Slabs, since all I know about legal practice comes from "boston legal", is there a difference between a barrister and a lawyer?
- Status
In England, a barrister is a type of lawyer. One who has the right to speak in court, as opposed to a solicitor who has the right to advertise for clients.
Slabber said:
Weird.
Do you enjoy it?
Slabber said:
Whereas in America, you can do both, but only within the state(s) in which you are Barred.
This is largely because America really has 51 court systems. Each state has its own laws, and then the federal government has laws that sit on top of that.
bergzen said:
I did actually enjoy the one trial I did. It was quite fun being the bloke who stood up to point out that the other side were wrong. And to accuse their witness of being a liar.
The paper work was mainly dull, though it had its moments.
The worst bit was the other barristers, who were largely gimps.
Slabber said:
This is universally true.
jasonrh said:
The division of professions in England is seen as necessary to maintain the integrity of the Bar.
jasonrh said:
I can't believe you don't want to involve me in your new set-up.
I'm a legal genius.
Slabber said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
did you win your 1 trial?
bergzen said:
Yes. On all points.
Objection
overruled.
dc_red said:
I don't know about the US but you can't actually say that in England.
You have to say "If I may interject, I must point out that I'm not sure where my learned friend is going with this line of questioning", or something like that.
Slabber said:
Why did you lose your job then?
May I approach the bench
that would be for leading questions - correct me if i'm wrong JasonSlabber said:
His boss was a Goonerbergzen said:
bergzen said:
I never had one. They decided not to offer me one on the basis that I didn't "project the image that they were looking to project".
I'm a little bitter about that, as you can probably tell.
dc_red said:
It could be used equally to challenge cross-examination.
I've never encountered the slightest bitterness in any of your threadsSlabber said:
Over here you have to get every possible objection in to keep your options open for appealSlabber said:
dc_red said:
Most of my threads aren't about my career prospects.
dc_red said:
But other than during the examination of a witness, you generally have to keep your mouth shut until your opponent has said his piece. Then you go through his points one-by-one, pointing out why he is a cretin.
I guess for the non-legal types that's what called technicalities over here. The facts are given great deference upon appeal so they try to focus on any legal issues that may have been wrongly decidedSlabber said:
Slabber said:
You can say it, although "Your Honour, I object. Councillor is (state reason)" is favoured.
And you had damned better have a reason, if not you will be made to look like a gimp by the judge.
Slabber said:
Probably not the same wording as used in the legal language.
What does that rejection mean though? That you were too much of a cnut in the courtroom?
dc_red said:
No that's exactly the same over here. You can't generally appeal on issues of fact, unless they were so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have come to the conclusion that the judge did.
The usual tactic of the desperate lawyer is to argue a point badly so that the judge gets it wrong for an appealable reason.
Do you reckon you get away with calling your learned opponent a wanker over here Jason?
bergzen said:
No, more that I wasn't enough of a cnut outside the court room.
dc_red said:
That could be more applicable for an irrelevant bit of testimony, or attempting to get testimony that has been agreed won't be heard.
Slabber said:
Great
jasonrh said:
Counsel
wankerSlabber said:
dc_red said:
Depends on whether it's worth 30 days in jail and a Bar Grievance.
dc_red said:Great
It's what happens, but you need to be a clever lawyer to pull it off.
Depends - might actually be worth for some of the cnuts out therejasonrh said:
Slabber said:
I told you that you should have gone to Eton and allowed Forbishly minor to bugger you senseless after vespers.
Commoner.
dc_red said:Great
What you do is to let the judge accept a wrong proposition of law, so that he makes a finding of fact that appears irrelevant and he accepts your spurious version of events. Then you get the point of law overtuned, so that the finding of fact becomes crucial, but is unappealable.
Sign him up JasonSlabber said:
- Status