Ruthie has had a good week this week, distributing mayhem within the profession. Three reasons:
The first reason cannot be disclosed yet, but she will post it at some point soon; in disappointingly abbreviated bloodless narrative, Geeklawyer suspects.
Secondly she is scorching the dreams of hopeful aspirants to the profession, namely Geeklawyer blog regular & law student Gavin Whenman who said on his own blog:
I despaired after reading this post by Ruthie on Geeklawyer, in which she said:
“[My] advice to those considering a career at the Bar has remained that same over eight years in professional practice: unless you went to the right school, the right University and have lots of money, don’t even waste your time considering a career at the Bar. Even with those advantages, you may still not succeed. But without them there’s more chance of John Prescott winning the 100 metre sprint at the 2012 Olympics than you securing a tenancy.”
Why despair? Well, I don’t tick any of those boxes.
Poor young Gavin. Poor poor. Ruthie is a devil.
Thirdly, and most devastatingly, Ruthie has destroyed 300 years of tradition at the Bar: at her incitement & instigation the Lord Chancellor has decided to do away with the wearing of wigs in the civil courts. apparently they are fusty and stuffy and make the profession look snobby & superior to the proles. Well, we are. Or at least Geeklawyer is and so are the majority of his peers.
As per fucking usual, the various failed barristers in the Executive are venting their jealousy and vacuous ‘This is the 21st Century: everything needs to be new new new.‘ philosophy to ward off accusations that they have no revolutionary ideas. Cunts.
But who put him up to this? We have an answer:
Judges are poised to scrap their wigs in civil court cases in a move which will end more than 300 years of legal tradition.
…
The issue was brought to a head by pressure from solicitor advocates, who appear alongside bewigged barristers in higher courts. Apart from a handful of solicitors who have won the rank of QC, solicitor advocates have no right to wear a wig.
They argue that the distinction makes them seem second-class advocates in clients’ eyes and are demanding parity, with either all or none wearing wigs…
A nice attempt at obfuscation by the Guardian to aid the guilty: but it was not solicitor-advocates, it was a solicitor-advocate. Ruthie.
But now her guilt is revealed, will Ruthie have to face the wrath of her fusty traditional High Court judge? Deep probing examinations by him just won’t as much fun if he isn’t wearing a wig. Still, at least it won’t fall off in the middle. And the gown remains.
Ruthie: fount of all evil.
Somewhat worryingly Ruthie has been described on a number of occassions as “nothing but trouble”. But then, some people are life’s Easy Riders and some life’s pillion passengers, eh Geeklawyer?
Controversially, Ruthie agrees with the abolition of wigs in the civil courts. The donning of fancy dress hardly facilitates the resolution of contract disputes between businesspeople, nor eases the break-up of marriages. The decision has nothing to do with solicitor-advocates. It’s been mooted for years. It’s just easier to blame it on them as a sop to the Bar.
Oh, and if you’re really lucky Geeklawyer I’ll let you clean my new car. Just be sure not to scratch it.
It isn’t fancy dress, it’s formal wear. Like all formal wear it betokens the solemnity & seriousness of the event. On your argument why wear a suit & bridal gown at a marriage? Does it make the marriage work better? Why not go in jeans t-shirt or halter top rather than fancy dress? Why have the Queen open Parliament in a crown & gown? Does it make democracy work better?
Truth is, people need to be reminded of the seriousness of an event & formal wear helps that: I’d prefer to do my examination in chief in the bar of the local pub, but somewhere more formal is a better bet: fewer lies, more attention to detail.
At it’s worst the wig does nothing significantly to damage the process: do you really think European advocates are less intimidating with their weeny gowns, or US lawyers with just their business suits? Doubt it.
Why wear a suit and bridal gown at a marriage indeed? In the event that Ruthie is ever foolish enough to get married she will commission a set of white leathers, and ride off into the sunset on a white Harley.