Round-up

Best of the blogs

By on
5

Weekly round-up of the top legal blogosphere posts

Did Jackie Weaver have the authority? – the law and policy of that Handforth Parish Council meeting [Law and Policy Blog]

City law firm boss on the rise of US-style class action suits in Britain [City A.M.]

‘Canaries in the coal mine’ for judicial independence [Justice Gap]

GameStop isn’t a case of “market failure”—it’s platform democracy in action [Prospect Magazine]

Sanctions for sexual misconduct by barristers are ‘derisory’ [The Times] (£)

The 2021 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

Sussexes in court [A Lawyer Writes]

Lawyers for the Post Office Machine [Lawyer Watch]

Stagnant progress in profession’s diversity is disheartening [Law Society Gazette]

Ditching office space is a costly business [Legal Futures]

Blended model of legal traineeships set to continue [Scottish Legal News]

“Amateur hour. Highly amusing watching court staff struggle to work that computer thing.” [Legal Cheek comments]

Secrets to Success North — with CMS, Fieldfisher, Mills & Reeve and ULaw [Legal Cheek Events]

5 Comments

Anonymous

I think The Times is out of step with the prevalent opinion on BSB sanctions. I think most people feel that the sanctions are appropriate and other bodies (e.g. SRA) are out of step. It seems that there is a noisy minority with good media connections and an agenda who are able to get a distorted view presented in the hope of bullying the BSB into changing policy. Time will tell if they succeed.

(13)(5)

Predator Stopper

Right, because ‘bullying’ the BSB over the years has consistently brought significant changes to the ways barristers may be reprimanded???

Sounds like a lot of barristers are absolutely terrified that their bad behaviour may be known to a wider audience.

If you have nothing to fear, you need not ever worry about the BSB.

(7)(2)

No, you aren't

The bullying has got shriller. Hopefully the BSB will remain strong enough to not be intimidated into knee jerk reactions. Most people feel that BSB sanctions are robust enough and that the BSB shouldn’t get involved in the personal life of barristers or impose sanctikns where no crime has been committed.

Barristers aren’t terrified of their own bad behaviour, but the bad behaviour of others blowing things out of proportion and targeting barristers and their families. It is telling that you refer to barristers who ‘have nothing to fear’, rather than those who have done wrong.

The small minority of barristers targetting others in the profession don’t need to worry about the BSB, and it is them who should be kicked out of the profession.

(2)(2)

Predator Stopper

You want to kick barristers out of the profession for daring to complain about their colleagues? Oh dear.

As again, if you have never behaved badly, the BSB will not bother you.

You seem to lack empathy and are very concerned about keeping up a facade. If people are manipulative and nasty enough on the quiet, their wife and kids will hate them even without the BSB’s intervention.

(5)(2)

Anonymous

Malicious complainants or barristers asking for disproportionate punishment have no place at the bar in my opinion. You think otherwise? Oh, dear.

So who won’t the BSB bother – those with nothing to fear or those who haven’t behaved badly (they are different things). And malicious or overdramatic complaints are behaving badly, incidentally.

Unlike you, I have every empathy for the victims of malucious complaints and witch-hunts, and for the families who would suffer from seeing their loved ones being punished far beyond what their actions justify. That’s why I hope ghe BSB stand firm against bullying.

Comments are closed.

Related Stories