BabyBarista - Times Online - WBLG

Year 4, week 6: get out of jail free card

Yesterday I had my third case in as many weeks in which a Defendant successfully claimed that he’d had a blackout at the wheel. Automatism they call it. ‘Simply not my fault, mate.’ More like a get out of jail free card if you ask me. That’s certainly how it felt today when a seriously injured claimant failed to get anything due to this technicality. Worse, the robing room chat with a few other barristers afterwards was that they’ve also seen a lot of these cases. Always the same expert and the same insurance company behind it. One barrister even went so far as to suggest that he’d represented that insurance company and discovered that there’s a new claims handler been brought in from (of all places) FakeClaims&Co to shake things up with the promise of a big bonus if he significantly reduces payouts.

It’ll be interesting to see how this develops.

Year 4, week 6: FillyBlustering

I’ve been working on the Moldy litigation the last few weeks trying to dig out any evidence which might back up what TopFlirt has insinuated, namely that TopFirst has in some way stitched up one of our witnesses. I went to see TheBoss about it yesterday since I figured that if anybody’s going to know about getting down and dirty it would be him. “Get real, BabyB,” was the first thing he said. “Of course they’re going to try and get to your witnesses. The case is far too big for them not too.”

But it was what came next which was the real body blow. “Though I’d also be careful about what that filly TopFlirt’s telling you. If I were them my first tactic would be to try and prolong this case for so long that one by one your old clients slowly died off. Not only might you lose your strongest test cases but remember that their future care claims die with them too.”
“But we’re almost ready for judgment from JudgeFetish,” I replied.
“Hardly. They’ve thrown so many spanners into the works that if you don’t watch out judgment could be years off.”

Oh.

Year 4, week 6: terms of enragement

The thing I’ve started to realise about ClichéClanger is that his gruff Northern demeanour and no nonsense approach belies a very wry sense of humour and a subtle twinkle in the eye. Today I received a good example where I am still left not knowing whether he’d made a Freudian slip or a joke. They were instructions for a case involving a client who has been causing him no end of grief and they began: “Your instructing Solicitor is enraged to represent the Claimant in this matter…”

Year 4, week 5: chuckled out of court

TheBusker had already wound up TheCreep with his Skeleton Argument and by the time we arrived at court TheCreep was almost jumping up and down with frustration as he tried desperately to find out what TheBusker was going to say. Unfortunately for him the only response he could elicit was a low-pitched chuckle. Once in court, the chuckle continued. Not in a snide way but merely in response to the constant jibes being thrown forth by his opponent. By way of example, TheCreep said: “Your Honour, my learned friend has singularly failed to set out any coherent argument against each of my points and has even failed to do so when I have asked him this morning…” and then when everybody looked at TheBusker for a response his shoulders started rising and falling and he just carried on chuckling to himself like he was privy to some hilarious private joke.

In the end, TheCreep cracked and started to look more and more paranoid about TheBusker’s show of confidence. Then TheBusker made the killer blow by handing him a note saying: “This Judge appeared in the case I referred to in my Skeleton.” When TheCreep read the note his face dropped and he immediately asked for a short adjournment. Once out of court he said to TheBusker, “Why on earth didn’t you tell me that beforehand?”
“It’s in the report for all to see,” replied TheBusker still chuckling, and sure enough when TheCreep studied TheBusker’s copy he found that the judge had indeed appeared and in fact successfully argued against exactly the legal point that TheCreep was now trying to put. To put him out of his misery, TheBusker made an offer that if TheCreep withdrew his appeal he wouldn’t seek his costs thus far. By this point, TheCreep was in a blind panic fearing that he had in fact been negligent in not spotting the significance of the judge’s identity for himself and accepted almost on the spot before The Busker reminded him that perhaps it might be wise to take instructions first.

It was only on the train home and after TheCreep had stropped off in a sulk that TheBusker gave me the full low-down. “You know, things are rarely as they seem. I heard this judge speak at a dinner only a few weeks ago when he described that case as [and he put on a slightly pompous judicial tone] ‘the worst injustice I've ever caused in a long career dedicated to causing such injustices’ and he went so far as to say that ‘if such a case ever comes before me on the bench, it’s one of the very few of my wrongs I intend to right’.”

Which has led me to wondering if I can apply the ChuckleBluff to a few of my own cases which are coming up.

Year 4, week 5: skeleton arguments

I’m off to watch TheBusker in court tomorrow since I have to say that my occasional visits are teaching me more about courtroom tactics than ever anything I learnt from my wonderful pupilmasters. Then again, TheBoss and Uptights were to say the least, a rum bunch. Anyway, the reason for going is that there is certain to be a performance given that he is pitted against TheCreep. The case is an appeal and skeleton arguments have been ordered to be written. TheCreep’s is hardly either a skeleton or an argument, extending as it does to some thirty-four pages. The Busker only highlighted the absurdity of such a creation for a pretty small personal injury case with a reply of a single sentence: “The appeal is misconceived since it has failed to refer to the binding authority of [case name].”

I look forward to the fight.

Year 4, week 5: postman plod…

“Don’t forget there’s another postal strike,” said HeadClerk this morning.
“Extraordinary,” said OldSmoothie. “Like turkeys voting for Christmas.”
“Well, so long as it’s not by postal vote,” said TheVamp coming into the Clerks Room.
“Yet another reason for solicitors to delay paying us,” said UpTights.
“As if they need another reason,” said TheCreep.
“You know, I am currently owed over two hundred grand by those thieving, snivelling pencil pushers,” said UpTights.
“That’ll be the same thieving snivelling pencil pushers who put bread on your table,” smiled TheBusker.
“And botulism in your face,” piped up OldSmoothie.
“It’s just not right, though,” said UpTights. “I mean, no-one is in the civilised world gets treated like we barristers do what with late payments and last minute briefs. No-one. Not even, er…”

She trailed off as she realised that everyone was now listening and waiting to hear what she would come up with next.
“Not even, er…” Then in a panic, she came up with “…postmen.”

Well, quite.

Year 3, week 53: under-billing

When I arrived in this morning all I got from HeadClerk was a very curt nod, completely out of character for a person who is usually so positive and upbeat. ‘What’s up with with HeadClerk?’ I asked TheBusker who I passed in the corridor later.
‘It’s not good at all,’ he replied. ‘As bad as it gets actually.’
‘What can be that bad?’ I asked innocently.
‘One of OldSmoothie’s solicitors rang up and demanded that he double his fee. Said that at its current level it was making their own fees look embarrassingly high to the client.’
‘That sounds great,’ I replied. ‘How can you be annoyed about having fees increased?’
‘That’s just it. HeadClerk prides himself on billing top dollar for all his barristers. To then have a solicitor ring up and say that what he’s billed simply isn’t enough…well, it hurts…’

Oh.

Year 3, week 52: end of the road

Much chatter in chambers tea yesterday afternoon about statement from the Ministry of Justice which will bring in fixed costs for the vast majority of road traffic cases valued up to £10,000. “It’s the end of the junior bar,” said TheCreep.
“And the junior junior bar,” said BusyBody.
“And definitely the baby bar,” piped up one of the pupils.
“Well at least the senior bar should be okay,” growled OldSmoothie smugly. “I mean, I haven’t done a road traffic case worth less ten grand for twenty years.”
“Yes, don’t worry OldSmoothie,” said BusyBody. “You’ll be absolutely fine. There’ll still be lots of work for you. The only problem will be that there’ll be no junior tenants to pay all the rent which pays for your clerk and your big room. But hey, you never know, maybe you’ll be able to work out of one the libraries.” OldSmoothie’s face dropped. “Oh,’ added BusyBody, “and there’ll be no-one around to refer work up to you either.”
“I don’t know,” said UpTights. “First it was no win-no fee. Now it’s just no fee.”

Year 3, week 52: Happy Landings

TheBusker was telling us all on Friday night about a case he had down in the West Country last week. It was a small rural dispute between a local farmer and a very grand dame, the Dowager Lady Bossington with the farmer claiming rent for her six week stay at his farmhouse which is situated just next to the former estate of Lady Bossington’s late husband. The farmer was apparently an old-fashioned servile type but despite this clearly thought that he should be paid for the accommodation he had provided whereas the Dowager Lady thought it came as of right. In the middle of the case TheBusker was cross-examining the farmer and asked him quite how intimately he knew The Lady Bossington to which the reply came back innocently and in a broad West Country accent: “Well, we did have intercourse on the landing a couple of times.”

Year 3, week 51: expert for hire

OldSmoothie’s story about witnesses and the RugbyShuffle has made me wonder whether this is the type of expert-tampering that TopFlirt says TopFirst has been up to. It’s true that there was one expert which had to leave the witness box early due to an unexplained illness. The only difficulty was that this expert was in fact giving evidence on our behalf. So if TopFirst had anything whatsoever to do with that then it wouldn’t just mean that he had been fixing his own witnesses. Even worse, it would mean that he had somehow reached our own. I have set up a meeting with this expert set for tomorrow afternoon and hope in someway to draw him out.