Lawyers......why?

[ToraToraTora]

we've all used them but there is nothing in law that says they are required yet they infest our lives, sucking on human misery mainly. Surely we can put our heads together and do without these parasites.

[chrissa1]

//sucking on human misery mainly//

Speaking as the daughter of, and the sister of a solicitor, that's an incredibly sweeping statement and is totally untrue. My late father was, and my brother is now, an incredibly hard working man who rarely leaves the office before, seven in the evening and works most weekends.

I'll be kind and assume you haven't met a good solicitor, TTT.

[grasscarp]

My daughter is a barrister and has done a lot of good in an area that I will not reveal.

[woofgang]

Hav had dealings with solicitors twice. Both times they (different people, different firms, different circumstances) were very helpful, honest and supportive.

[maggiebee]

I trust my Solicitor implicitly.

[Peter Pedant]

and here is a firm of solicitors I reported to the solicitors complaints board before the thread was started .....

http://www.bridportnews.co.uk/news/8738920.Bridport__Solicitors_probed_after_Panorma_tv_programme/

Firm dissolved after this episode but They Were At It before !

[ selling financial instruments in which they had an undeclared interest - oh naughty naughty. My complaint was fifteen years before that they had claimed falsely they had legal rights which they didnt have, which meant that I should sign a contract ( erm giving up those rights actually ) quig or else I would lost out.....]

[Peter Pedant]

Oh and this is not a knock Bam-Bam thread - Barmaid gives her time liberally to people with chancery issues in this very section

step forward Bam Bam and take a bow !

[EDDIE51]

Lawyers and funeral directors both unnecessary blood sucking parasites out to con as much money as possible from the unsuspecting public, or at least a significant proportion of them are IMO!

[viv41]

Do you mean defence lawyers TTT ??

[david small]

There are too many greedy, selfish, incompetent, solicitors, estate agents, landlords, council executives, NHS managers, the list is long. But, there are some few, who are honest, decent, professional, souls who give of thier best.
God bless em.

[TWR]

These professional people can find every detail needed that the ordinary person has trouble doing, check their feedback, ask for references before you choose TTT, from your post, you must have been stung at one time! don't tie them all with the same brush.

[Dogsbody2]

The problem I have with them is that there is little if any competition. The Law Society sees to that by publishing suggested fee rates. In any other profession it would be outlawed. Then again, quite a few MPs are qualified in law.

[ToraToraTora]

I have not been stung and no I am not talking about defence lawyers only but it does get my back up that for example, some leech will be defending the Paris terrorist bloke, drawing public money, they seem to have no scruples at all.

[jim360]

It's their job -- and I think it's an important one. Wouldn't be much point in justice if people were unable to defend themselves because they were already pronounced as guilty before going on trial. It sucks sometimes, but I don't see why it's the defence lawyers' fault.

[ToraToraTora]

who said anything about the presumption of guilt? If they had an ounce of honour no brief would touch it with a bargepole and the bloke can defend himself.

[jim360]

Well presumably the only reason they shouldn't touch it with a bargepole is if you presumed they were guilty.

I'm sure there are some lawyers -- like in any other profession -- who lack scruples and are just in it for the money. But to tar all of them? That's incredibly simplistic and unfair. Defence lawyers should be touching these cases because, on occasion, they would be perfectly correct to do so.

[Peter Pedant]

Oh dear - back to terrorism again and whether they should have defence counsel or just ... HANG !
a la lanterne ! I think it is the phrase / mot juste

3T - heellllloooo ! the brum terrorists DIDN'T do it
The Guildford Four DIDNT do it
Judith thingey M62 bombing - she DIDNT do it .....

oops do you think there is something wrong with a legal system if people who DIDNT do it serve up to 15 y in jail ? Yup I do.

OK he is a dark is a muslim and has a moustache so must be very very evil but even so should have at least the right as the rest of us

what about terrorists need enhanced rights to protect against frequent wrongful conviction ?

Jim I thought your comment about presumed guilt priddy slick

[ToraToraTora]

usual indecipherable drivel from PP I see.

[Peter Pedant]

3T

no 3T history

history is full of instances where terrorists were convicted of offences they hadnt done ....

dear dear - and their defences were rejected at the time as purest drivel but were found to be absolutely TRUE !

[cassa333]

There are good solicitors and bad solicitors. There are good clients and there are bad clients.

Get over it.

[jim360]

The translation is pretty simple: leaving some people to defend themselves, presumably because "clearly" they are guilty anyway (or even if it's not clear, for that matter), would lead to massive miscarriages of justice. Juries may be swayed by the power of the prosecution's arguments, and the weak responses of the defence, to return a verdict of "guilty" when the defendant was innocent after all. This is already a problem; reducing the chances that the case for the defence is actually legally competent, or well-presented, will only make this worse. People need to be able to defend themselves, and in most cases this will mean that they need support from a competent and capable lawyer who can make the best case for their defence.