rug about to be pulled out from under fathers?

**Peoplesoft bloke** · 3 April 2008, 08:27

Totally agree - and I have seen this from both sides. My lawyer cost a fortune and did zip (barrister was even worse), now ex-wife's lot were similarly hopeless. Before we started I agreed they would bill me monthy, but after the first couple of months they just didn't bother.

Any time anything was happening I had to phone them all the time to find out what was going on.

My sis's ex refused to get a lawyer and acted even more stupid than he actually is - slowed the whole thing down and cost my sis a fortune (although he took the mickey so much that she did get costs awarded for part of it)

Family law is a massive gravy train for very average people to make piles of cash without having to know anything or do anything.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty good description of my career - maybe that's why I hate lawyers so much.

**threaded** · 3 April 2008, 08:34

Wouldn't get too heated about it: he was never that good a naval lawyer, so what he knows of family law...

when all is said and done he's only a political placeman.

**moorfield** · 3 April 2008, 08:40

Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post

Family law is a massive gravy train for very average people to make piles of cash without having to know anything or do anything.

.Net

**TheFaQQer** · 3 April 2008, 09:01

Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

"The absence of an experienced lawyer in a family case slowed down the legal process and put the onus on the judge to ensure the correct areas of law were applied, Lord Phillips said."

I haven't read the article, nor do I intend to.

BUT - isn't there always an onus on the judge to ensure that the correct areas of the law are being applied? That's the case in all legal disputes, is it not??

**threaded** · 3 April 2008, 09:09

Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post

I haven't read the article, nor do I intend to.

BUT - isn't there always an onus on the judge to ensure that the correct areas of the law are being applied? That's the case in all legal disputes, is it not??

Like people say, most of the plonkers working in family law are there because they're hopeless, legal bods call them bad names: "failed conveyancing, trying family law".

**Dow Jones** · 3 April 2008, 09:12

Mylord

Lord Phillips is a well known leftie, always defending 'asylum-seekers rights', 'women's equality', 'race equality' and all other 'deserving' cases.
He is about to get promoted, so a little pandering to 'strict prisoner terms' and to the solicitors' lobby will undoubtedly do him no harm at all.
I say sack the buffoon.

**BoredBloke** · 3 April 2008, 09:24

Why is it when you see people talking about dending equality, they tend to want to make things less equal?

**Peoplesoft bloke** · 3 April 2008, 09:35

Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post

I haven't read the article, nor do I intend to.

BUT - isn't there always an onus on the judge to ensure that the correct areas of the law are being applied? That's the case in all legal disputes, is it not??

Good point - could be re-written as "these people have the temerity to make us do what we get paid for - how dare they"

and to think people have a go at train drivers...........

**ratewhore** · 3 April 2008, 09:47

Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post

I haven't read the article, nor do I intend to.

BUT - isn't there always an onus on the judge to ensure that the correct areas of the law are being applied? That's the case in all legal disputes, is it not??

No there isn't. The judge is there to interpret the law as they see fit. The law is never cut and dried which is why one judges opinion will set precedents for years, until another judge sets a new precedent for the next few years...

rug about to be pulled out from under fathers?