Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 7789588" data-attributes="member: 463">With discussions like this you can have1.People who don't understand English very well2.People who understand English, but not legal concepts3. People who are educated laymen with a practical understanding of legal standards,, often gained through experience4. Qualified lawyers not active in the field, or otherwise with limited knowledge5. Academic and active lawyers in the field with a decent understanding of the substantive law6. Trial lawyers active in the field with an intuitive idea of how a dispute would likely go in practiceAs a #5 I would always tend to defer to a #6 when it comes to an actual case. I know enough to know that the vagaries of procedure, judicial whim, and the gladiatorial skills of opposing attorneys matter a lot more than what the substantive law actually says. Conversely I know that #4s can often be way off on the substantive law - back in the '90s I saw plenty of in-house lawyers who seemed unable to distinguish between (c) and TM, something even Guardian journalists seem to be able to do these days. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Conversely I'd defer to a #4 on matters of procedure.For a #1 or #2, it can be hard to understand what #4-#6 like me and Mr P are saying, so probably paying attention to a good #3 like Morrus here is the best way to go.</blockquote>

Verification