Media discussion - 2024/25

petrusha said:
I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.

One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.

It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if it was hastily drafted and put out, isn't it. Hmmm.
 
Damocles said:
Google said that died after Persmimmon Homes v Ove Arup [2017]. Who are you to doubt the expertise of Google?
Click to expand...
That case relates to parties negotiating with equal bargaining power. That plainly isn’t the case here, as we have to pretty much suck the rules up.

And fuck Google!
 
Elbow beards said:
It's almost as if it was hastily drafted and put out, isn't it. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

@halfcenturyup referred on the thread about the 115 charges to a discussion that he and I had some time back in which we agreed that significant parts of the PL rules are badly drafted. Some of those parts have no doubt been put together in haste to counter a perceived threat to certain vested interests that hadn't hitherto been appreciated by those with such interests.

However, looking at the text of the rules in their entirety, I take the view that the quality of much of the drafting simply isn't that good. Whoever the PL's in-house lawyers and external advisers were at the time the rules in question were drafted, they simply haven't done the job to the standard that I'd expect at this level of the profession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.