Geeklawyer did think the sight of Pakistani lawyers trading blows with paramilitary police was a little weird. All credit to them. They live in an exceedingly fragile democracy where a vacuous despot ignores the rule of law, the constitution and appoints judges who do his bidding (you decide whether I mean Bush or Musharraf). So naturally they riot.
Now it seems US lawyers are pondering the same extra-judicial remedies. Inspired by the exhortations of Mario Cuomo, ex-mayor of New York State, they plan take to the streets to defend the US Constitution. Well, OK they only plan to sign a petition at the moment but, fuck, it’s a start.
When English lawyers take to the streets Geeklawyer will be among their passionate thronging number. Both of them to be exact.
The problem is that many English barristers live in their own little isolated world. As a side note by way of example: Geeklawyer was in the High Court a little while back and was having to argue with the opposing barrister about whether he was entitled to his costs. The basis being that since Geeklawyer had taken instructions direct from a member of the public rather than a solicitor he the punter was not entitled to his costs, it being ‘forbidden‘ conduct by the Geeklawyer. Unfortunately barristers have had the advantage of the Public Access Certificate since the middle of 2006 and if quaalifying can take instructions direct from the public. This scheme has been in place since the middle of 2006 but was unknown to my not very learned learned friend opposing. Worse still was the fact that the bleedin’ High Court judge was equally unaware 
Do you really expect the English Bar to take to the streets? Nah, me either.
My dear chap, I think if you check the small print you will discover that your public access certificate does not permit you to conduct litigation, merely to give advice. So any costs you have been awarded are granted unlawfully.
Perhaps you would be good enough to point me to this mysterious small print? I have read the Public Access Rules several times and taken the course: we both have I assume?
This is a useful summary guide for non-lawyers: you may find it helpful. Note the non-exclusion on providing advocacy under the Public Access Scheme. ‘Advocacy’ means speaking in court. The High Court is a court.
You may, I suspect, be confusing the management of litigation with the role of advocacy: a hard mistake to make but as ever you are up to the job.
That’ll be £250 for my opinion. Cheque to the usual address please.
Yes, but your post suggests you are litigating rather than merely advocating.
I’m always very clear to my punter - he talks & writes letters to the other side, he issues proceedings, he makes applications & finds evidence in some cases with my advice. If I did any of that then yea I’d be in breach but I just talk.
GL… my advice is this. Classify the receipt as a donation to a political party. As you are not a political party you won’t run into problems with the Electoral Commission… so you should be in the clear.
I do hope this helpful.
GL… a purely stylistic note. What will you wear when you ‘take to the streets’ ?
I’d like to wear a wig but wigs fall off during both lovemaking and rioting. I’ll avoid a wig. However a gown seems just about feasible, perhaps with a 3 piece wool suit underneath. Unfortunately I will need to wear trainers as running will be required - it will look absurd of course, but frankly this is where practicality outweighs style - I’ll need to move fast to dodge the plastic bullets.
My Dear Geek,
Is it any surprise that lots of barristers are complete
…..? There is one in my local pub who insists in wearing fox hunting gear and generally making a nuisance of himself.
Surely one must presume that a barrister is a …. until proven otherwise? This seems to be how they regard each other.
James c, the ellipses are entirely unnecessary - feel free to say rude words if you like: “dash, blast, bother”, anything goes.
Any barrister wearing fox hunting gear deserves to be laughed at and called a prick whether or not he is a nuisance. Contrary to widely held belief not all barristers are perfect like Geeklawyer, some barristers are ‘…’ (cunts?). It is disappointing I know.
My dear Geek,
I thought they were circles, but in any case I was trying not to overexcite the search engines with rude words.
just as well - after the “anally raped” headline I have far too many of the wrong sort visiting.