I think you should try and look for a legal team that is searching for glory rather than too much money, as previously stated.

Court etiquette and the order in which papers etc need to be sumbitted, can be a legal minefield. You may be given some slack in court by the judge, but I am afraid this may not help when faced with an large legal team in the opposite corner. It is a little more complicated than throwing round a few phrases such as "may it please the court" and "my learned friend" as man have found out.

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by sunami

There's a saying within the ranks of the legal eagles;

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client" !

A useless little 'homily'' used by pompous intellectually idle lawyers who prefer metaphore as a substitute for rational analysis in the rather naive belief that the law exists for the sole purpose of providing them with a living!

Another favourite is 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. It is an expression intended to deter, discourage and close down inconvenient questions. It is generally used defensively by those who profess to be possessed of a monopoly of it and find to their great embarrassment that they have been humilated before a judge by a non-qualfied advocate!

People like you make me wonder why I bother using up my precious time to help on this site. I dont have to help and I dont get paid to help. But I am happy to help my fellow Soldiers and others in the armed forces. Twits like you just get my goat.

You are so damn ignorant of the reality of law that it beggars belief; and your verbosity does not impress. Idiots like you who think you can do what I do having just read The Sun newspaper, when it took me six years to qualify and I have been practicing for 14 years after that have a dangerous pathological genetic disorder.

If its so easy, why dont you practice?

Get over it loser.

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by sunami

There's a saying within the ranks of the legal eagles;

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client" !

A useless little 'homily'' used by pompous intellectually idle lawyers who prefer metaphore as a substitute for rational analysis in the rather naive belief that the law exists for the sole purpose of providing them with a living!

Another favourite is 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. It is an expression intended to deter, discourage and close down inconvenient questions. It is generally used defensively by those who profess to be possessed of a monopoly of it and find to their great embarrassment that they have been humilated before a judge by a non-qualfied advocate!

People like you make me wonder why I bother using up my precious time to help on this site. I dont have to help and I dont get paid to help. But I am happy to help my fellow Soldiers and others in the armed forces. Twits like you just get my goat.

You are so damn ignorant of the reality of law that it beggars belief; and your verbosity does not impress. Idiots like you who think you can do what I do having just read The Sun newspaper, when it took me six years to qualify and I have been practicing for 14 years after that have a dangerous pathological genetic disorder.

If its so easy, why dont you practice?

Get over it loser.

I’d be really interested to know why you reckon Iolis is “a loser”. He’s never done anything else but make ARRSErs aware of the fact that the law is anything but perfect and to suggest ways in which it can be made to serve the purposes of those who asked.

As a counter-argument (sort of) you reveal that you took six years to qualify and that you’ve been practising for 14 years. Which actually means what? In addition, you wonder why you use up your "precious time" on this website. That, in itself is a major lead into your mind, mucker, but just let me put the rest of your arrogantly haughty and dismissive attitude into perspective, knackerfeatures:

I've been a qualified translator for something like 36 years. In that time, I've had occasion to proofread translations from folks (very similar to you) who seriously considered themselves the dog's danglies translation-wise, but were, in effect, absolutely fückin' useless (a prime example being a guy called Edward Vick).

So the loser seems to be you, in that you’re not prepared to admit that you might have flaws and not know everything. Your call, Mr Perfect!

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by sunami

There's a saying within the ranks of the legal eagles;

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client" !

A useless little 'homily'' used by pompous intellectually idle lawyers who prefer metaphore as a substitute for rational analysis in the rather naive belief that the law exists for the sole purpose of providing them with a living!

Another favourite is 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. It is an expression intended to deter, discourage and close down inconvenient questions. It is generally used defensively by those who profess to be possessed of a monopoly of it and find to their great embarrassment that they have been humilated before a judge by a non-qualfied advocate!

People like you make me wonder why I bother using up my precious time to help on this site. I dont have to help and I dont get paid to help. But I am happy to help my fellow Soldiers and others in the armed forces. Twits like you just get my goat.

You are so damn ignorant of the reality of law that it beggars belief; and your verbosity does not impress. Idiots like you who think you can do what I do having just read The Sun newspaper, when it took me six years to qualify and I have been practicing for 14 years after that have a dangerous pathological genetic disorder.

If its so easy, why dont you practice?

Get over it loser.

I’d be really interested to know why you reckon Iolis is “a loser”. He’s never done anything else but make ARRSErs aware of the fact that the law is anything but perfect and to suggest ways in which it can be made to serve the purposes of those who asked.

As a counter-argument (sort of) you reveal that you took six years to qualify and that you’ve been practising for 14 years. Which actually means what? In addition, you wonder why you use up your "precious time" on this website. That, in itself is a major lead into your mind, mucker, but just let me put the rest of your arrogantly haughty and dismissive attitude into perspective, knackerfeatures:

I've been a qualified translator for something like 36 years. In that time, I've had occasion to proofread translations from folks (very similar to you) who seriously considered themselves the dog's danglies translation-wise, but were, in effect, absolutely fückin' useless (a prime example being a guy called Edward Vick).

So the loser seems to be you, in that you’re not prepared to admit that you might have flaws and not know everything. Your call, Mr Perfect!

MsG

So spoke the Highly Distingushed (mere) Translator. Is that all you have achieved in 36 years?

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by sunami

There's a saying within the ranks of the legal eagles;

"A man who represents himself has a fool for a client" !

A useless little 'homily'' used by pompous intellectually idle lawyers who prefer metaphore as a substitute for rational analysis in the rather naive belief that the law exists for the sole purpose of providing them with a living!

Another favourite is 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. It is an expression intended to deter, discourage and close down inconvenient questions. It is generally used defensively by those who profess to be possessed of a monopoly of it and find to their great embarrassment that they have been humilated before a judge by a non-qualfied advocate!

People like you make me wonder why I bother using up my precious time to help on this site. I dont have to help and I dont get paid to help. But I am happy to help my fellow Soldiers and others in the armed forces. Twits like you just get my goat.

You are so damn ignorant of the reality of law that it beggars belief; and your verbosity does not impress. Idiots like you who think you can do what I do having just read The Sun newspaper, when it took me six years to qualify and I have been practicing for 14 years after that have a dangerous pathological genetic disorder.

If its so easy, why dont you practice?

Get over it loser.

I’d be really interested to know why you reckon Iolis is “a loser”. He’s never done anything else but make ARRSErs aware of the fact that the law is anything but perfect and to suggest ways in which it can be made to serve the purposes of those who asked.

As a counter-argument (sort of) you reveal that you took six years to qualify and that you’ve been practising for 14 years. Which actually means what? In addition, you wonder why you use up your "precious time" on this website. That, in itself is a major lead into your mind, mucker, but just let me put the rest of your arrogantly haughty and dismissive attitude into perspective, knackerfeatures:

I've been a qualified translator for something like 36 years. In that time, I've had occasion to proofread translations from folks (very similar to you) who seriously considered themselves the dog's danglies translation-wise, but were, in effect, absolutely fückin' useless (a prime example being a guy called Edward Vick).

So the loser seems to be you, in that you’re not prepared to admit that you might have flaws and not know everything. Your call, Mr Perfect!

MsG

So spoke the Highly Distingushed (mere) Translator. Is that all you have achieved in 36 years?

Oh dear! You really are the sum of all the cliches attached to your dubious profession, aren't you? No wonder nobody trusts your advice or judgment.

It's not my fault that you failed to achieve the position to which you felt yourself entitled in your misguided arrogance, gobnuts. It's because you're just not good enough! Get used to it, fella!

MsG

Are you or any who plan to take this action a member of a UK Union, as with most unions member can get legal assistance, with UNISON it's through Thompsons.

You must be very certian or very desperate to take such action, however, there are times when enough is enough and since 1997, this government have effectively rewritten many of the law to weaken the unions and with EU and Labour Law changing, with the UK sometimesm when it suits them, only adopt parts of EU law.

I have seen open and shut cases recently drag on for years, are you strong enough to see it through to the end, no matter the cost financially and to yourself?

Your response does you little credit Mr Dredd.

Your first paragraph is a self-serving appeal for un-earned gratitude.

Your second paragraph is the suggestion that because you practice you are therefore competent. I see little evidence of this beyond that of a mere unsupported assertion.

I shall remind you once more that the law does not belong to you. You do not own it nor do you have any dominion over it. Neither was it constructed or enacted for your personal benefit.

You appear to lack the ability to absorb criticism and to articulate a measured and balanced response.

The profession is in the process of undergoing a structural change which by 2011 will make it almost unrecognisable. If you are to survive within it you would be well advised to rid yourself of the burden of exclusivity and arrogance you carry with you together with the expectation that the public should accept with passive docility the authority you belive you have a right to expect.

Since you have decided to contribute to an open and public discussion board and held yourself out as a professional you may expect to be challenged by me on a regular basis whether you like the idea or not and it will be for those other than you to decide for themselves whether or not your arguments are capable of bearing the weight you attach to them.

Dredd,

your last line in your last post just told me everything I ever wanted to know about lawyers

Stuck up t0sser.

Please feel free to reply if you can afford to spend 2 minutes of your oh so fcuking precious time doing so.

Originally Posted by Aunty Stella

Dredd,

your last line in your last post just told me everything I ever wanted to know about lawyers

Stuck up t0sser.

Please feel free to reply if you can afford to spend 2 minutes of your oh so fcuking precious time doing so.

i wont waste my time ...precious or otherwise on folk like you.

Originally Posted by Iolis

Your response does you little credit Mr Dredd.

Your first paragraph is a self-serving appeal for un-earned gratitude.

Your second paragraph is the suggestion that because you practice you are therefore competent. I see little evidence of this beyond that of a mere unsupported assertion.

I shall remind you once more that the law does not belong to you. You do not own it nor do you have any dominion over it. Neither was it constructed or enacted for your personal benefit.

You appear to lack the ability to absorb criticism and to articulate a measured and balanced response.

The profession is in the process of undergoing a structural change which by 2011 will make it almost unrecognisable. If you are to survive within it you would be well advised to rid yourself of the burden of exclusivity and arrogance you carry with you together with the expectation that the public should accept with passive docility the authority you belive you have a right to expect.

Since you have decided to contribute to an open and public discussion board and held yourself out as a professional you may expect to be challenged by me on a regular basis whether you like the idea or not and it will be for those other than you to decide for themselves whether or not your arguments are capable of bearing the weight you attach to them.

1. I seek no gratitide whatsoever, least of all from people like you

2. Your assertion is that since I am qualified IALL Solicitors are INcompetent; and my assertion is merely that "I" am competent and more. Thus I am able to support my assertion, whereas your blanket opinion is just that - mere unsuppoted (and indeed inaccurate) opinion.

3. Criticism is fine but incompetent, unintelligent, unsuppoted idle gossip that is critical of EVERY single lawyer in the land is not criticism it is just bitterness.

4. You have limited knowledge of the changes my company has adopted, and limited knowledge of the significant changes that in fact commenced effectively in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1997. Indeed one of the most significant of changes is coming into place on 31 March 2009.

If i was attempting to introduce or support passive docility, then what the heck am I doing on this forum posting information week after week to try to a) help people and b) trying to inform them of their rights

Work it out Mr Clever, there is good and bad in everything, everyone, and every profession. But just because you may have had one bad experience and listened to several (probably biased and allegedly) bad experiences of some others, you castigate the whole profession.

Thats not helpful, not balanced and not true.

5. Challenged by you? Nah, you can bleat on as much as you like, but challenge me you will not. I am sure the truth will prevail and others will judge you as a misguided whinger and nothing more.