the legal profession

[eFestivals]

I've had a few legal letters recently....

The first was to do with a girl who'd fallen over at nearly 11pm at night at a festival and hurt themselves, and was suing that festival. She was of course as sober as a judge () and it's all someone else's fault. With such great regard to the importance to accuracy and truth in the application of law, they did some excellent (not!) research, googled that festival name, efestivals came up first, so efestivals got the letter - and the client gets the bill for it, despite the law firm having f**ked up.

The next one about breech of trademark, something I wasn't doing. Did the firm bother to check? Nope, they're paid mouthpieces, who'll write anything without any regard for accuracy or truth as long as someone is going to pick up the tab.

And today I've had a very weird one. The covering letter starts "we refer to our previous correspondence..." yet they've sent me nothing previously. Enclosed with it is a copy of the injunction which prohibits the revealing of the new identities of the kids who killed Jamie Bulger - I saw the names Jon Venables & Robert Thomson on it, and knew exactly what it was without having to read anything more, because it's been so widely reported.

Knowing the seriousness of this injunction, I just phoned up the firm it came from. Only after talking about it for a few minutes did it become clear that the letter has come from the legal firm that represents Venables (tho they can't spell his name right - you'd think accuracy was important in law, and particularly when it's their client ).

It turns out that they've sent this letter and injunction copy out to all media outlets in the database they have, on the basis that that best protects their client ... but it's also the case that they're hoping to get the legal system to pick up their costs for doing so. So essentially, they're creating business for themselves to print their own money at taxpayers expense.

f**king thieves!!!!!

Edited July 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

but it's also the case that they're hoping to get the legal system to pick up their costs for doing so.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Jon Venables new name is Robert Thomson?

[Gre]

Legal firms are obscene in general - can't say too much due to privilege etc, but we deal with one who charges a charity £60 an hour for what basically amounts to a secretary doing photocopying.

We're all in the wrong business.

[eFestivals]

Why do you say that? Is it implied in the letter?

nope, the solicitor I spoke to on the phone explicitly stated it.

It wasn't initially clear that this firm represent Venables (it doesn't say in the letter, and it was quite a few minutes into the convo before it became clear). Matey said when I asked him why I'd had this letter "these injunctions always get circulated to all media", to which I pointed out it was bollox, I'd never had one before, and given that injunctions against media reporting are regular things, it would be a completely stupid idea - and particularly for a case that's had this level of publicity.

So I asked who was picking up the tab for sending out these pointless letters, and matey replied "we're hoping that the courts will agree to pay". It was when I was expressing my outrage at the likes of him creating unnecessary highly paid business for themselves by sending out these letters when there's no need and expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab that he made clear they were acting for Venables.

I have less of a problem with them sending out letters like this to the benefit of their direct client - but they still should only be sending them out to relevant news publishers (and he agreed with that, and took me off their list). Presuming that Venables doesn't have the money for this level of legal service, and given that this injunction actually exists at the request of the govt (because of the high chance of violent retribution) rather than Venables himself, I don't have too much of an issue with them sending out these letters and the taxpayer picking up the costs - tho I still shouldn't have got one (so there's a saving), and as I say above, given the publicity this case has had there's no one in news publishing who wouldn't know of its existence anyway.

Edited July 29, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Jon Venables new name is Robert Thomson?

no, he was the other guy who killed Bulger.

[jump]

From my experience most lawyers are idiots because they have no business knowledge and they basically need to be told how everything works, like helping a small child wipe their arse. Generally auditors & accountants are far more use about legal matters as they know how the law is actually applied.

[Gre]

From my experience most lawyers are idiots because they have no business knowledge and they basically need to be told how everything works, like helping a small child wipe their arse. Generally auditors & accountants are far more use about legal matters as they know how the law is actually applied.

[jump]

Definitely not going to give any examples here, but in my experience that's bob-on. Some of them are so out of touch with the modern world its unbelievable.

[The Nal]

nope, the solicitor I spoke to on the phone explicitly stated it.

So I asked who was picking up the tab for sending out these pointless letters, and matey replied "we're hoping that the courts will agree to pay".

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I have had nothing but support from my solicitor involved in the situation with my children.

I have had a few problems since the last case and I am in the process of putting things in place for a further application for increased contact at the end of summer. My solictor is in regular contact with myself via email and he does this all free. We have already negotiated a nominal fee if I do not qualify for legal aid, although I would represent myself in court.

[rabid]

I ended up with a solicitor when I split with my wife - didn't want one but she got one Basically the service I got from them was crap, including lying to me, and when I got the bill (for 'professional services' ) I told them I wasn't paying as my complaints hadn't been resolved to my satisfaction. They said they'd look into it and get back to me. That started a cycle of them sending me a bill every six months and me complaining again. Finally they started sending bills and letters addressed to my ex until I sent one back marked 'not at this address' and they sent a bailiff round to my ex's new address . I complained again adding the balls up with the names and addresses as final proof of their incompetance and I haven't heard anything from them since!

[philipsteak]

After Railtrack was no more this guy (who has way too much spare time) registered the name at Companies House and now amuses himself by responding to the many solicitors letters he gets

[Alcatraz]

After Railtrack was no more this guy (who has way too much spare time) registered the name at Companies House and now amuses himself by responding to the many solicitors letters he gets

[MrZigster]

After Railtrack was no more this guy (who has way too much spare time) registered the name at Companies House and now amuses himself by responding to the many solicitors letters he gets

[Nedson]

me and the ex split a few years back and i agreed to sign the house over to her. (the split was entirely my fault so at least owed her that).

I didnt want to get a solicitor dealing with my end of the bargain but once all the paperwork came through from her end I had to have one signature witnessed by a solcitor.

Only set me back a wee £60 to have someone watch me sign a bit of paper then sign it herself.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Nedson

[eFestivals]

Over the years, I've had quite a few people send me solicitors letters over a supposed libel or defamation that's been published on eFestivals.

Because of the area I work in, I obviously have to know how the law works with such things, and in every case it's been clear that there's been no libel or defamation.

In some of the cases, the person has had a genuine reason for feeling slighted, even tho the issue falls outside of what is actionable. These people I've dealt with reasonably and sensibly.

There's also been some others who have been, to put it simply, trying it on - the letters come with a "... but if you pay me £xxxx, we can settle this without need of court action". In every one of these cases, I've tried to respond in such a way that they'll continue to send me further letters, so that the arsehole who has been trying to fleece me has wasted as much money as possible over their fraudulent attempt at prising money from me - and mostly it works.

But what I can't get my head around is why a supposed highly regarded profession is prepared to operate in the way it does, being paid mouthpieces with the look of officialdom designed to scare the shit out of the poorly-informed, and not acting on facts, truth, honesty, and the letter of the law. They're generally happy to take on any client who will give them money, and they'll encourage them to keep spending money with them, rather than giving the advice they should that they have no case. It's as far away from ethical and professional as it's possible to be.

[rabid]

But what I can't get my head around is why a supposed highly regarded profession is prepared to operate in the way it does, being paid mouthpieces with the look of officialdom designed to scare the shit out of the poorly-informed, and not acting on facts, truth, honesty, and the letter of the law. They're generally happy to take on any client who will give them money, and they'll encourage them to keep spending money with them, rather than giving the advice they should that they have no case. It's as far away from ethical and professional as it's possible to be.