LLB = Solicitor?

[Judith]

If you get an LLB does that mean you can call yourself a solicitor or a lawyer
- or is there more to go through?

I ask because the person dealing with my colleague's recent mobile phone
problem and the subsequent court action was very careful in his letters to sign
himself Joe Bloggs LLB (Hons).

[The Todal]

On 24/11/2013 15:25, Judith wrote:
>
>
> If you get an LLB does that mean you can call yourself a solicitor or a lawyer
> - or is there more to go through?

You cannot legally call yourself a solicitor unless you have not only
passed the GDL and LPC (or obtained an exemption by reason of having a
LLB) and served a training contract.

I think anyone can call themselves a "lawyer" but that doesn't mean much.

>
> I ask because the person dealing with my colleague's recent mobile phone
> problem and the subsequent court action was very careful in his letters to sign
> himself Joe Bloggs LLB (Hons).
>

In my experience no professional lawyer ever quotes his degree after
signing his name. Sounds like insecurity or inexperience. Or the
eccentric rule imposed on him by a stupid employer.

[Doctor Dave]

The LLB is a basic law degree and acquiring that qualification does not make you a solicitor (so it would be an offence to describe yourself as such).

You can be a lawyer (in the sense that your trade is the law) but then that requires no specific qualifications.

[Janet]

In article <0a54991ceps5l06f9...@4ax.com>, jmsmith2011
@hotmail.co.uk says...

>
> If you get an LLB does that mean you can call yourself a solicitor or a lawyer

no

> - or is there more to go through?

yes

>
> I ask because the person dealing with my colleague's recent mobile phone
> problem and the subsequent court action was very careful in his letters to sign
> himself Joe Bloggs LLB (Hons).

He's entitled to the postnominal letters LLB (Hons) if he
graduated with an honours degree in Law.

Having a Bachelor of Laws degree doesn't imply he is a solicitor/lawyer
nor that he is pretending to be one.

Janet

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:35:02 PM UTC, August West wrote:

> It's not that uncommonly done in Scotland. Which, I suspect, is where
> this happened. (As an aside, all Scots lawyers, unless the came via
> qualification in another jurisdiction, posses LLB degrees).

Not necessarily, they can sit the Law Society exams as an alternative.

[Judith]

I suggested my friend wrote back to him and signed the letter:

Yours faithfully

Joe Bloggs (No f****ing qualifications whatsoever)

[Chris R]

>
>
> "August West" wrote in message news:8738mly...@news2.kororaa.com...

> True. But that's around 1% of enrolements these days; I expect it to die
> out as a route to enrolement, just as the equivalent for medicine did in
> the 80s. I suppose should have said that there's no one-year GDL
> conversion route in Scotland (although there is the 2 year LLB for
> graduates).
>
In England, it looks like non-graduate entry to the profession is going to
be opened up again under the latest training review. Apparently it's too
expensive to have everybody going to elitist institutions like universities,
so anyone who polishes the knocker on the big front door for long enough
will become qualified. Because we're really short of solicitors, and of
graduates wanting to train as solicitors, apparently.
--
Chris R

[R. Mark Clayton]

"August West" <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote in message
news:87bo19y...@news2.kororaa.com...

>
> The entity calling itself Judith wrote:
>>
>> If you get an LLB does that mean you can call yourself a solicitor or
>> a lawyer - or is there more to go through?
>

> No, you can't; there is more to go through. After obtaining an LLB, or a
> Gradute Diploma in Law, You must also obtain a post graduate diploma in
> legal practice, and then serve a traineeship of 24 months with a law
> firm, and then be admited as a solicitor.

>
>> I ask because the person dealing with my colleague's recent mobile
>> phone problem and the subsequent court action was very careful in his
>> letters to sign himself Joe Bloggs LLB (Hons).
>

> Many solicitors sign themselves this way.

They usually include it in the letter head or even typed under their
signature, but it is unusual for them to writie it by hand as part of their
signature.

>
> --
> The fire fades away

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:35:12 +0000, Chris R wrote...

> In England, it looks like non-graduate entry to the profession is going to
> be opened up again under the latest training review. Apparently it's too
> expensive to have everybody going to elitist institutions like universities,
> so anyone who polishes the knocker on the big front door for long enough
> will become qualified.

It's called diversity.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Tim Watts]

On Monday 25 November 2013 08:21 August West wrote in uk.legal.moderated:

>
> The entity calling itself Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:35:12 +0000, Chris R wrote...
>>
>>> In England, it looks like non-graduate entry to the profession is
>>> going to be opened up again under the latest training
>>> review. Apparently it's too expensive to have everybody going to
>>> elitist institutions like universities, so anyone who polishes the
>>> knocker on the big front door for long enough will become qualified.
>>
>> It's called diversity.
>

> Diversity is a reasonble goal, but there's hardly a shortage of people
> currently looking for training contracts. I don't know the figures from
> England, but in Scotland at the moment, the number of people with LLB &
> DipPLP getting traineships is running at 66%-75%. An attrition rate of
> 30% seems wasteful.
>

Do people with LLB degrees and diplomas do other things - eg become company
lawyers, consultants and even work for the CPS, Sherrifs' Office etc?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:10:01 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>They usually include it in the letter head or even typed under their
>signature, but it is unusual for them to writie it by hand as part of their
>signature.

My solicitor just signs her name. The letter head is the name of the
company she works for. There are no qualifications mentioned anywhere
on her letters.

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Chris R]

>
>
> "August West" wrote in message news:87pppox...@news2.kororaa.com...

>
>
> The entity calling itself Tim Watts wrote:
> >
> > On Monday 25 November 2013 08:21 August West wrote in
> > uk.legal.moderated:
> >

> >> Diversity is a reasonble goal, but there's hardly a shortage of people
> >> currently looking for training contracts. I don't know the figures from
> >> England, but in Scotland at the moment, the number of people with LLB &
> >> DipPLP getting traineships is running at 66%-75%. An attrition rate of
> >> 30% seems wasteful.
> >
> > Do people with LLB degrees and diplomas do other things - eg become
> > company
> > lawyers, consultants and even work for the CPS, Sherrifs' Office etc?
>

> Obviously, they do do other jobs, by simply force of the market (ie they
> need jobs). And, yes, the legal training is a benefit in many. Although
> the diploma is so narrow as to generally have been a waste of time if
> you're not in practice, so it doesn;t advance you much beyond someone
> with an LLB, and �8000 fewer in fee loans!. But even sith LLB/DipPLP
> they can't fill any roles that require qualified lawyers - eg company
> lawyers, CPS, and so on. You still need to have served a traineeship for
> those roles, and to be enroled.
>
> I don't think anyone goes into the Diploma with the intent of not
> becoming a fully qualified solicitor/advocate/barrister, any more than
> medics do MBChB et seq to become pharma reps. Often people who fail to
> secure traineesships do become paralegals, but not many succeed in
> moving into training contracts from there.
>
Same in England (with different terminology). I've always thought it a shame
that the LPC (the final academic stage of training and exams) doesn't
produce any form of recognised qualification for those who don't get
training contracts. If you called it a Masters in legal practice it would at
least mean something to other employers.
--
Chris R

[Percy Picacity]

In article <c6769911fv18hpe86...@4ax.com>,

Stephen Wolstenholme <eas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:10:01 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >They usually include it in the letter head or even typed under their
> >signature, but it is unusual for them to writie it by hand as part of their
> >signature.
>
> My solicitor just signs her name. The letter head is the name of the
> company she works for. There are no qualifications mentioned anywhere
> on her letters.
>
> Steve

Not even the fact that she is a solicitor? That is a qualification.

--

Percy Picacity

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote in message
> news:c6769911fv18hpe86...@4ax.com...

>
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:10:01 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >They usually include it in the letter head or even typed under their
> >signature, but it is unusual for them to writie it by hand as part of
> >their
> >signature.
>
> My solicitor just signs her name. The letter head is the name of the
> company she works for. There are no qualifications mentioned anywhere
> on her letters.
>

That's normal. Most solicitors have a first degree but would regard it as
pretentious to put the letters after their names. Particularly as the
qualification that matters, being a solicitor, doesn't have any letters
attached to it.

Merging threads a little with the discussion on legal training, I wonder
whether it also reflects the slightly anti-academic attitude in the
profession. Higher degrees are not valued, and may even be taken as an
indication that the person is not likely to be a good practitioner.

I heard a story a while ago about a German lawyer who called a friend in
London and said he was considering qualifying in England, and did his friend
think it would be a good idea for him to obtain a second doctorate before
going for the professional exams? He was shocked to be told that any
doctorate is extremely rare in the English profession, and is likely to be
looked down upon as indicating an "academic" rather than a "practitioner",
or in that typically English but meaningless phrase, "too clever by half".
--
Chris R

[The Todal]

I'm told that the College of Law gives you an LLB free, when you get
your LPC.

Which is in a sense rather dodgy, since it doesn't connote three years
of studying in a university, chatting about Aristotle and Plato, taking
part in drama, student union politics and the student newspaper and
climbing the wall to get back into the quad when the porter has locked
the door. And all that.

[The Todal]

On 25/11/13 10:40, Chris R wrote:
>>

> I heard a story a while ago about a German lawyer who called a friend in
> London and said he was considering qualifying in England, and did his friend
> think it would be a good idea for him to obtain a second doctorate before
> going for the professional exams? He was shocked to be told that any
> doctorate is extremely rare in the English profession, and is likely to be
> looked down upon as indicating an "academic" rather than a "practitioner",
> or in that typically English but meaningless phrase, "too clever by half".
>

I heard the same. A friend in Germany was astounded to hear that British
lawyers did not have the title Herr Doktor. Any reputable German lawyer
has a doctorate and is addressed as Dr.

In the UK, I think any lawyer who called himself Dr. would be regarded
as a bit eccentric. His opponents would probably take great delight in
finding fault with his phraseology or his understanding of the court
rules, just to prove that they have no intention of being intimidated by
some clever-dick who proclaims himself to be an expert on the law.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:bfgnp9...@mid.individual.net...

> I'm told that the College of Law gives you an LLB free, when you get your
> LPC.
>

Now the University of Law.
--
Chris R

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Percy Picacity" wrote in message
> news:key-E5E21A.1...@news.altopia.com...

Conventionally not. Solicitorship is inferred from a title such as partner
or associate. the solicitor has a duty to the client to ensure they know the
name and status of the person dealing with their case, but it doesn't have
to be repeated on every letter.

Personally I think this should be tightened up, now that there are all sorts
of unqualified people handling client work in law firms, ABS's etc. OK, the
firm is responsible for all its correspondence, but I think people have a
right to know whether the person they are dealing with is a solicitor (and
therefore personally bound by the rules of conduct) or not.
--
Chris R

[The Todal]

As you say, though, the fee earner has to tell the client at an early
stage whether he is a solicitor, legal executive, paralegal or whatever.
And if there is a change of fee earner the new fee earner must tell the
client what sort of lawyer he is.

I agree with the OP that if someone wrote to me from a bank or a major
company (eg Currys or British Telecom) and signed himself Fred Bloggs
LLB, that would not tell me whether he was writing in his capacity as a
lawyer or whether any statements of the law from him should be regarded
as authoritative. If on the other hand he called himself Legal Officer
or something of that kind, it would be okay.

The recipient of the letter would then know whether that person was
speaking as a lawyer or merely as a customer complaints officer. The
point being that no lawyer should deliberately mislead his opponent (eg
by saying "no judge would be willing to consider your claim", if that is
inaccurate). A solicitor who does so could be disciplined by the SRA.

[The Todal]

On 25/11/13 12:25, August West wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself The Todal wrote:
>>
>> In the UK, I think any lawyer who called himself Dr. would be regarded
>> as a bit eccentric. His opponents would probably take great delight in
>> finding fault with his phraseology or his understanding of the court
>> rules, just to prove that they have no intention of being intimidated
>> by some clever-dick who proclaims himself to be an expert on the law.
>

> And example is Lord Rodger, the late deputy president of the Supreme
> Court, had a PhD in Roman law. He nevver used the title Dr. But, then,
> he pretty much went from academia to the bench, so became Lord Rodger
> tgere are others on the SCots bench who are doctors. But then, I observe
> that the Scottish profession isn't quite so anti-intellectual as the
> English.
>

Well, the issue is not whether one *has* a doctorate but whether one
uses it when signing a letter. Also, judges are no part of the rivalry
between solicitors.

There isn't an anti-intellectual element among lawyers. It's more of an
anti-bragging element. Lawyers do have a habit of winding each other up
at times and I'm sure that there are times when they'd rather not show
their correspondence to the court in case the judge thinks they have
behaved like dickheads.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

No mention of it apart from the name of the company which says
"Savilles solicitors". In small print it says SRA No 426947 which is
"Solicitor Regulation Authority". I suppose her qualifications will be
available from them.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:bfh0tp...@mid.individual.net...

> On 25/11/13 12:25, August West wrote:
> >
> > The entity calling itself The Todal wrote:
> >>

> There isn't an anti-intellectual element among lawyers. It's more of an
> anti-bragging element.

I would differ on that. An awful lot of solicitors settle into cosy
familiarity with whatever process they are engaged with. Some tend to take a
pride in not knowing anything else. and/or to sneer at "academics" who
approach problems from a theoretical base rather than "being commercial",
which sometimes means compromising because you can't be bothered to work out
the right answer. Not that lawyers shouldn't be practical and commercial,
but I think the breadth and depth of legal knowledge of most solicitors is
pretty weak, except in the narrow field in which they practise every day.
Respect for legal knowledge is often reserved for counsel, tempered with
snide remarks about ivory towers.
--
Chris R

[The Todal]

Yes, there's a lot in what you say. In fact I'm inclined to agree with you.

There are probably a lot of solicitors who are unaware of recent changes
to the law because they don't always pick the best continuing
professional development sessions. Others might be unaware of the most
recent developments in the civil procedure rules. I'm not sure that
academic lawyers pay much attention to the rules, as they aren't
necessarily affected by procedural rules.

I daresay there are still counsel who have brilliant legal minds, who
delay drafting an Advice on Evidence for many weeks, then send the
Advice to the solicitor about 5 weeks before trial suggesting that more
witnesses be proofed and more expert evidence be commissioned. At which
point the solicitor decides never to instruct that barrister again.
Having said that, there are probably far more cases where the solicitor
really ought to have sent the papers to counsel months earlier than he did.

[Janet]

In article <1gi699lo92ff1ihkd...@4ax.com>,
eas...@googlemail.com says...

>
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:35:08 +0000, Percy Picacity
> <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <c6769911fv18hpe86...@4ax.com>,
> > Stephen Wolstenholme <eas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:10:01 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> >> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >They usually include it in the letter head or even typed under their
> >> >signature, but it is unusual for them to writie it by hand as part of their
> >> >signature.
> >>
> >> My solicitor just signs her name. The letter head is the name of the
> >> company she works for. There are no qualifications mentioned anywhere
> >> on her letters.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >Not even the fact that she is a solicitor? That is a qualification.
>
> No mention of it apart from the name of the company which says
> "Savilles solicitors". In small print it says SRA No 426947 which is
> "Solicitor Regulation Authority". I suppose her qualifications will be
> available from them.

You can look up a solicitor registration online at SRA.

http://www.sra.org.uk/bogus-solicitors/

Janet

[Francis Davey]

Le lundi 25 novembre 2013 11:30:04 UTC, August West a écrit :
>
> Strathclyde law school is actually talking about offering a follow-on
>
> from the diploma, to convert it into an LLM.

I teach an LLM at Strathclyde and I don't even have a degree in law let alone an advanced one :-).

I firmly believe that people can teach a subject well without necessarily being outstanding academics in it. In my first year at university (Cambridge, Mathematics) my best supervisors were not members of the faculty (eg, one was an editor at CUP, another ran an OR/maths consultancy).

Francis

[Iain Archer]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 at 08:21:05:

>
>The entity calling itself Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:35:12 +0000, Chris R wrote...
>>
>>> In England, it looks like non-graduate entry to the profession is
>>> going to be opened up again under the latest training
>>> review. Apparently it's too expensive to have everybody going to
>>> elitist institutions like universities, so anyone who polishes the
>>> knocker on the big front door for long enough will become qualified.
>>
>> It's called diversity.
>

>Diversity is a reasonble goal, but there's hardly a shortage of people
>currently looking for training contracts. I don't know the figures from
>England, but in Scotland at the moment, the number of people with LLB &
>DipPLP getting traineships is running at 66%-75%. An attrition rate of
>30% seems wasteful.
>

The topic was looked at in a recent edition of Law in Action on Radio 4.

"Too Many Law Students, Not Enough Jobs? 29 OCT 2013
Tue, 29 Oct 13
Duration: 28 mins
Available: 4 days remaining
Are too many students studying to be lawyers at a time when jobs in the
legal profession are scarce? Students share their experiences and Joshua
Rozenberg asks what can be done to ensure students aren't wasting their
money training for non-existent careers. Also: Will the European Unifed
Patent Court be a 'charter for trolls' as critics claim?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/law

I think the "4 days remaining" refers just to the instantly downloadable
mp3 'podcast' file. It looks as if the programme can be also listened
to in real time for ever at
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006tgy1/episodes/player>.
--
Iain Archer

[Ian Jackson]

In article <bfh0tp...@mid.individual.net>,

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>There isn't an anti-intellectual element among lawyers. It's more of an
>anti-bragging element. Lawyers do have a habit of winding each other up
>at times and I'm sure that there are times when they'd rather not show
>their correspondence to the court in case the judge thinks they have
>behaved like dickheads.

The one time I actually received a defence to one of my claims, the
opponents' laywers got very irate when I didn't like their proposed
consent order (along with a covering letter saying "here's a cheque
which you should only cash if you agree"). I countered with a version
of my own (along with me saying "this is all unnecessary; if you don't
tell me not to I will just cash the cheque and tell the court it's
been settled"). Their reply was very irate and blustered a lot about
costs, but it didn't tell me not to cash the cheque.

So I did, and told the court, and that was indeed the end of it. It
seems that these kind of cases don't usually get discontinued; the
court just stays them when they hear that the claimant has been paid.

(The defence was a pack of lies which I would have had no difficulty
demolishing at a hearing. The proposed consent order was that they
would pay my whole claim but had a bunch of annoying extra conditions,
for example that I wouldn't badmouth them.)

I would badmouth the defendants here but it's probably not suitable
for the moderated group.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:jRp*5a...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> In article <bfh0tp...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>There isn't an anti-intellectual element among lawyers. It's more of an
>>anti-bragging element. Lawyers do have a habit of winding each other up
>>at times and I'm sure that there are times when they'd rather not show
>>their correspondence to the court in case the judge thinks they have
>>behaved like dickheads.
>
> The one time I actually received a defence to one of my claims, the
> opponents' laywers got very irate when I didn't like their proposed
> consent order (along with a covering letter saying "here's a cheque
> which you should only cash if you agree"). I countered with a version
> of my own (along with me saying "this is all unnecessary; if you don't
> tell me not to I will just cash the cheque and tell the court it's
> been settled"). Their reply was very irate and blustered a lot about
> costs, but it didn't tell me not to cash the cheque.
>
> So I did, and told the court, and that was indeed the end of it. It
> seems that these kind of cases don't usually get discontinued; the
> court just stays them when they hear that the claimant has been paid.

Indeed, a Tomlin Order (which is what I presume you are talking about) stays
but does not terminate the proceedings; this is to allow a revival of the
case if its terms are breached without the necessity to issue new
proceedings- I don't think there are many applications to revive based on
such breach, in fact I've never seen one. Sounds like your defendants
lawyers were trying it on.

[Francis Davey]

Le lundi 25 novembre 2013 18:10:04 UTC, Janitor of Lunacy a écrit :
>
>
> Indeed, a Tomlin Order (which is what I presume you are talking about) stays
>
> but does not terminate the proceedings; this is to allow a revival of the
>
> case if its terms are breached without the necessity to issue new
>
> proceedings- I don't think there are many applications to revive based on
>
> such breach, in fact I've never seen one.

Alas, it _does_happen.

Francis

[Percy Picacity]

In article <ca51bcd0-a096-4c03...@googlegroups.com>,
Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le lundi 25 novembre 2013 18:10:04 UTC, Janitor of Lunacy a �crit�:

> >
> >
> > Indeed, a Tomlin Order (which is what I presume you are talking about)
> > stays
> >
> > but does not terminate the proceedings; this is to allow a revival of the
> >
> > case if its terms are breached without the necessity to issue new
> >
> > proceedings- I don't think there are many applications to revive based on
> >
> > such breach, in fact I've never seen one.
>
> Alas, it _does_happen.
>
> Francis

In a comparable (if not legally identical) situation, recently there was
a high-profile case of an NHS manager who signed some sort of compromise
settlement binding him not to talk about the circumstances of his
dismissal and then did talk to the media about it. The only reason his
employer abandoned proceedings to recover his settlement money was that
the politicians told them not to, to save the politicians'
embarrassment. Such agreements are still being made in the NHS, despite
much political bluster about them being inappropriate.

--

Percy Picacity

[John Briggs]

On 25/11/2013 12:15, The Todal wrote:
>
> The point being that no lawyer should deliberately mislead his opponent (eg
> by saying "no judge would be willing to consider your claim", if that is
> inaccurate). A solicitor who does so could be disciplined by the SRA.

Does that ever happen?
--
John Briggs

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:40:02 +0000, John Briggs wrote...

Here's a well-known example:
http://tinyurl.com/mn7yec5

which leads to
http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10726.2011%20-%
20Crossley.pdf

See paragraphs 91 to 91.31 on PDF pages 22-30. In particular see
Allegation 1.6 made by the SRA (the "Applicant"), and do a search on the
word "misleading" in those paragraphs.

The solicitor ("Respondent") admitted these allegations, and the
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that they had been substantiated.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[John Briggs]

On 25/11/2013 21:50, August West wrote:

> The claim being made, or the disciplining as a result?

Mostly the latter.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

That was an unusual case, and the Tribunal seemed most exercised that he
had essentially set up arrangements so that he was acting on his own
behalf rather than for his notional clients. Even so - and despite the
fact that one of his intended victims was a retired circuit judge - he
only received a two-year suspension.
--
John Briggs

[Tim Jackson]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:40:03 +0000, John Briggs wrote...

[Andrew Crossley / ACS Law]

> That was an unusual case,

Sure.

> and the Tribunal seemed most exercised that he
> had essentially set up arrangements so that he was acting on his own
> behalf rather than for his notional clients.

The Tribunal was certainly exercised about that too, but that was a
separate part of the complaint. I don't think they were any less
exercised about his misleading of lay opponents who had no legal
representation. YMMV.

[John Briggs]

On 27/11/2013 00:05, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:40:03 +0000, John Briggs wrote...
>
> [Andrew Crossley / ACS Law]
>
>> That was an unusual case,
>
> Sure.
>
>> and the Tribunal seemed most exercised that he
>> had essentially set up arrangements so that he was acting on his own
>> behalf rather than for his notional clients.
>
> The Tribunal was certainly exercised about that too, but that was a
> separate part of the complaint. I don't think they were any less
> exercised about his misleading of lay opponents who had no legal
> representation. YMMV.

But that meant that they were *his* opponents rather than his clients'.
I am not convinced that a solicitor acting on behalf of his clients, and
in his clients' interests (and not just carrying out a scam on behalf of
his clients) would have been treated the same way. In any case, he was
still treated remarkably leniently.
--
John Briggs