h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Ensures that the taxpayer is not funding a complete charlatan who effectively gives away your kids to a drug crazed, violent spouse with wealthy parents. Or just takes the cash and does not offer any kind of legitimate legal representation ... that kind of thing.
This watchdog organisation should
have a higher legal status than any court ruling as a botched case is no justice at all.
£22m fees
http://www.lawgazet...ammed-over-22m-bill
[calum, Aug 10 2009]
Is this a waste of public money?
http://news.bbc.co....idlands/8190875.stm
BBC news story: "Prosecutors say they were justified in spending an estimated £20,000 on the crown court trial of a man who was acquitted of stealing a 25p banana." [hippo, Aug 10 2009]
[link]
|
| |
could you unravel a few of those sentences to make some sort of sense ? what are you on about ? |
|
| |
I'll try. Public legal representation can be useless. So minimise lawyerly incompetence and wastage with an oversight committee. (In some countries 'the state' pays for legal representation for those who can't afford it). |
|
| |
oh... I thought there was already (thus the notion of being "disbarred" for whatever reason). |
|
| |
The key is in the last sentence, that monetary reparation is sometimes not enough i.e. no council is fraudulent. |
|
| |
What does the title mean? |
|
| |
Who controls your oversight committee? If they're infallible, how come you can't just make the judges or existing appeals courts infallible? |
|
| |
People are flawed and resources are limited. They're trying to be as good as they can be within the available means, but no amount of nested organizations and committees will get you absolute justice. |
|
| |
At least in the US, incompetent representation is grounds for
appeal, and the ABA has the ability to disbar lawyers for
malfeasance or gross incompetence. Thus, as far as I know,
all aspects of this are baked, except for the one that creates
an all powerful appeals court in the form of an oversight
board, instead of returning the case to the normal system
with new representation. |
|
| |
[Jutta] //What does the title mean?// It's a parochialism: In the UK, regulatory authorities are sometimes called "OfSomething", the "Of" standing for "Office of" - e.g. "OfCom is the regulator for the communications industry, "OfGem" is the regulator for the gas and electricity industries, "OfWat" the water and sewerage industries, etc. |
|
| |
There are two ideas here. The first, hinted at by the subtitle, is to ensure that the govt. doesn't waste taxpayers money in instructing legal advisors (see link for example of private practice working for The Man). The second is to ensure that the lawyers who do work which is paid for by Legal Aid - that is, which is paid for with state money - are up to scratch. In the first case, it is the government's look out. In the second case, it is the look out of (a) the individual instructing and (b) the Law Society (or equivalent of your jurisdiction) together. |
|
| |
//Public legal representation can be useless//
It may be different in England, but there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as public legal representation, unless you are the Crown. Legal representation is carried out by private practitioners, with their fees being paid by the state. I'll concede that there is a general feeling that lawyers who carry out bread-and-butter Legally Aided work (usu. criminal and family work) are perhaps less diligent and expert than those who do not do such work but that is arguably more to do with the emotional and personal economic baggage that goes with the work and the one-to-one client-lawyer relationship. Commercial lawyers are insulated from those elemnents but it would be unfair to say that they are more competent. |
|
| |
EDIT: the news story in hippo's link is interesting, particularly in what it omits, which is the recognition by the legal system that the power of the State in the Courts is many thousands of time greater than that of the individual and therefore utmost care must be taken to ensure that justice is as blind and impartial as possible. If this involves spending whopping great dollops of public money on the sort of activity that would have Daily Mail readers frothing at the anus, then tough. If justice is not as close to fair as possible, then it is not, as bigsleep contents above, not justice at all. |
|
| |