Seeking A Platonic Ideal...

[liadnan]

A QC of my acquaintance once observed, as what was in context a crushing put down to a dull argument, "Well, it depends on whether you see the law as a set of academic questions with correct answers or as a game to be won. I see it as the latter."

When a real issue on a point of law crops up, that gives rise to something of a tension. On the one hand, we make a living, and sometimes, frankly, enjoy ourselves, by trying to win the game -and when you do, against the odds, oh the adrenalin rush. On the other, you sometimes just want to know just what, really, is the "right" answer, and could their Lordships please just Sort It Out.

Still, one day you might be the one who convinces their Lordships of the "right" answer. One can but hope.

Comments

[eccles.livejournal.com]

I hear you on the "could their Lordships please just sort it out". Naming no names of course but a couple of their Lordships (technically only one, the other was a deputy) have just caused no end of mess here.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

I read that there are going to be new rules about QCs, so you have to apply properly to be one, and crap ones will risk getting defrocked - or I suppose, un-silked. Are there many QCs in existence who are incompetent and should be un-silked, or are they just making rules in case anyone ever goes a bit mad, you know, drops their trousers in court and attacks the judge etc?

[liadnan]

Current QC's will not be able to have their letters patent revoked as I understand it, only those appointed under the new system.

Are their incompetent QCs? I forbear to comment.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

I take that as a yes but can't be quoted then.

What happens if one applies to be QC and fails - does one slink off and slash wrists or market oneself instead as a discount lawyer, or just pack it in altogether?

[liadnan]

Shrugs and tries again another year, or forgets it. Not being a QC hardly makes you discount.

[liadnan]

I am, incidentally, reminded of the tremendous bollocking given in a reported judgment by Millett J (now Lord Millett) re the way in which the case (part of the Maxwell litigation, Macmillan v. Bishopsgate (no 3)) was conducted. Although eliptical it's clear (of you're in the know) that the bollocking is largely directed at lead counsel for Macmillan: one Lord Irvine QC.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

Candidate for desilking? I do hope so.

[liadnan]

I suspect not somehow.
Anyway, it will only apply to new silks.

Mind if I add you?

[jen-c-w.livejournal.com]

I love the way you write...and politics...and cricket...and your London post especially.