I have been known to criticise programmes such as Judge John Deed (shurely Deed J, and why is he always on circuit, and what is a QB judge doing hearing family applications, and and) for slight inaccuracies in their depiction of life at the Bar and on the Bench. This morning I have finally realised that in truth, it's only my* professional life that is sadly lacking in drama:
Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2Incidentally, am slightly perturbed by this "secretive world of millionaire lawyers". I must have missed all the memos.
I do recommend the latter article by the way, it includes a rare display of humour by the Mail in the caption to the last photo.
Heigh ho, back to the Scott Schedule. "Item 44, reinstatement of pigeon-netting..."
*Prompted by Frankie in comments, the emphasis in that sentence should lie on "my", there's little drama in the rest of my life atm either. Can't be arsed to redraft the sentence, I now have three applications tomorrow and the skeleton for one of them is going to be seriously late.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 12:32 pm (UTC)Though, with regard to a certain Chancery barrister who has recently left an IP set for a general chancery set, I believe that a man who has a breach with his clerk never does quite recover his position in society...
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 01:05 pm (UTC)The 4NS affair has been well-known to
them that knowmost of Lincoln's Inn for a while but this is a whole new twist. I know a bit of further gossipy context to both stories but will have to tell you some other time for the usual reasons.no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 09:14 pm (UTC)On item 2 above, have been having a long argument on the more serious substantive issue, with a colleague (whom I do actually quite like), to the effect that (a) yes it is odd that such a claim by a tenant would go to an Employment Tribunal rather than being told to piss off to the QBD and bring a claim on the rather complex series of implied contractual terms on which the whole structure of barristers' chambers rests, but given the parties my hunch is that people do actually know what they are doing and the current employment statutes (about which neither of us know bugger all) doubtless do cover it; (b) actually no it wouldn't surprise me, sadly, if such a claim were well founded; (c) no, it is not ok if a junior tenant can make out a genuine complaint on the facts to the effect that they are losing out because of skin colour, sex, making noises about whether or not it was entirely appropriate for the head of chambers to be screwing the head clerk/chief exec. (or indeed sexuality, not that this arose here), albeit that a more appropriate tribunal might be the shiny new Bastards Board; (d) frankly no I don't believe as a matter of fact that a white heterosexual male would be able to make any comparable claim on the facts so I don't accept that point arises.
Honestly, it almost counteracted the fit of palaeo-conservatism that came over me at mass on Sunday when O found a hymn in the book that used the term "empowerment" in cold blood.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 03:02 pm (UTC)As for Exhibit 2, I will observe with a degree of schadenfreude, for reasons I would be happy to
bitch aboutexplain over a drink at some point.no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 03:09 pm (UTC)