ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Or Why Not Do You Believe Lawyers Are Important For A Society To Function?
I am doing a project for school and would like others impout on this topic.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by malzahno. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are plenty of professional negligence solicitors about who would take a case on and plenty of rules and regulation to make a case on should a practising lawyer such as a solicitor or barrister be in breach. It is a very highly regulated profession based on a high level of professional ethics.
There are also governing bodies such as the Solicitor's Regulation Authority who have the power to discipline solicitors to include fining them, striking them off and even closing entire firms down.
There are also governing bodies such as the Solicitor's Regulation Authority who have the power to discipline solicitors to include fining them, striking them off and even closing entire firms down.
Some areas are very highly specialised though and experience can count for a lot.
Also bear in mind that there are many people who would find it extremely difficult to represent or conduct legal proceedings themselves for a all kinds of reasons, those who lack capacity, people with language or literacy problems, all kinds of things.
Also bear in mind that there are many people who would find it extremely difficult to represent or conduct legal proceedings themselves for a all kinds of reasons, those who lack capacity, people with language or literacy problems, all kinds of things.
I completely agree TWR - which is why I shall shortly be launching a website that empowers people to deal with small claims and fast track claims themselves. With a bit of assistance from a free website, some people are able to conduct a claim themselves. However, once you start getting technical, best of luck, you are on your own.
Oh and I was recently against a litigant in person. She had a minor victory. Had she been properly represented, she'd have won outright, but she had no understanding of pleadings and evidence.
Oh and I was recently against a litigant in person. She had a minor victory. Had she been properly represented, she'd have won outright, but she had no understanding of pleadings and evidence.
A civilisation eventually advances enough to have laws. Once that happens, some person who is not literate or not clever, or both, needs the help of someone who is, a champion to fight for him, against some person who is literate and clever but in the wrong. Then you have lawyers.
Your studies may lead you to the discovery that, until the 1890s, no defendant could testify (give evidence as a witness in court) in his own defence in this country. There was fierce argument about this. Why? Because it was thought manifestly unjust to expose a man who was not intelligent or worldly wise, yet innocent, to being cross-examined by some highly educated , clever man who would make him appear guilty. It was a mismatch. That is applying, in fairly modern times, and rather intensely, the principle in my first paragraph here
Your studies may lead you to the discovery that, until the 1890s, no defendant could testify (give evidence as a witness in court) in his own defence in this country. There was fierce argument about this. Why? Because it was thought manifestly unjust to expose a man who was not intelligent or worldly wise, yet innocent, to being cross-examined by some highly educated , clever man who would make him appear guilty. It was a mismatch. That is applying, in fairly modern times, and rather intensely, the principle in my first paragraph here
As an aside: A litigant in person may end up as well represented as if they had counsel. Sir Harold Cassel once found himself prosecuting such an individual. He famously decided that being against himself, unarmed, was too much, so he cheerfully cross-examined his own witnesses and made a closing speech which was remarkable for being rather more than even handed in the defendant's favour ! He felt that it was his duty to the court and to justice. And you generally find that the judge does his best to help the unrepresented party, if only to discover what that person's case really is. Better to have your lawyer, though.
malzanho, if you're wondering what I'm on about in the 1890s, here is the Act You'll see how fair it is, providing not only that a defendant could testify but setting rules to prevent, save in exceptional circumstances, anyone putting his previous convictions in evidence. It has since been amended or replaced:
http://
http://
^^wot fred said at 19.55
while I take TWR's point that some single issue cases can be doggedly pursued by a determined individual, I don't understand why people cut up rough about lawyers - it's about specialist areas of knowledge, in the same way that a mechanic will mend your vehicle better than you can
and there's a plea for BM on the almonds thread,btw
while I take TWR's point that some single issue cases can be doggedly pursued by a determined individual, I don't understand why people cut up rough about lawyers - it's about specialist areas of knowledge, in the same way that a mechanic will mend your vehicle better than you can
and there's a plea for BM on the almonds thread,btw
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.