Hillarious email from college student law society

rock22

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The head of government departments here are also known as Secretary Generals.

Secretaries General!

FreudianSlippers

FunLover18 wrote: »

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't seen it for myself. It really does depend on the judge.

I'm sorry, but this makes everything you say seem either (i) totally fabricated or (ii) contrary to your point.

(i) There is no judge in Ireland that has ever asked to be called Your Honour and there is certainly no barrister in the State that has called a Judge Your Honour.
(ii) You've seen a lay litigant call a Judge Your Honour and the lay litigant was not corrected. You don't understand the difference between barristers and lay litigants, so thus gowns are 100% necessary.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Accusing me of jealousy is just petty and irrelevant. If you disagree, fine, explain your point, as I did admit "it was my understanding".

I think you'll find I didn't accuse you of jealousy. I said that I find that people who criticise traditional things such as these are jealous that they do not have an opportunity to partake in same. Put it this way, why would you care if Inns Degree students are forced to dine? Is anyone forcing you to dine? No... then why does your opinion matter?

Aside from that, I've never heard a single complaint about dining from people in my year or in other years that I know of, other than maybe the night they were given is inconvenient as it wasn't with all of their friends.

Tramps Like Us

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

FreudianSlippers

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

I'd say it's fairly common in the West, but I think I've only heard it once or twice in Dublin and never in the Midlands.

LegallyAbroad

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

Plenty in other disciplines too. I'd suggest that the common denominator is not law, but individuals involved in Students' Unions and/or youth politics.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

So you're saying people are making important and permanent life decisions on the basis of what sounds cool.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........

johnnyskeleton

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Come on lads, I'm sure we all remember fellow law students who choose the subject to sound impressive and to inflate their own sense of self importance - there were quite a few in my experience anyway, and it sounds like op came across one

I cant remember anyone like that - as in someone with no interest in law, no desire to become a lawyer and no other good reason to study law other than to inflate their own sense of importance? But i suppose you will find self important people in all walks of life - i remember a griffith student trying to tell me that i went to a "posh" college like UCD (when i couldnt affiord to go to griffith).

As for addressing the judge... Anyone use the Irish form? Barrister I know uses it exclusively

A breihamh, ata ar neamh,
Go naofar do anim...

steddyeddy

You find people with no interest in a subject in every course. People join things for the wrong reasons all the time.

joeguevara

I remember I had to seek an adjournment in an Irish Language case in the Judicial Review List. But when it was my turn to speak, I completely had a mind blank and all I could splutter out, in my thickest Irish accent was: Breitheamh, an bhfuil cead agam adjouuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaament a fhail mas e do thoil e. He raised his eyebrow, looked at me with an incredulous look, but granted it. Everyone else were trying their best not to burst out laughing.

steddyeddy

Did anyone have a chance to use the new mock courtroom in UCD?

johnnyskeleton

FunLover18 wrote: »

I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't seen it for myself. It really does depend on the judge.

Where was this and what exactly was said about "your honour"?

As regard to the point about uniforms, I would ask does a do barristers and judges need a "uniform", solicitors don't. It's a genuine question, I'm not being smart. I mean TDs and Ministers don't wear uniforms. Gardai wear uniforms because they have to be recognisable, same goes for doctors and nurses in hospitals. Is it a respect thing?

No its a recognition thing. Maybe solicitor advocates in thr high court should wear some similar kind of robes. The reason is that while a district court judge in a local area will usually know all the local solicitors (where solicitors traditionally do most of their advocacy), in the high court there are potentially 2,000 barristers and maybe 3 times that number of solicitors who might appear in front of any given judge. The uniform helps the judge figure out whether the person addressing them is a barrister, solicitor or litigant in person. It is just as necessary for a judge (or indeed litigants, gardai and other lawyers) to be able to identify advocates as it is to be able to identify doctors.

LegallyAbroad

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A breihamh, ata ar neamh,
Go naofar do anim...

Go dtaga do dlínse,
Go ndeantar do thoil ar an sráid,
mar a dheantar sa chúirt.

Robbo

joeguevara wrote: »

I remember I had to seek an adjournment in an Irish Language case in the Judicial Review List. But when it was my turn to speak, I completely had a mind blank and all I could splutter out, in my thickest Irish accent was: Breitheamh, an bhfuil cead agam adjouuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaament a fhail mas e do thoil e. He raised his eyebrow, looked at me with an incredulous look, but granted it. Everyone else were trying their best not to burst out laughing.

Agus Sharon Ni Bheolain? I mean, and costs?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"County Registrar"

FunLover18

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Where was this and what exactly was said about "your honour"?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this makes everything you say seem either (i) totally fabricated or (ii) contrary to your point.

(i) There is no judge in Ireland that has ever asked to be called Your Honour and there is certainly no barrister in the State that has called a Judge Your Honour.
(ii) You've seen a lay litigant call a Judge Your Honour and the lay litigant was not corrected. You don't understand the difference between barristers and lay litigants, so thus gowns are 100% necessary.

I don't remember the precise details and you both obviously know more so I concede the point. Apologies.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you'll find I didn't accuse you of jealousy. I said that I find that people who criticise traditional things such as these are jealous that they do not have an opportunity to partake in same. Put it this way, why would you care if Inns Degree students are forced to dine? Is anyone forcing you to dine? No... then why does your opinion matter?

Aside from that, I've never heard a single complaint about dining from people in my year or in other years that I know of, other than maybe the night they were given is inconvenient as it wasn't with all of their friends.

You're accusing those who criticise the dining of jealousy, I did so, so you're accusing me of jealousy. Besides, the attitude that "people who aren't apart of it and criticise it are jealous" and pointing out how little my opinion matters is pretty reflective of the self-importance the OP was talking about. Do you think if my opinion mattered I'd be wasting it on Boards? I'm not trying to change the world here I was just giving an example to the OP.

As I mentioned previously I know someone who did an Inns Degree and they weren't a massive fan of the dining. Don't get me wrong she didn't care too much and I don't care particularly strongly myself but it strikes me as ridiculous (I think that was the word I used) that they have to attend a certain amount (I haven't been corrected on that so I'll assume I'm right). As we've agreed it's a great way to make contacts and get to know peers so there's clearly enough incentive there for students to attend, and if students don't want to, surely that's there own loss? I know my friend would have gone despite her personal feelings about it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No its a recognition thing. Maybe solicitor advocates in thr high court should wear some similar kind of robes. The reason is that while a district court judge in a local area will usually know all the local solicitors (where solicitors traditionally do most of their advocacy), in the high court there are potentially 2,000 barristers and maybe 3 times that number of solicitors who might appear in front of any given judge. The uniform helps the judge figure out whether the person addressing them is a barrister, solicitor or litigant in person. It is just as necessary for a judge (or indeed litigants, gardai and other lawyers) to be able to identify advocates as it is to be able to identify doctors.

I understand that but I still don't see why my black suits suggestion wouldn't work just as well?

I suppose it's just the tradition thing in which case we'll only be going in circles "Why change it, it's traditional?" "Why not change it, it's old fashioned" etc etc

FreudianSlippers

FunLover18 wrote: »

You're accusing those who criticise the dining of jealousy, I did so, so you're accusing me of jealousy. Besides, the attitude that "people who aren't apart of it and criticise it are jealous" and pointing out how little my opinion matters is pretty reflective of the self-importance the OP was talking about. Do you think if my opinion mattered I'd be wasting it on Boards? I'm not trying to change the world here I was just giving an example to the OP.

As I mentioned previously I know someone who did an Inns Degree and they weren't a massive fan of the dining. Don't get me wrong she didn't care too much and I don't care particularly strongly myself but it strikes me as ridiculous (I think that was the word I used) that they have to attend a certain amount (I haven't been corrected on that so I'll assume I'm right). As we've agreed it's a great way to make contacts and get to know peers so there's clearly enough incentive there for students to attend, and if students don't want to, surely that's there own loss? I know my friend would have gone despite her personal feelings about it.

AFAIK it's 6 a semester and it's included in the cost of the Degree course. My point is that it is tradition - it doesn't hurt anyone to carry on tradition. I believe that people who criticise traditional things (in general) which they are not a part of, do so because they are somewhat jealous that they are not a part of it. Otherwise, why do they care?

I understand that but I still don't see why my black suits suggestion wouldn't work just as well?

So what do solicitors wear?

I suppose it's just the tradition thing in which case we'll only be going in circles "Why change it, it's traditional?" "Why not change it, it's old fashioned" etc etc

Other than the US (which is a different animal altogether really due to the flattened structure of the legal profession) can you name 2 other countries where the advocates do not wear a 'traditional' outfit?

Because I don't think I can.

Tramps Like Us

Friend of mine hated it because the food was crap and the robes they provided were a bit mank and smelly.

Hippo

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Friend of mine hated it because the food was crap and the robes they provided were a bit mank and smelly.

Your friend exaggerates on both counts.

FreudianSlippers

The food wouldn't blow your socks off, but it's wasn't awful. Now, the wine was crap but the copious amounts sorts that out right away.

Pro Hoc Vice

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The food wouldn't blow your socks off, but it's wasn't awful. Now, the wine was crap but the copious amounts sorts that out right away.

One advantage of going when no longer a student is a choice of some very nice wine. When I was a student the wine was good.

FreudianSlippers

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

One advantage of going when no longer a student is a choice of some very nice wine. When I was a student the wine was good.

True, I was at a great table once post Inns. Whip out the snuff!

hullaballoo

If we're getting rid of old-fashioned traditions, can we do for Christmas next? Does my head in.

FreudianSlippers

hullaballoo wrote: »

If we're getting rid of old-fashioned traditions, can we do for Christmas next? Does my head in.

We keep Christmas, but ffs can we do something about that red gown that Santa Claus wears? Like what's the story with that old-timey nonsense?

johnnyskeleton

FunLover18 wrote: »

I understand that but I still don't see why my black suits suggestion wouldn't work just as well?

I suppose it's just the tradition thing in which case we'll only be going in circles "Why change it, it's traditional?" "Why not change it, it's old fashioned" etc etc

Well lots of people wear black suits so it cant easily be used to identify barristers. Likewise if a doctor were identified by wear a black suit, it would be heard to easily identify them in a busy hospital.

234

I think that when a solicitor is acting as an advocate in the HC or SC they should be wearing a gown as well; for the same reasons as already given re barristers. Obviously a different gown so that they can be identified separately.

They did wear them in the past (19th century and before) and could be revived.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

I think that when a solicitor is acting as an advocate in the HC or SC they should be wearing a gown as well; for the same reasons as already given re barristers. Obviously a different gown so that they can be identified separately.

They did wear them in the past (19th century and before) and could be revived.

Yeah, the solicitor advocate gowns from England & Wales are a good example.

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yeah, the solicitor advocate gowns from England & Wales are a good example.

Exactly.

And the fact that they are a relatively recent revival just proves that they are purposive rather than just some antiquated tradition that we don't want to let die.

drkpower

In. Emergency high court sittings over a weekend/bank holiday, barristers don't wear gowns (nor do judges usually). A no uniform day of sorts. It is interesting that the justifications for wearing gowns don't seem to apply at the weekend.

FreudianSlippers

drkpower wrote: »

In. Emergency high court sittings over a weekend/bank holiday, barristers don't wear gowns (nor do judges usually). A no uniform day of sorts. It is interesting that the justifications for wearing gowns don't seem to apply at the weekend.

Family courts never wear gowns or tabs/bib, but as a non-family practitioner if I ever appeared in a case I would still wear my tabs. Especially on circuit, I think it's good form if you're only a blow in for a handover or something.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

In. Emergency high court sittings over a weekend/bank holiday, barristers don't wear gowns (nor do judges usually). A no uniform day of sorts. It is interesting that the justifications for wearing gowns don't seem to apply at the weekend.

The rules deal with long vacation sittings. Also on Sunday sittings it is accepted it an emergency and people may not have wig and gown to hand.

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The rules deal with long vacation sittings. Also on Sunday sittings it is accepted it an emergency and people may not have wig and gown to hand.

That sonds like the original rationale, sure. But the reality is that on 'emergency sittings' barristers will invariably come to court from home, but via their offices in the distillery or wherever, so they could very easily pick up their gowns.

I don't have much against he practice but I don't think that most of the given reasons for their retention are really that relevant. It's a bit of a tradition and not much more.

A bit like a white coat for doctors (and many of the same reasons were used - identification etc...) but when it was ditched, nobody miss edit and the supposed reasons for its retention were forgotten overnight.

drkpower

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Family courts never wear gowns or tabs/bib, but as a non-family practitioner if I ever appeared in a case I would still wear my tabs. Especially on circuit, I think it's good form if you're only a blow in for a handover or something.

Out of interest, would you not see merit in the rationale for not wearing them in family courts (ie. to demystify the process / put people at their ease etc) applying to the regular courts?

FreudianSlippers

drkpower wrote: »

Out of interest, would you not see merit in the rationale for not wearing them in family courts (ie. to demystify the process / put people at their ease etc) applying to the regular courts?

Not really. There should be a certain feeling of seriousness IMHO in court. I think part of the problem with our system (both civil and criminal) is that the average person has very little respect for the judicial system. Criminals make a mockery of the court on a daily basis and it's much more common in civil courts now (see Freemen, inter alia).

Rory28

On an unrelated note:
There was a German on trial in Dublin but refused to speak English. "German is my language I will speak German".
The Judge addresses the court, "Can anyone here speak German and Translate for the court?"
A man at the back puts his hand up. The Judge thanks him and asks him to come and stand beside the German.
The Prosecutor asks the German his name. The "translator" then turns to the German and in his thickest German accent asks "VAT IS YOUR NAME?"

True Story.

drkpower

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not really. There should be a certain feeling of seriousness IMHO in court. I think part of the problem with our system (both civil and criminal) is that the average person has very little respect for the judicial system. Criminals make a mockery of the court on a daily basis and it's much more common in civil courts now (see Freemen, inter alia).

I wonder does the use of gowns do anything to counter those issues. It seems more likely to encourage mocking the system, than preventing it.

My own view is that the seriousness in court is maintained by the fact that the judge has the power to send you to prison/decide your case, than by anything anyone in the rest of the court is wearing.

Bepolite

That's a very interesting comparison: The white coats.

There are very good reasons why doctors wear white coats, it gives a professional air and maintains a certain level of detachment, amongst other things. People lose sight of the fact that barristers should be one level detached from the client as they are also there to represent the court.

My wife got a telling off from a consultant once, that she wholeheartedly disagrees with; that if she was in contact with patients she had to wear the white coat. My wife is not an MD and her doctorate is in Public Health. I'm actually not so sure - I could see where the consultant was coming from. Of course I don't mention that to the wife :pac:

conorh91

Bepolite wrote: »

There are very good reasons why doctors wear white coats, it gives a professional air and maintains a certain level of detachment, amongst other things. People lose sight of the fact that barristers should be one level detached from the client as they are also there to represent the court.

I've just come back from A&E (tripped in the street; nothing broken, thanks for asking) and not a single doctor was wearing a white coat.

I'm still unsure if the first person who saw my injury was a doctor or a nurse, or a solicitor.

Everyone was wearing blue scrubs.

I agree that it's sometimes helpful to be able to identify barristers from solicitors, but in fairness tabs alone would be enough for that. It's not a big deal, but there probably isn't a fully rational reason for the barrister's dress. There's no particular shame in admitting that.

Bepolite

I agree to a certain extent, tabs, a gown or yellow war paint. I don't think it's irrational that a gown is used but I take your point to a certain degree.

As for A&E - I'd compare that more to an emergency sitting, obviously the analogy is somewhat tortured as it's more practicality that means that scrubs are worn. If you were admitted and came across a doctor on rounds, I suspect they would be in a white coat.

Moving on to the practicality of the gown and wig, they disguise the person underneath to a great degree. Something which can be criticised but also understood by anyone in, or with a passing familiarity, with the profession. I know this has been brought up before but I'm not 100% sure I'd like some of the people even I have contact with bounding up to me in Tesco.

I suppose I should lay my cards on the table and be completely clear, dehumanising/depersonalising barristers, in my view, is no bad thing.

conorh91

Bepolite wrote: »

As for A&E - I'd compare that more to an emergency sitting, obviously the analogy is somewhat tortured as it's more practicality that means that scrubs are worn. If you were admitted and came across a doctor on rounds, I suspect they would be in a white coat.

As far as I know, most doctors don't wear white coats anymore.

And in any case, a white coat was only ever worn because it shows up dirt easily. So there was a practical purpose.

Moving on to the practicality of the gown and wig, they disguise the person underneath to a great degree.

There's not much of an issue with wigs, since they have a practical use, and because they're not compulsory; in fact they're disappearing.

I agree that most people criticize barrister's dress for stupid reasons, including professional resentment.

But public confidence does matter to the administration of justice, and it's probably wise to take public opinion of this outfit on board.

FreudianSlippers

Funny that in the US advocates don't wear outfits but MDs still wear white coats

Pat Mustard

DS86 wrote: »

I've just received one of the most over-the-top, self-important and verbose emails I've ever received in my life, so much so that it almost made me burst out laughing. I've been sending out a few requests to join some of the university clubs and societies and while most emails were met with a simple "yeah it's up and running, it costs XYZ, you interested?", this response was a completely different animal. I'm talking about long-winded and completely over the top. Some examples, instead of just using the name of the town which most people do and in an informal manner, the college initials are used. Instead of speaking to the society head, I was addressed by the "secretary general" . I mean seriously - a college student society/ club having a "secretary general"!?

Right.

Where's this hilarious email?

MadYaker

I read through 7 pages of sh!te only to discover that he hasn't posted the bloody email.

medicine12345

Bepolite wrote: »

As for A&E - I'd compare that more to an emergency sitting, obviously the analogy is somewhat tortured as it's more practicality that means that scrubs are worn. If you were admitted and came across a doctor on rounds, I suspect they would be in a white coat.

Doctors haven't worn white coats in many years, for hygiene reasons, etc. The odd hospital might still have medical students with them but that has been mostly stopped now too as its unhygienic.

drkpower

The vast vast majority of (hospital) doctors - whether here or in the US - no longer wear white coats.

For infection control reasons mainly. Many of the same reasons for retention (as are used re barristers) were trotted out at the time. Not surprisingly, it has made no difference (other than reducing infections obviously!).

Bepolite

conorh91 wrote: »

As far as I know, most doctors don't wear white coats anymore.

And in any case, a white coat was only ever worn because it shows up dirt easily. So there was a practical purpose.


There's not much of an issue with wigs, since they have a practical use, and because they're not compulsory; in fact they're disappearing.

I agree that most people criticize barrister's dress for stupid reasons, including professional resentment.

But public confidence does matter to the administration of justice, and it's probably wise to take public opinion of this outfit on board.

Thanks for the correction, wasn't long ago though!

I don't think losing the gown would do anything to change the public perception of the judicial system or lawyers. Take the US - broadly the same attitudes AFAIK.

I do tend to agree on the wigs to be honest, as with everything I concede it's a matter of degrees.

To be fair, in relation to the white coats, good reason to give them up. However as you pointed out you've no idea who saw you - should it matter so long as the care was adequate? Personally I'd be reassured distinguishing between a doctor, nurse and porter which is broadly my argument distinguishing dress. Granted this can be done with tabs alone, I just don't see the need to constantly tinker with things that aren't broken.I remember watching about an aircrew bringing down a stricken plane, the last command the captain gave was to don their jackets as they exited the aircraft. I suppose I like a bit of pomp and circumstance.

I do however stand over the point that the air of aloofness/professional detachment they convey is a positive.

conorh91

Bepolite wrote: »

I don't think losing the gown would do anything to change the public perception of the judicial system or lawyers. Take the US - broadly the same attitudes AFAIK.

Anyone who has gone to Trinity might be familiar with some college hack's proposal, a few years ago, that Trinity students should wear academic dress whilst on college property.

There were some security reasons cited. The whole thing generated more ridicule than support, as might be hoped.

Because people generally don't want to be douchebags, and more importantly, they don't want to be perceived as being douchebags.

The Trinity students didn't seem to have any inherent objection to the Hack's idea. I guess they just felt people would think they were acting like douchebags.

And whilst I think tradition has a vital place in legal practice, I'm a little bit wary that the general public have a comparable perception of the Bar, and that just isn't fair, nor is it good for public confidence.

Bepolite

conorh91 wrote: »

And whilst I think tradition has a vital place in legal practice, I'm a little bit wary that the general public have a comparable perception of the Bar, and that just isn't fair, nor is it good for public confidence.

As I say I don't agree, and don't think that altering it will do anything about the public perception. Frankly anyone who thinks this is a hot-button issue is not qualified to have an informed opinion and is probably in the same category that believe mandatory minimums are a good idea and that by locking people up for longer does anything positive to reduce crime. I'm not lumping you into that category notwithstanding any opinions you may have on this or other subjects listed. I think it's fair to say we both see it as a low priority, but an interesting conversation piece.

I really only posted to say, being from Oxford, watching the students go in for their exams in gowns and boards was doucebaggery of the highest order, but I'm a townie and the acrimony between the two is well known :pac:

conorh91

Bepolite wrote: »

Frankly anyone who thinks this is a hot-button issue is not qualified to have an informed opinion and is probably in the same category that believe mandatory minimums are a good idea and that by locking people up for longer does anything positive to reduce crime.

Now there we are agreed.

The topic gets raised far too often, in proportion to its relevance to anyone, be they within or outside the justice system in any capacity.

FunLover18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

AFAIK it's 6 a semester and it's included in the cost of the Degree course. My point is that it is tradition - it doesn't hurt anyone to carry on tradition. I believe that people who criticise traditional things (in general) which they are not a part of, do so because they are somewhat jealous that they are not a part of it. Otherwise, why do they care?

I suppose it depends on how you define 'care'. I care so much as to actually wonder why but I'm fully aware it doesn't affect me and so I amn't going to start a campaign to get rid of compulsory dining.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So what do solicitors wear?

A different coloured suit, navy, grey, pinstriped. Just a suggestion.

[/QUOTE]Other than the US (which is a different animal altogether really due to the flattened structure of the legal profession) can you name 2 other countries where the advocates do not wear a 'traditional' outfit?

Because I don't think I can.[/QUOTE]

Comes down to tradition for tradition's sake versus change for change's sake. We'll just have to agree to disagree.