogs of fellow lawyers, John Bolch of Family Lore and Nearly Legal. However, what this post is concerned with is meeting the costs of litigation where there is no question of public funding being available.

This is an issue which I have previously spent some time contemplating from an academic perspective; it is an issue which has been brought more sharply into focus now that I see the problem of funding litigation manifesting itself in practice. The answer may simply be "if you can't afford to litigate, then don't". Litigating is a matter of choice, isn't it? Well no, not necessarily. What if one's private rights (let's say property rights or a threatened breach of contract, for argument's sake) are being infringed and the culpable party is unreasonably refusing to refrain from infringing those rights. What choice does one have? Put up or take action. And what about a situation where a third party has brought an action against you and you have a valid defence to that action. Again, what do you do? Ignore it and wait for judgment to be entered against you? In response to both of these situations, surely, you have little choice but to litigate?

There are alternatives to meeting the cost of litigation out of your own pocket. CFA's are becoming increasingly commonplace. But they're not alot of use if what you seek has no monetary value - an injunction, for example. There's after the event legal insurance too which can meet costs. However, it's very expensive and the premium reflects the level of risk being taken in conducting litigation.

During my own fairly limited first hand experience of practice I have seen enough examples of people being forced to spend money they really don't have (some to the point of selling their homes or borrowing extensively, often from non-commercial sources such as family) in order to pursue litigation to either assert or defend their legal interests to appreciate what an enormous problem this really is. Little sympathy is often expressed for those who are trying to keep an encroaching neighbour at bay, or those who wish to prevent someone from harassing them in circumstances where the police have been reluctant to get involved, but to those who are entrenched in a situation where recourse to the courts is the only way of resolving what is generally a very stressful and unpleasant situation, the issue of funding the process by which to achieve justice becomes critical.

One way of looking at this problem is to recognise that if you have a good case, you are likely to win and, therefore, you will probably get your costs from the other side. Therefore, even if you have to expend money in the short term, in the long term it will be recouped. Only, it doesn't always work like that. Given that litigation comes without guarantees, even the most compelling case is by no means a "sure thing". Nor can it be guaranteed that costs will necessarily follow the event. There may be circumstances in which a judge will find that someone has been a little over enthusiastic, say, having over stated their case, and will be penalised accordingly despite having won on the law; examples of this are not uncommon.

The worst situations I have seen, however, are where those advising and representing people in litigation have made mistakes or given blatantly erroneous advice, costing their clients dearly in the process (both in terms of financial outlay and failure to recover all that they could have). Not only have the clients lost opportunities in litigation against the party with whom they had an original dispute, the cost and uncertainty of bringing a further action for professional negligence can prevent pursuit of the negligent party, litigants being wronged twice as a result. This is, however, a topic which deserves its own post, and one to which I will return at a later date.

Returning to the central theme of this post, it seems clear that the cost of litigation is sufficiently prohibitive to ensure that many people are either left without the facility to pursue their legal rights because they cannot afford to, or are forced to represent themselves, presenting all sorts of other problems (again, a post for another day). The procedural reforms were designed to make justice more accessible, less expensive, better controlled, and so on. Whilst to some extent their aim has been achieved, unless people can actually afford to pursue and enforce their legal rights, those notional rights are exactly that, and consequently, worthless.

Feel better now. The Neuberger Report next I think...

Natale hilare et annum faustum

2007-12-25T14:44:00.000Z

I am sure I speak for both of us... Lexy cannot speak for herself presently, having been taken hostage by Christmas - or having retired to the country to take some air for a couple of days - whichever way you choose to look at it. For my part, the endless partying has reached a welcome lull today - only a few people to contend with - I have successfully escaped the brussel sprouts and Christmas pudding for long enough to do a Christmas post - it is with a great sense of achievement that I shall hit the 'publish post' button, the remainder of my party being blissfully unaware that I favoured a 'quick blog' over their continued company. Deo volente, my brief absence will have gone unnoticed...

Time to shoot up!

2007-12-21T12:08:00.000Z

67%

Looking for x-ray technician training?

With thanks to Family Lore for providing the means to establish that one's priorities are a little confused.

We’re Back!!

2007-12-16T19:04:00.001Z

Yep the bloggers formerly known as L2B and Belle de Jure return to the joys of the blogosphere with new and more er…upmarket noms de plume ready to regale all with tales of life, law and anything else that takes our fancy!

After having my previous pseudonym abused so roundly (what is so hard about the difference between de Jure and de Jour anyway?) and having caught sight of a few episodes of Secret Diaries of a London Call Girl I decided that my position vis-à-vis this issue was frankly, unsustainable and that it was time to find a new stage name that had no associations with Ladies of the Night. My new alias literally means Legal Scholar and S***head (LSCS). Alas, I fear that I have not really made life any easier.

We’ll be adding to our link list as we go and the theme (as with the blog) will not be limited to legal matters. Since my departure from Blogland, I have been immensely diverted by Stephen Fry’s erudite new blog which includes posts on subjects such as fame and drug addiction, as well as his highly informative Dork Talk. Well worth a read during any stolen moment of self-indulgence.

Both AD and LSCS have loved the adaptation of Cranford that has been showing on Sunday nights on BBC1 (the last episode is tonight which I will miss as am attending festive soirée. Fear not however as have pre-ordered DVD). As much as I am a fan off all things Austen and adaptations of her work that are undertaken by individuals that are … you know…literate, there has been something of Austen overkill of late and Cranford has been a breath of fresh air to those of us with slight fetishes about period dramas. Hysterically funny, brilliant portrayals, excellent cast. Wonderful. Dixi.

Readers will also note the extensive use of Latin about this blog. In due course, we may also add links to any good Latin translation sites that we come across (most of them so far ain’t great). Errors (especially the correct use of tenses etc.) are all our own and should not be taken to be authoritative in any way. Check out the Latin Wikipedia instead!

TTFN

Lex Scholasticus et Caput Stercoris

Salvete

2007-12-15T21:16:00.000Z

Welcome to the new joint enterprise between the bloggers formerly known as Belle de Jure and L2B, although names have been changed to protect the 'not so innocent'! You may have noticed that we have a penchant for latin - it must be the lawyer in us! We are back, en masse, so to speak; scriptores aequo animo. We have mused of late the sense of loss that we experienced having 'given it all up' and taken early retirement from our blogging exploits; mostly because it provided us with an outlet for the frequent outpourings of absurdity in which we previously indulged. Ave atque vale, for now...