Public opinion of the legal profession

[theronstar]

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/dec ... rvey-shows

I accept that this is not a bailiff news article but all the same it talks about the legal profession so it is indirectly linked.

I just emailed the journalist who wrote the news article to express my disgust with the Hodge Jones and Allen lawyer who contributed to the article.

He makes it out as if he is standing with the unrepresented. I remember when I approached them with my case, they were not interested.

Fortunately the comments section is seeing things for what they are.

[Schedule 12]

I have to admit, confidence in the legal system has been damaged.

Everytime I defend a client for a paragraph 68 charge. It is for the prosecution to make a case. However I am always on the back foot because the magistrate (District Judge) is under a perception my client is already guilty and it is for him to prove otherwise.

In one particular case, I had the magistrate actively trying to get round schedule 12, and eventually he gave up without an acquittal or a conviction. He was unwilling to acquit my cleint, and he knew a guilty verdict will end up going to appeal and probably, some blushes, because the defence was based on legislation proving the bailiff (calling himself an 'HCEO') was not acting lawfully at the material time.

I now have to draft clients defences in the format of a crown court appeal instead of a exam/x-exam defence procedures in a magistrates court.

Very few solicitors in an established practice are willing to take on work involving bailiff crime. The ones I do get approach me only because they have a client with a bailiff problem, and have thrown money to make the problem go away whatever the cost. They hire me as a consultant.

Many of my clients are low income. They approach me because the CAB has failed them. They were bounced from one solicitor to the next, stonewalled by the authorities and cannot penetrate the apparent bond that keeps the bailiff industry protected from being brought before a court.

Compared to a year ago, I never envisaged the volume of work I am now doing. I'm churning out statements, complaints and criminal defences ten to the dozen. Some are being given to solicitors (that actually do want the work!) for legal reps, others prefer to save and go DIY. About 3 or 4 high-value cases opt in for the no-win-no-fee. That's less than 1% of the client base, but nearly all of those are because the client is destitute because of unlawful enforcement action and their cases have a high value claim well into 6 figures.

[outlawipcc]

The way in which the justice system operates is made clear by the attitude of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in its response to this complaint about a judge's obvious bias in favour of North East Lincolnshire Council.

The only positive message you get in its negative response is that the hierarchical court system exists as an excuse for incompetence in the lower courts as they can claim fairness of the system with it being open to you to make use of the casino justice system by appealing a botched decision to a higher court.

[Hopeless]

LOL! So much for English justice. I call it, White English Justice.

[Andy]

I find your racist remarks very distasteful. I don't wish to see any more.

[Hopeless]

What is 'racist' about my comment? Please explain. I have written the same thing in a letter to my MP, the chief constable, etc.

I add the following:
When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I know - the truth hurts.

[Pote Snitkin]

Don't matter what colour you are if you ain't got the cash. Don't forget, a great deal of lawyers & barristers are of Asian descent.

[Schedule 12]

I wouldn't go making comments like that to a court. You will really piss them off!

[Hopeless]

Is it an offence (criminal or otherwise) to "piss someone off"?

If a court makes a prejudiced decision as a result of being "pissed off", is this OK?

[Andy]

Yes, it is a criminal offence to be annoying.

[Hopeless]

Legislation?

[Hopeless]

Define annoying?

I think my definition is just brilliant

[Andy]

(a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,

(b)conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person

(1)A court may grant an injunction under this section against a person aged 10 or over (“the respondent”) if two conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in anti-social behaviour.

(3)The second condition is that the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... d/data.htm

[Mark1960]

Andy-Have you touched on employment law much during your studies?

[Andy]

We touched base very briefly with regards to employment tribunals, that was it. I imagine that it will be focused on next year in Contract law.

The areas of law we are required to have understanding in are the following:

Constitutional and Administrative Law
The Law of Contract
Criminal Law
Equity and Trusts
EU Law
Land Law (Property Law)
Law of Torts

Employment law falls into contract law so I imagine it will be in there.

[Hopeless]

Yup, that's basically it. Good luck with IPNA and whatnot.

Again, define annoying? Lol..

[Hopeless]

Andy,

Commercial and contract management are one of my many capabilities. If you need business case studies, feel free to ask.

[Amy]

Yup, that's basically it. Good luck with IPNA and whatnot.

Again, define annoying? Lol..

adjective
causing irritation or annoyance.
synonyms: irritating, infuriating, exasperating, maddening, trying, tiresome, troublesome, bothersome, irksome, vexing, vexatious, galling, provoking, displeasing

Did I miss anything?

[Pote Snitkin]

Again, define annoying? Lol..

C... A... M...

[Hopeless]

@Pote

ROFLOL!

[Hopeless]

Pote, please remove name. I don't mind it on here, but it might come up on google search.

[Andy]

Andy,

Commercial and contract management are one of my many capabilities. If you need business case studies, feel free to ask.

I'm all set thanks, I have a plethora of case law to read already.

[Hopeless]

Again, define annoying? Lol..

C... A... M...

Pote,

I was checking some emails. I then noticed what I wrote in email to court. I informed them of updated details, so that they know where to send the cheque or banker's draft or however else they are going to pay the costs order. I signed off with thanks, but I see I added, "I look forward to more costs orders. LOL!

[Hopeless]

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/dec ... rvey-shows

I accept that this is not a bailiff news article but all the same it talks about the legal profession so it is indirectly linked.

I just emailed the journalist who wrote the news article to express my disgust with the Hodge Jones and Allen lawyer who contributed to the article.

He makes it out as if he is standing with the unrepresented. I remember when I approached them with my case, they were not interested.

Fortunately the comments section is seeing things for what they are.

Sigh Not interested as well. 3 civil liberties firms not interested. Looks like I will have to be LIP. Or... let them all get away with it

[stopbailiff]

I have to admit, confidence in the legal system has been damaged.

Everytime I defend a client for a paragraph 68 charge. It is for the prosecution to make a case. However I am always on the back foot because the magistrate (District Judge) is under a perception my client is already guilty and it is for him to prove otherwise.

In one particular case, I had the magistrate actively trying to get round schedule 12, and eventually he gave up without an acquittal or a conviction. He was unwilling to acquit my cleint, and he knew a guilty verdict will end up going to appeal and probably, some blushes, because the defence was based on legislation proving the bailiff (calling himself an 'HCEO') was not acting lawfully at the material time.

I now have to draft clients defences in the format of a crown court appeal instead of a exam/x-exam defence procedures in a magistrates court.

Very few solicitors in an established practice are willing to take on work involving bailiff crime. The ones I do get approach me only because they have a client with a bailiff problem, and have thrown money to make the problem go away whatever the cost. They hire me as a consultant.

Many of my clients are low income. They approach me because the CAB has failed them. They were bounced from one solicitor to the next, stonewalled by the authorities and cannot penetrate the apparent bond that keeps the bailiff industry protected from being brought before a court.

Compared to a year ago, I never envisaged the volume of work I am now doing. I'm churning out statements, complaints and criminal defences ten to the dozen. Some are being given to solicitors (that actually do want the work!) for legal reps, others prefer to save and go DIY. About 3 or 4 high-value cases opt in for the no-win-no-fee. That's less than 1% of the client base, but nearly all of those are because the client is destitute because of unlawful enforcement action and their cases have a high value claim well into 6 figures.

Mr Guru, how do you know what criminal defences were to apply if you have never studied criminal law, is a genuine question.

[Schedule 12]

I know a number of solicitors.

One is pressing me to do the LLB but if I did. It's for the education than the qualification.

To prepare a criminal defence, I only need to prove the client is not guilty of the offence.

And BTW. I wasn't the one who changed my profile to read 'guru'. Thy shall be anonymous.

[Amy]

No need to remain anonymous, I have already told Mr Idiot that it was me (on the now split thread).

Not that anyone here need explain themselves to him.

[Mark1960]

It just shows how thick he is that he thought Jason had adopted the title himself. What a plonker?

As Pote said the other day, this clown is tripping over himself to show he has legal knowledge. Anyone with the slightest bit, would not feel the need to come on the internet to prove themselves. He is a clone of -Both are idiots, both know nothing about enforcement and both are desperate for recognition.

Reading a couple of books and then copying and pasting irrelevant case law shows how stupid you are, not how clever you are-I just hope he will be kept away from threads where people are seeking help and advice.

[Andy]

People get so caught up in the online world eh? Sitting there banging away at their keyboards getting angry at a monitor...some people.