revtothelimit - motorbike forum

Just read about 41yo bloke who failed to sue his parents for continued financial support.
Cost him a fuckload of money in costs to his legal team.
Surely the law needs changing so that anyone who represents someone bringing a spurious legal claim and loses forgoes their payment.
Having had to spend a significant wedge defending myself against a spurious claim, which my solicitor dismissed in 2 mins of reading the claim as having no basis in law, but their solicitor saw a legal aid cash cow and milked every last drop.
Or perhaps, the losing council has to spend 10 mins in a locked room with the victor's choice of combatant!

I'd have thought if the judge decided it was a complete load of crap he could send the charges over to the other side to pay ?

For every scum of the universe there's a solicitor doing pro bono getting somebody a legal victory against a large corporation or stopping a family abuser.

Don't forget, there's no written constitution in this country, so legal judgement is a cornerstone of the law. To vilify one profession, when the amount of usage would appear to justify the necessity of its existence seems to err of the side of easy stereotypes.

But who's to decide what is and what isn't spurious? What you're describing could lead to solicitors only taking on cases with a guaranteed chance of success. I guess an example would be the payment protection episode- whatever the rights and wrongs of people claiming they have been miss-sold products it has led to a tightening up of regulations which, ultimately, benefits consumers. I'm pretty sure the first claim brought could have been viewed as spurious until it was tested

"The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight..."

First up against the wall, come the revolution.
Along with politicians and estate agents.

And Simon who stole my lunch money at St Patricks Junior School in 1957.

Saga Lout wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:44 am And Simon who stole my lunch money at St Patricks Junior School in 1957.

He's probably sitting back in his leather Chesterfield, cigar and brandy in hand, looking over his vast lawn and parked Bentley, laughing heartily at how he stole it so easily....

Nope - Estate Agents are the scum of the earth. Lawyers are just instructed by the next layer up ...

gremlin wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:17 am For every scum of the universe there's a solicitor doing pro bono getting somebody a legal victory against a large corporation or stopping a family abuser.

But sweeping generalisations are so much better for debate.

Anyway i raise your pro bono with Fiona Onosayu and Tim Robinson

Nidge wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:19 am But who's to decide what is and what isn't spurious?

Ohhhh, how about a little common sense, or a pre trial assessment.
Having been on the wrong end of spurious (decided in less than 2 mins by a solicitor) claim, having then to jump through all the legal hoops, I'm inclined to beleive that the system is now set up to propagate a profit sharing scheme.

IOU0 wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:09 pm
Anyway i raise your pro bono with Fiona Onosayu and Tim Robinson

He was shit in the Hudsucker Proxy, granted, but you can't put him in the same category as her.

Anyhow, the reason she made the news was because she a Labour MP more than the fact that she was a member of the legal profession. And an arrogant cunt of the highest order.

IOU0 wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:21 pm

Nidge wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:19 am But who's to decide what is and what isn't spurious?

Ohhhh, how about a little common sense, or a pre trial assessment.
Having been on the wrong end of spurious (decided in less than 2 mins by a solicitor) claim, having then to jump through all the legal hoops, I'm inclined to beleive that the system is now set up to propagate a profit sharing scheme.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but if every case had to undergo pre trial assessment surely we’d all be paying for the significant additional costs this incur? I agree some cases (particularly around employment cases) are only instigated to achieve an out of court settlement with no regard for the truth but I’m not sure the threat of not being paid would ensure a better outcome in general

gremlin wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:21 pm

IOU0 wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 12:09 pm
Anyway i raise your pro bono with Fiona Onosayu and Tim Robinson

And an arrogant cunt of the highest order.

And now you know Tim Robinson

Nope, estate agents hold the "scum of the universe" title, somewhere on the lines of paedophiles and rapists

Pre trial assessment just sounds like another trial or an initial hearing? That's exactly what we already do. Besides, the great majority of cases never make it to court already 'cause solicitors are pretty adept at working out what is/isn't a sensible case.

Careful what you wish for.

I think it is funny to read and he needed to be told to grow up but I don't think it's that simple that it should have been dismissed without thought. It is quite likely his parents enabled his selfish lifestyle and should shoulder some of the blame, what wouldn't be good is if the judge continued that enablement by ordering them to give him more money.

My ex's 3rd divorce attorney fit every bad stereotype there is.
He claimed I had forged her signature on some paperwork..

...which had been notarized...

...By one of his employees in his own office

Got him to openly admit that he didn't know what was going on in his own office, in court, on the record. I've since heard that other attorneys have used that transcript against him more than a few times over the past 11 years

Always thought it was a good industry to be in and if the country is booming or going to the dogs the Lawyers will be busy feeding off of it. But, yes, some would be justified in saying the bell doesn't toll enough!

Love these Guy's transparency though! In a wreck? Need a check?