Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I have personally had occasion to consult one on various matters. If it is in that firm's area of expertise (and they will tell you before the consultation), you get a "free" hour to discuss it. If they are prepared to take up the case they will ask for a retainer. This is not a "promise" of paying, it is actual money that has to be paid into an account. [ It also has to satisfy UK money laundering legalities, with named people and a paper trail ]

The idea that solicitors are turning down good money is hilarious!

[SteveUK]

If a true solicitor argued fmotl crap they’d be out of a job. I can’t imagine the SRA having a sense of humour on that. They’d come down like a ton of bricks...

[exiledscouser]

If a true solicitor argued fmotl crap they’d be out of a job. I can’t imagine the SRA having a sense of humour on that. They’d come down like a ton of bricks...

I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.

But then I reminded myself that Edward William Ellis Equity Lawyer was once on the Roll of Solicitors in England and Wales. No doubt he’d have studied hard through law school and paid for the expensive LPC post grad before an apprenticeship learning the ropes. I wonder whether the young and idealistic EWE ever thought he’d mutate into what he is now.

And it came to pass that the SRA or rather the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal did descend from the heavens like a ton of bricks and did smite EWE with a righteous banning and even unto a hefty order for costs.

So yes the folly of being a qualified brief using the dark side of the law has been demonstrated and shown as the fast track to professional suicide.

[notorial dissent]

At the very least shows what happens if thy do.

[Pottapaug1938]

I assume there is some sort of rule which at the very least strongly discourages if not outright forbids lawyers taking claims which are as hopeless as trying to get a court to recognise pseudo-legal gibberish.

Even if there isn't such a rule any lawyer who's not completely insane would insist on money up-front to represent one of these cretins. The words 'bad credit risk' and 'non-payer' spring readily to mind.

Back when I was still practing domestic relations law, I had a client who kept on raising her child support checks, because she "needed oil" or "needed to feed the kids". The second time it happened, I told her that, if it happened again, I would no longer represent her, if I could get out of doing so (the court rules said that a client had to have successor counsel before the first one quit); and the client, rivers of mascara running down her cheeks, promised up and down, back to front, and side to side, that she would NEVER do it again.

You all can guess what happened next. I got a call from the husband's lawyer; and in the course of the conversation, he said that he would not hold it against my professional reputation if the court insisted on me continuing to represent her. Fortunately, my motion to withdraw was granted.

[Pottapaug1938]

I should have added that I eventually got a call from the ex-client's new lawyer. Of course, professional ethics limited what I could say about her; but the new lawyer was no dummy.

[Burnaby49]

SteveUK wrote:
If a true solicitor argued fmotl crap they’d be out of a job. I can’t imagine the SRA having a sense of humour on that. They’d come down like a ton of bricks...

It does happen from time to time. For a while we had Glenn Bogue basing his whole legal career on Freeman rubbish although he had actually earned a law degree so had at least a theoretical idea what real law was. He was great entertainment but the Upper Canada Law Society took a different view of his activities and he's now prohibited from practicing and is on his way to being be disbarred.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11412

[grixit]

I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.

There are a few medical situations in which the recommended treatment is still a leech. They come up about as often in a doctor's career as proper references to common law come up in a judge's.

[notorial dissent]

The run of the mill GP should most likely NEVERB run in to a situation requiring leeches. Certain surgical and wound care specialists possibly.

[SteveUK]

The run of the mill GP should most likely NEVERB run in to a situation requiring leeches. Certain surgical and wound care specialists possibly.

Strangely , there’s still a couple of NHS trusts left doling out homeopathic garbage on the NHS. Hopefully it’ll end soon.

[JimUk1]

The run of the mill GP should most likely NEVERB run in to a situation requiring leeches. Certain surgical and wound care specialists possibly.

Strangely , there’s still a couple of NHS trusts left doling out homeopathic garbage on the NHS. Hopefully it’ll end soon.

And a few medical schools strangely enough.

My partner and other med students raised serious concerns with the academy about this controversial practice, not sure if was dropped though but it shows even some highly educated people can be duped?

Or the trust and university managers have been taking backhanders!?

[exiledscouser]

The problem Jim is that your parner’s concerns and those of others raising the same issues were not sufficiently diluted to have any effect.

May I suggest a much more effective approach, one small lone voice mumbling these concerns on an uninhabited rock in the middle of the Atlantic during a raging storm. There, according to homeopathic theory that’d be job done.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The problem Jim is that your parner’s concerns and those of others raising the same issues were not sufficiently diluted to have any effect.

May I suggest a much more effective approach, one small lone voice mumbling these concerns on an uninhabited rock in the middle of the Atlantic during a raging storm. There, according to homeopathic theory that’d be job done.

Did you hear about the homeopath who overdosed? He forgot to take his medication. (thank you James Randi).

[longdog]

The 10:23 Campaign is an awareness and protest campaign against homoeopathy organised by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, a non-profit organisation, to oppose the sale of homoeopathic products in the United Kingdom. The campaign has staged public "overdoses" of homoeopathic preparations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:23_Campaign

[Wakeman52]

Homeopathy is a pseudo-science. It is no longer available to new patients on the NHS - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/homeopath ... -on-the-nh

Homeopathy seeks to treat patients with highly diluted substances that are administered orally.
During the consultation we [the NHS Clinical Commissioners] received a range of submissions pertaining to homeopathy and it was deemed necessary to have a further, up to date review of the evidence which was conducted by the Specialist Pharmacy Service. The review found that there was no clear or robust evidence to support the use of homeopathy on the NHS.

The NHS is spending less than GBP100,000 annually on, presumably, existing patients. IMHO, this is GBP100,000 that could be used on medication that works.

For anyone interested in the subject, there is a history of this quackery here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... ness-week/

The same blog also has details about more recent developments.

[noblepa]

I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.

There are a few medical situations in which the recommended treatment is still a leech. They come up about as often in a doctor's career as proper references to common law come up in a judge's.

Yes, but cancer isn't one of them. So exiledscouser's statement is still valid.

Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.

[JimUk1]

The problem Jim is that your parner’s concerns and those of others raising the same issues were not sufficiently diluted to have any effect.

May I suggest a much more effective approach, one small lone voice mumbling these concerns on an uninhabited rock in the middle of the Atlantic during a raging storm. There, according to homeopathic theory that’d be job done.

Ha ha yeah, this was a while back, over 8 years ago at John Moores.

She did mention her surprise when they had a lecture on the research been done by institutions on homeopathic treatment, probably in direct conflict to what they have just been taught about effective well researched treatments.

Must be those big pharmaceutical bucks??

I have no idea if this is still the case but it appears a lot of people whom practice it around Liverpool have dropped off.

I’d put giving people bad medical advice on an higher pedestal than giving bad legal advice for sure! Although they’re both morally questionable!

[Pottapaug1938]

Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.

In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.

[noblepa]

Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.

In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.

I know that it is medically sound, but the thought of either leeches or maggots on my body makes my skin crawl.

[Chaos]

Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.

In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.

his name sounds like a skin salve.