Yeah, I’ve not heard of that arrangement. I know of a few solos who will rent the same office space and hire one secretary that takes the calls and does the paperwork for all of them to share the expenses, but they remain independent of each other and there is no decision as to who gets what cases. Each attorney is for himself.
You’re welcome.
Note that in Canada, we don’t have the divided profession that England has, but we use the terms “barrister” and “solicitor” to indicate the type of work we do. If we say someone does solicitor work, it means that lawyer does mainly contracts, real estate, mergers and acquisitions, etc. A barrister is used for a lawyer who does a lot of litigation.
Personally, I would describe my practice as mainly barrister stuff, but some counsel (advisory) work. I don’t do solicitor stuff, although technically I’m a “barrister and solicitor”.
Nowadays, they’d also need someone who specialized in representing husbands of lawyers and judges.
I worked at a firm where that happened, but we had to have written consent from both parties that they knew of the potential conflict of interest but consented anyway. Our ethical wall was actually a physical wall in that the attorney worked behind closed doors at all times.
Is it true that one barrister might be prosecuting a case that another barrister in the same chambers is defending?
It is not uncommon for many large companies to use many large law firms. The majority of these issues are not related to criminal issues, but primarily contract and civil issues.
It is also very common when two large companies are working on a deal or contract, that they each need legal representation. In many cases, both companies may use or have used many of the large law firms for representation, however in this new deal or contract, the law firms have a practice of clearing conflicts. This can be done with having separate legal teams work for client A that has no association with client B and vice versa at the other firm.
Point taken… but sadly, the double standard still applies. Especially when the marriage fails after 20 or 30 years, the wife or a very successful lawyer, particularly a judge, is more likely to have been sacrificing any career to raise the kids, etc. etc. And older successful males are more likely to take a proprietary view of the property earned mainly by them during marriage, resenting sharing it with the ex. I’m imagining the husband of a very successful lawyer probably is fairly successful too, so the money argument is less likely to get vicious. (but of course, when it comes to divorces, nothing is a given.)
Anyway, this was 10 or 20 years ago, and so divorces after 20 or 30 years were more likely to involve a stay-at-home wife and some very nasty money arguments by husbands who didn’t get to be successful by being nice.
Yes. This happens regularly in the tv series Rumpole of the Bailey (1978-1992): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVkexeuvor4
The show was written by a barrister John Mortimer.
I should have said that I was a fan of Rumpole, and wondered how realistic that part was.
I *knew *it!
That sounds like the only reasonable answer. Anything else makes me think of contrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, etc.
It could be both, you know.
Case in point: Geoffrey Irwin Dormer.
I don’t suppose you could elaborate?
Hell no! That would risk my getting listed and black helicoptered like Dormer.
It’s just that a Google search on that name results in “No results found for ‘Geoffrey Irwin Dormer’.” Not very helpful as a “case in point” if no one has any idea what you are referring to.
The Illuminati must have done a very good job.
A lot of these answers seem to be getting off topic. Yes “the list” could refer to a client list where there is a conflict of interest because the law firm is representing the business to be sued in some other matter.
In my limited experience dealing with attorneys, “the list” may also refer to a plaintiff that is notorious for their litigation/litigation defense. For example, I have heard anecdotally, that people attempt to sue Disney all the time for things like “slip and fall” cases at their theme parks. A personal injury attorney might normally take such a case on a contingent basis against a large retailer, who may settle rather than going to court, because the cost of litigation exceeds the amount they could settle for. Disney will supposed lose money fighting such a case to send a message to would-be attorneys that they will fight these cases tooth and nail. Thus, they are on a proverbial “list” of people not to sue. Presumably a personal injury attorney will research past “slip and fall” cases in various legal databases against Disney, see the poor success rate, and decide their odds of winning aren’t worth it.
I have also heard anecdotally that IBM is a notorious patent troll. They patent even vague ideas and have experienced patent attorneys on staff who know how to get these pushed through the USPTO. Then if someone really does develop a technology for time travel, or something of that nature, IBM gets to swoop in and get them to purchase a license for their patent, or else gets tied up in expensive litigation that a small inventor cannot afford. I assume IBM is on an informal patent troll “list” that can be easily researched on the USPTO website of patent holders.
And yes, I am aware “anecdotes do not equal data”, but if an individual worker makes a claim of an injury, and goes to a local personal injury attorney, I can only assume that step 1 in the attorney handbook is A) how bad is the injury such that a jury would award damages? and B) how likely is it that this company will defend itself against my litigation? If a person is punched and it left a bruise, unless it was significant and they lost work, or numerous people reported it to HR and nothing was done about it, it might not pass that first step.
Yes, Muffin hjiacked the thread in post 7.
However, The plural of anecdote* is* data. Everyone gets that wrong.
*Nelson W. Polsby PS, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 778-781. Pg. 779: Raymond Wolfinger’s brilliant aphorism “the plural of anecdote is data” never inspired a better or more skilled researcher.
I e-mailed Wolfinger last year and got the following response from him:
“I said ‘The plural of anecdote is data’ some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student’s dismissal of a simple factual statement–by another student or me–as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder. Since then I have missed few opportunities to quote myself. The only appearance in print that I can remember is Nelson Polsby’s accurate quotation and attribution in an article in PS: Political Science and Politics in 1993; I believe it was in the first issue of the year.”
I also e-mailed Polsby, who didn’t know of any early printed occurrences.
What is interesting about this saying is that it seems to have morphed into its opposite – “Data is not the plural of anecdote” – in some people’s minds. Mark Mandel used it in this opposite sense in a private e-mail to me, for example.*
[Moderating]
Muffin, if you don’t want to elaborate, why did you bring up whoever-the-heck that is in the first place? Right now, that post is completely nonsensical.