…but not at the beginning of a sentence, surely? All style guides I’ve seen say numbers should be spelt out when they start a sentence.
“Bob ate 51 hot dogs.”
“‘Fifty-two hot dogs? I couldn’t possibly!’ said Bob.”
I’d guess that the AP style elsewhere discourages the use of ‘one’ in any form at the beginning of a sentence, to avoid confusion. If it doesn’t, then it should 
In my town that area is called “Crooks’ Corner”
But I’m not sure to which group it refers.
It is possible to do it this way, but most of the time you contact Bob Nob QC, let him know that you’d like to brief him, get his agreement, then sort out payment, timing, delivery of materials etc with the clerk. “The clerk” isn’t just one guy, it’s the name of an entity - there’ll be maybe ten people employed there.
As already noted, solicitors may represent clients in court in certain circumstances in England and Australia, and often do so at a lower level (tribunals, Magistrates’ / Local Courts). Conversely, barristers are often required to draft tricky legal documents or render specific advice on a matter for the solicitors.
Perhaps Bob Nob QC is a leading expert on intellectual property law, particularly as it pertains to widgets. A firm of solicitors will therefore ask the advice of Bob Nob QC, since he’s the expert in the area. For this, Bob can be expected to be paid by the hour. He’d get from around $AUD400 per hour for this kind of work if he were junior. He’s not, he’s a QC, so he can get from double to four times that - $AUD 800 - 1500.
Thanks, all. I never imagined this would go to 24+ posts!
How about:
One Brick Court silk and Conservative MP, Edward Garnier QC, is leading the charge to impeach the Prime Minister over the invasion of Iraq.
Or even:
Edward Garnier QC, Conservative MP and One Brick Court silk, is leading the charge to impeach the Prime Minister over the invasion of Iraq.
Not that I’d’ve understood it without the subtitles, regardless. Or does the AP have some crudge against commas?
Or even a grudge?
Mmm, well sorta but you go a bit far. I’m a solicitor, but I’m a litigation solicitor. Which means that I sometimes appear in court on basic stuff, certainly file motions, take evidence etc. But actual argument in court I don’t do. On a big trial I form part of a team with a barrister or barristers, and we handle different aspects.
The reason that a paper read by people knowledgable in Legal London would give an address like this in an article is that certain chambers have a reputation for doing certain kinds of work - so it is a shorthand way of describing a person’s area of work.
For instance if a Barrister was referred to as a “Matrix Barrister” you would know that their work was around human rights. One Brick Court are an aggressive chambers in the area of privacy, libel and media issues (they represented the BBC against the governement in the Hutton report).
Don’t be too impressed by the “QC” though - all MPs who have a Bar qualification are automatically upgraded to Silks. They are also entitled to be addressed in Parliament as “learned” eg “my learned friend” (speaker is on same side as MP) or “the learned gentleman” (speaker is political opponent) .
Hope that helps.
Owl ( Who sometimes has to employ QCs and doesn’t like paying £400 an hour for the privilidge).
Not exactly, but there is a distinction. The second alternative you gave is fine, but the first is considered wrong, because it implies that Edward Garnier is the only One Brick Court silk and Conservative MP.
For example:
“The travel writer, Bill Bryson, has produced several entertaining books.”
is wrong, as it implies that he is the travel writer, the only one. “The travel writer” is the defining clause.
The correct form would be either:
“The travel writer Bill Bryson has produced several entertaining books.”
or:
“Bill Bryson, the travel writer, has produced several entertaining books.”
Here “the travel writer” is nonrestrictive, so it is fine.
Remember “One” is part of an address. So it would be like reading a headline:
“Travel writer, Bill Bryson, produces several entertaining books.”
But of course putting “One” at the beginning leads to exactly the confusion we were trying to avoid, so the second form is indeed probably is better.
Most likely your editor would tell you to recast the sentence so that it doesn’t begin with a number.
Well, in standard American journalistic writing, you wouldn’t be likely to find yourself in this corner anyway. If you felt you had to use the lawyer’s address as a fake title, you’d probably just leave off the building number: “K Street lawyer John Johnson …” rather than “1526 K St. lawyer John Johnson …” or (ugh!) “Fifteen-Hundred Twenty-Six K St. lawyer John Johnson …”
The commas are still incorrect here.
“Travel writer Bill Bryson produces several entertaining books.”
So a QC is not, then, necessarily a prosecutor?
Nope - just a senior and experienced Barrister - it’s a mark of recognition.
They can defend and prosecute.
Well… yes. You are correct and I am not. I don’t even know how it got into my head that it was a headline, anyway, not that it would make a difference.
I’ve gotta remember to have coffee -before- posting in the morning.