Integrity – The Man Speaks

Mr Myerson,

The following comments refer to the blog ‘Integrity and a Suitable Place for It’ posted on your website on March 31st, 2009.

The blog is both highly deceptive and defamatory and we demand its immediate removal, the deletion of associated comments and that you print a retraction making very clear the deceptive nature of the comments printed there hitherto.

More or less every person in England, except apparently Vader 101 and yourself, is aware that the street numbers given to premises in the UK refer usually to entire buildings and where they have them to their several floors – and not merely to the ground floor. Thus even the most casual observer of 91 Charlotte Street, by merely tilting up his eyes by a few degrees would notice in fact that The Oxbridge Research Group (parent to OTC) is based on the four floors of 91 Charlotte Street that lie above Italia Uno – as well as having additional premises at 97 Charlotte Street. The usual way that people observe our occupation is by looking at the large silver plaque (clearly visible in your photo) which has the name of the company on it – or by looking at the two metre tall blue flag hanging from the side of the building, also above Italia Uno.

It appears that your journalistic ‘integrity’ – to use your fondest word – does not extend so far as to check such basic facts as would be undertaken by a prep school student writing for his school magazine. Sadly, this sloppiness and superficiality is all too clear in your writings on our enterprise: had these been even a little more substantial and objective, we would have happily replied to your comments – it is clear though that no such ‘fair hearing’ was impossible: an observation compounded by this most recent blog.

No doubt, as a man of integrity, you will keep the pledge you made in your initial blog ( ”. . . Meanwhile, if Mr Foster would like to get in touch I promise to publish – unedited (within the bounds of legality and taste) – anything he sends me.”) and print the contents of this email.  Let us see if you have such courage or whether you manufacture a pretext for its omission.

We will also be posting details of this deception to Charon QC and on other such legal blogs so that interested readers might see another side to the journalistic integrity so are so fond of espousing but, hypocritically, so loathe to apply to your own activity.

The aforementioned actions to remove this content should be completed no later than 12.00 Noon this Monday.

Yours Sincerely,

John Foster

Head of Sales

The Oxbridge Research Group

I don’t think that Mr Foster really wants me to delete the whole blog, but have taken his comment to refer to the post.

His letter – fully set out above as promised – essentially repeats the comments in the post. It seems to me therefore that, as he wants the letter published, there is no point in deleting the original post, and the answer to that request is ‘no’. Moreover, I don’t think I actually implied that OTC didn’t operate from this address.

The rest of his comment about integrity you may judge for yourselves. My own view – forgive me for repeating it – is that if you write things for other people, do not cooperate with anti-plagiarism software, do not police whether people pass off your work as their own and ask members of the Bar to charge applicants for things they should do for free then you are helping people cheat.

Mr Foster could, of course, have addressed any or all of these issues. As I say, I have published what he has said in full. I also don’t assume (thanks Andy) he meant to say that no such fair hearing was impossible. That’s the trouble with double negatives. I think he meant to say no fair hearing was possible and just didn’t check his work (only a 3rd then). But what he has actually written is correct. Although his excuse is that he wouldn’t get a fair hearing I am afraid I don’t believe him. In my opinion he has not answered because he has nothing he can say.

I certainly agree I invited people to giggle. There is nothing defamatory in that. If there is humour in the situation then we should all enjoy it. If Mr Foster doesn’t find it funny – he doesn’t have to laugh.

I ought to add that I have posted his letter within 20 minutes of finding it in my in-box, having been in con all day.

PS. In the penultimate paragraph it’s “loath”, not “loathe”. “Loath” means reluctant. “Loathe” describes my feelings towards OTC. However, don’t worry – Mr Foster is only ‘Head of Sales’: he won’t be writing your essay for you.

Integrity and a Suitable Place For It

Big hat tip to Vader 101 who sent me the photo of OTC’s ‘Headquarters’. It is here:

According to Google this is 91 Charlotte Street, Fitzrovia (important sounding address) London W1.

I think the man in the bottom right is completing someone’s OLPAS application form. He will be given a sandwich for free. The good news, for him, is that Jehona says:

If you are a fan of italian football or fancy a hearty italian welcome with a sandwich to match – Italia Uno will not dissapoint. This small and friendly cafe has had the same owner since I have known about it (about 8 years now). Althought the cafe does not do any warm meals to order, it does some of the best breakfast and sandwiches in town. There is not much else to it really – just simple, excellent italian nosh.

And you will have somewhere to sit when you pop in to see them as well.

It is satisfying that a business which attempts to make people appear as they are not seems to be run from a sandwich joint.

Getting on With Clients

I’m sorry that I haven’t posted for a while. I hope to do so soon. Meanwhile, please familiarise yourself with the diagram below. It is uncannily accurate. Because your clerks will collect your fees, the issue of when to bill is a matter for them. However, if you want to build a practice by networking with your solicitor and/or your lay client then this information will assist you.

What Type of Law Should I Do? Redux

As a special celebration of the new pad…

Environmental Law

When Megabastard plc pumps raw sewage into the village pond, when Exploitthethirdworld SA decides that India’s legal system isn’t up to preventing it from pumping out dioxin as if it were Glade®, or when SS Leakytub goes aground in the puffin breeding colony and sheds its load of oil, someone needs to do something. You might think this is a criminal law issue, or perhaps a tort. You would be wrong. Criminal law and tort are practised by the legal equivalent of the great unwashed and serious matters of vast sums of money great moment require expertise and brilliance. You need an environmental lawyer. You must understand that Environmental lawyers deal with disasters or disasters in the making. At least, that is what they tell their friends – if defending in court they deal with minor incidents where a moment’s inadvertance to detailed formal procedures meant that a temporary hiccup took place. Criminal and Tort lawyers deal with tragedy – which is quite different and much less lucrative.

Advantages: genuinely wide ranging, often international in scope. Acting for defendants means megabucks. Acting for victims or the prosecution means being right-on and having access to a group of women who think you are gorgeous, they being unable to judge your looks properly because you don’t have a beard. Every case involves wading through enough paper to cause an – you guessed it; that’s irony for you hey? People make films about you.

Disadvantages: Your clients are ill, dead or dying, or you are trying to get such people to do any of those things in penury. You spend your life in dirt, dust clouds or pesticide ridden fields. You may turn into a mutant – from the inside. Every organisation with power (and many without) are muscling in on the action so the law changes day-to-day and there is a serious risk that, because it is black-letter based, your lay client may actually know more than you and be able to demonstrate it. Your plumber may well think that you believe him to be part of the problem and attack you with a monkey wrench.

What Type of Law Should I Do (Part V) ?

A New Year special…

Media Law
Is this law at all, or simply a chance to rub shoulders with the famous (acceptable) and rich (desirable)? Given that the Courts cannot make their mind up about whether there is a right not to have your photograph taken at any time when you spend 80% of your waking hours showing your knickers to the paparazzi (or ‘annoying little prats’ as they are known in royal circles) why should this be anyone’s speciality?
Still, there it is. Whole firms are devoted to this issue which, given that it involves the meejah, means that their lawyers are often on the TV or the radio explaining to the rest of us why it’s ok to take Naomi’s photo when she’s assessing the length of her tongue against a Russian billionaire’s ear, but not when she’s coming out of the clinic with that little package saying ‘antabuse’. There’s even a book on privacy, although obviously I’m not allowed to tell you what it says.
What’s more, people are often offended by the fact that there is to be a TV or Radio programme revealing that they keep Nazi uniforms in their bedrooms, or collect money for charities which assist foolish young men to ensure their life is even nastier, shorter and infinitely more brutish than Thomas Hobbes ever envisaged. Oddly, people wishing to be really, really unpleasant to others by depriving them of basic freedoms are terribly keen on exercising those freedoms for themselves, so there’s work out there.
Advantages. Daaahhhhling. This is where it’s at sweetiepie. Whichever way you look, you’re defending freedom so there’s a real feelgood factor here. Not the grimy little freedoms like staying out of the nick and being innocent until proven guilty either. Those freedoms are, like, so yesterday. No, this is real freedom – either of the press or of the individual. Coo-el. And best of all, both sides are awash with dosh, so your plumber will bring 2 assistants, an associate and three trainees, thus making his visits indistiguishable from the way you deal with cases at work. Your colleagues will be envious and you will be doing cutting edge work. After all, nothing is more cutting edge than deciding if this is really law or not.
Disadvantages. You have to know who Kate, Amy, Katy, Pete, Blake, Naomi and Peter really are. You have to pretend to care. Worse still, you may end up actually caring. Worse yet, you may have to act for the Royal family (no, not daaahhling Catherine’s creation – the real ones) and get to see the photos of the heir to the throne dressed up as what he talked about on the Squidgygate tapes. Yeuw. You will have to look smooth and well-dressed which, for most lawyers, is a challenge which severely cuts into the total number of billable hours in a day. Unless you act for the Royals you will either be past it at 33, or the sort of person with an adolescence so retarded that Peter Pan thinks you are a bit of a baby.

Collective Nouns

I thought I would try to assist so that you all know where you are when it comes to interviews. Everyone agrees that these are accurate; use them without fear.

Lawyers: a bore
Silks: an egotism
Circuit Judges: a squabble
High Court Judges: a self-satisfaction
Lay Magistrates: a worry
District Judges (Crime): an irritation
District Judges (Civil): an arbitrariness
Recorders: an ambition
Juniors below 10 years call: an aspiration
Juniors above 10 years call: an envy
Members of Pupillage Committees: a nightmare
Pupillage Applicants: a beg
Pupils: an ASBO (thank you Charon – too good not to include)

All other suggestions welcome.

The, "Does My Arse Ego Look Big In This?" Competition

The Bar Council is doing its research on Court Dress. This takes the form of a questionnaire sent to all members of the profession. I accept that this is not directly related to pupillage, but it has a indirect relationship because the public perception of the profession is important. Also, this is just too good an opportunity to miss.

I ought to say that I have already answered my questionnaire sensibly and responsibly and sent it back. Although one is allowed anonymity I have waived mine because I don’t see why not. My views are simple – suits for all. I would extend this to criminal work as well, but I am content that many people feel that the wig and gown give a degree of anonymity and put young counsel on a par with more experienced practitioners. I don’t actually think either of these things are true, but the perception is there and they add a degree of formality. Of course, new practitioners need to treat their wig as I did – tie it to the rear bumper of the car and take it for a mile long outing on a dry day. It won’t come back white…

For any other sort of work the reality, as it seems to me, is that if we cannot, simply by our conduct, persuade members of the public that court proceedings are formal, that we are bright and articulate and that the case is as good as its substance then we are failing in such a spectacular way that we could wear crowns and tiaras and it would make no difference. For that reason, and in the interests of equality, I have also said that there should be no distinguishing mark of rank as between silks, juniors and solicitor advocates. This last was particularly hard – if you are tallish and thin with a tendency to stoop there is nothing quite so becoming as a tail-coat. Ah well – the bottom line, in my view, is that if you aren’t good enough in a suit, you’re not good enough.

I know that opinion polls suggest that the public would like us to retain wigs and gowns – or at least that this is what is said – a fairly careful search of Google reveals reference to such polls but no result which takes one to the poll itself. But I think this is beside the point. The public are taking about heritage. They like heritage. So do I. I think Beafeaters should look like they have just stepped out of a production of The Yeoman of the Guard and I get upset if they don’t. But I don’t expect them to be the first line of defence for the nation. The risk of the legal profession becoming part of the heritage industry is that, ultimately, it engenders less respect, not more.

I also find it slightly sad that so much effort is put into this issue. Compared to the Government’s attempts to give us a criminal justice system slightly better than Burma’s, who cares? The Bar Council is, I think, trying to gain the trust of the profession. They should have more faith – by and large people know that they are doing the best they can against tough odds. That some barristers succumb to the temptation to shoot the messenger is natural – but it shouldn’t dictate policy.

Still, in an effort to enliven things a little I offer a prize. Traditionally this is a bottle of wine – in this case Leoville-Barton 1994 (not a great year but still very good, I promise). Alternatively, if you are teetotal or just would rather not have the wine I am prepared to offer an hours careers advice (face-to-face or on the phone). The prize is for the most amusing completed questionnaire, with special attention being paid to alternative dress suggestions, as opposed to the Bar Council’s own. You do not have to send it in – but you do have to send it to me. The winning entry will be published and the winner can retain anonymity if desired. I reserve the right not to award the prize if nothing makes me laugh out loud – but I would like to get lots of entries and enjoy myself reading them. If you click on the Questionnaire link above it will allow you to fill in the form. My email address is simon.myerson@netserv.net Enjoy