Attorneys and Barristers of the Lounge

[Ephraim Tutt]

Most appropriate Brother Tortswon!

I think one of my favourite episodes was the one involving some special occasion in Chambers where the members were invited to bring along those who had made a major contribution to the Chambers over the years. Naturally, each brought members of the Establishment - judges, politicians, leading citizens of all sorts.

And just as naturally, Rumpole invited the Timsons - the family of petty crims that had kept him gainfully employed defending them for decades.

 

[Harp]

Red Mass

The Red Mass, a tradition dating back to the 12th Century,
will be celebrated tomorrow morning at Holy Name Cathedral to
ask Divine blessing and guidance for the courts' Fall term.
The Chicago Lawyers Guild will host brunch at Loyola University Law School.

Judges will wear robes.

8.30 AM

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Many thanks for that Harp.

It's an interesting tradition that we also participate in. I try to get along to the service each year which is hosted by a different church/synagogue/temple around the city each year.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

The week began in the neverending battle against injustice, self-interest, abuse of power, political expediency and plain old-fashioned stupidity armed with determination, courage and today's noggin shield - the '58 Stetson Trilby....

 

[tortswon]

With all of those challenges, shouldn't you be waring a helm, Neil? Best, Sam

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

It's tough stuff that rabbit felt, Sam. The forces of darkness don't stand a chance.
Bring it on!

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Lawyer Heroes...Lord Atkin

I'm not sure how often our American colleagues delve into the dusty shelves of British cases, but among the first cases every law student is taught in the UK and here in Australia is Donoghue v Stevenson, the famous 1932 House of Lords case of the snail in the ginger beer bottle that gave rise to the modern laws of negligence. The author of the lead decision in that case was an Australian, a Queenslander, a Brisbane lad – Lord Atkin (1867 Brisbane – 1944 Aberdyfi Wales). It’s surprising how few people know that Lord Atkin was born in this part of the world.

James Atkin was born into a working class family, his parents having emigrated from England shortly after their marriage in 1864. By 1871, now with three sons, Atkin’s mother took James and his two younger brothers back to the UK to live with her mother in Wales. His father, who remained in Australia, died the following year.

It was a family not given to airs and graces and it was in this environment that James developed the egalitarianism that characterised his life and certainly his two most famous decisions in the House of Lords. The first of these was, of course, Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932. What would have possessed Lord Atkin to fly in the face of accepted wisdom and British legal precedent and find in favour of an indigent woman with little more than a biblical principle to guide him? I remember having an argument with a law lecturer about whether Lord Atkin’s decision in Donoghue is an example of applied natural law. I still can’t see that it is anything else. If there is biblical authority to love your neighbour, then Atkin wanted to find its legal expression. His conclusion, now commonly called the neighbour principle, forms the basis for the modern law of negligence. “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law that you must not injure your neighbour … Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question…”

Another, among many, courageous decisions of Lord Atkin was his dissenting judgment in Liversidge v Anderson . It is worthy of mention here because of its relevance today in the face of current anti-terror legislation. The case took place during World War Two and concerned emergency powers allowing the Home Secretary to intern people if he had ‘reasonable cause’ to believe they had ‘hostile associations.’ Exercising this power the Home Secretary interned Robert Liversidge without stating a reason. The task of the House of Lords was to determine whether the Court could investigate the objective basis of the Home Secretary’s ‘reasonable cause’. The majority, concerned with issues of national security, held that it is sufficient that the Home Secretary believes he has sufficient cause. In his dissenting judgment Lord Atkin argued for the importance of a judiciary remaining independent of the executive and holding them accountable for their interpretation of the law. He added,

“In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any intended encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.”

Brave chap that Lord Atkin. We could use a few more like him today.

And those two cases have me wondering whether we ought to add another theme to this thread - what are your favourite cases?!

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Today's noggin shield

The Stetson Royal De Luxe back bow

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure how often our American colleagues delve into the dusty shelves of British cases, but among the first cases every law student is taught in the UK and here in Australia is Donoghue v Stevenson, the famous 1932 House of Lords case of the snail in the ginger beer bottle that gave rise to the modern laws of negligence. The author of the lead decision in that case was an Australian, a Queenslander, a Brisbane lad – Lord Atkin (1867 Brisbane – 1944 Aberdyfi Wales). It’s surprising how few people know that Lord Atkin was born in this part of the world.

Australians have been quite prominent in certain areas of law here in the UK. Most of the foremost IP academics I've encountered in London have been Australian. Then there's also the rather well known QC Geoffrey Robertson, who got his big break when he was a very new trainee solocitor working on the Oz trial, and has gone on to be something of an authority on media law, with a very specific emphasis on freedom of speech and expression. He represented the Sex Pistols when, in 1977, they and Virgin Records were charged with an ancient public order offence relating to a shop display for the sale of their LP Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols. Robertson was able to produce a defence witness who, as both an academic expert on middle-English and an ordained Anglican cleric, was able to satisfy that court that "bollocks" was indeed a legitimate Anglo Saxon word meaning "stones". The verdict? "I very reluctantly find you not guilty." The highlight of the trial, though, is an anecdote Geoffrey tells at his after dinner speaking gigs: as the evidence about the true meaning of "bollocks" was given, Johnny Rotten passed over a note which said "don't worry - if we lose, we'll just call it never mind the Stones." lol

Another case I love was Liberace's libel suit against the Daily Mirror in 1959. They had alleged he was gay, and he won the case as they were unable to prove the truth of this allegation in court. Of course, then he had to spend the rest of his life in the closet or be done for perjury.....

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm not sure how often our American colleagues delve into the dusty shelves of British cases, . . . .

Very, very seldom. I know we studied a few cases in law school, mostly in property law with a few scattered through our other classes, but that was about it.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Very, very seldom. I know we studied a few cases in law school, mostly in property law with a few scattered through our other classes, but that was about it.

More's the pity, Spats. British law, with all it's wigs and gowns and pomp is a very theatrical affair and worth a look just for its entertainment value.

I'm guessing that the British property law cases you looked at probably involved Lord Denning, who prodded and kicked British law forward in this regard (along with promissory estoppel and contract law) during his time as Master of the Rolls. 'Timorous souls' is how he famously referred to his fellow Law Lords as they sat either side of him during one judgement. The law is still full of timorous souls.

Denning is another worthy inclusion to our list of heroic lawyers.

 

[Spats McGee]

They probably did involve Lord Denning, because I remember his name. I've not had any need or opportunity to go near any old property cases since passing the bar, so I'm afraid that his name is all I remember.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Australians have been quite prominent in certain areas of law here in the UK. Most of the foremost IP academics I've encountered in London have been Australian. Then there's also the rather well known QC Geoffrey Robertson, who got his big break when he was a very new trainee solocitor working on the Oz trial, and has gone on to be something of an authority on media law, with a very specific emphasis on freedom of speech and expression. He represented the Sex Pistols when, in 1977, they and Virgin Records were charged with an ancient public order offence relating to a shop display for the sale of their LP Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols. Robertson was able to produce a defence witness who, as both an academic expert on middle-English and an ordained Anglican cleric, was able to satisfy that court that "bollocks" was indeed a legitimate Anglo Saxon word meaning "stones". The verdict? "I very reluctantly find you not guilty." The highlight of the trial, though, is an anecdote Geoffrey tells at his after dinner speaking gigs: as the evidence about the true meaning of "bollocks" was given, Johnny Rotten passed over a note which said "don't worry - if we lose, we'll just call it never mind the Stones." lol

Another case I love was Liberace's libel suit against the Daily Mirror in 1959. They had alleged he was gay, and he won the case as they were unable to prove the truth of this allegation in court. Of course, then he had to spend the rest of his life in the closet or be done for perjury.....

Yes Edward, there is much to be admired about Geoffrey - with the possible exception of his faux upper crust English accent. He'll always be a working class Aussie bloke to us.

I wrote to him once, pointing out an error in his wonderful book on the life of the Prosecutor of Charles I (John Cooke) entitled "The Tyrranicide Brief". In it he made the statement that the trial of Charles I was the first time in history that the people had declared their supremacy over the Crown. In fact, this had occurred 300 years earlier in the Scottish town of Arbroath on 6 April 1320. In their famous Declaration the nobles of Scotland stated that King Robert Bruce had a responsibility to act in the best interests of the people or the people had the right to remove him and replace him with someone who would! Incredibly forthright for the time. King Robert endorsed the declaration!

As a matter of interest to our American brothers and sisters, the Declaration of Arbroath was one of the precedents drawn on by your Founding Fathers in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the anniversary of Arbroath is celebrated each year in America on April 6 as Tartan Day.

Here's the relevant part of the Declaration:

"But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert.

He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully.

Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King.

To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom, for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

 

[tortswon]

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade

Given my alias here and the nature of my practice, I should give a tip of the chapeau to Lord Atkin.

Given my love of cooking and food, the well marinated snail in the bottle would have found itself as escargot a la orientale in a rich ginger/butter sauce.
Best, Sam

 

[Harp]

Another (soon-to-be) late 30's law student here.

It's been a pleasant surprise that most attorneys I've talked to feel that it isn't "too late" for me to follow this dream, and that in fact my life and work experiences are a plus.

Oh, Harp, I'm also an aging Irish(-American) bachelor. My mother despairs of getting grandchildren, but I assure her that the forties are the prime for an Irishman. Have to give the wild geese of the soul time to return to the green fields of home after all.

Life's seasoning and hard earned maturity serve excellent preparation
for law school and subsequent practice.

I had a broken engagement to fall back on,
but my mom thought I ran with the devil and was a skirt chaser,
so an sochar de an amhras--the benefit of the doubt
was always cited.
Better a wild goose than a domesticated duck.

 

[Spats McGee]

Life's seasoning and hard earned maturity serve excellent preparation for law school and subsequent practice. . . . .

Well said, Harp.

I was 30 before I started law school. One of my classmates actually turned 21 while we were in school. He'd graduated early from college & went straight into law school. I, on the other hand, gone to college, laid out for a few semesters, worked as a waiter & bartender, lived in Germany a couple of times, and supervised a team of road service dispatchers. Did that make me a better student or a better lawyer? I don't know, but it didn't make me a worse one, either.

On the subject of legal heroes . . . I've been looking at all those posts and it seems that my legal heroes are much closer to home. In no particular order, . . .

The Honorable Robert L. Brown of the Arkansas Supreme Court. I clerked for him right out of law school. It was a job that I landed in more or less by accident. In hindsight, if I could have chosen chosen the judge for whom I worked, I think I still would have chosen him. He has a remarkable feel for the evolution of the law in Arkansas. Perhaps more importantly, he gave every Arkansas Supreme Court case its full measure of his time and attention (and that of his clerks).

The Honorable Richard S. Arnold of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I can't think of any of his cases off the top of my head because most of the work I've done for the past two years has been in state court. Nonetheless, Richard Arnold was one of the finest legal minds to ever come out of Arkansas.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Given my alias here and the nature of my practice, I should give a tip of the chapeau to Lord Atkin.

Given my love of cooking and food, the well marinated snail in the bottle would have found itself as escargot a la orientale in a rich ginger/butter sauce.
Best, Sam

Brother Torts,
I'm not sure if Lord Atkin's famous judgement had any influence at all on US negligence law, though I'm sure the old chap would be most aggrieved by the more recent influence of the insurance company-inspired tort reform movement and the Quisling politicians in both our countries who have bent over for them.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Life's seasoning and hard earned maturity serve excellent preparation
for law school and subsequent practice.

I had a broken engagement to fall back on,
but my mom thought I ran with the devil and was a skirt chaser,
so an sochar de an amhras--the benefit of the doubt
was always cited.
Better a wild goose than a domesticated duck.

You ran with the devil and were a skirt chaser, you say? Brother Harp - now that does sound like a conversation to be had over a good wine (beer or whiskey if you prefer) and a cigar!

Pull up a chair!

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

Well said, Harp.

I was 30 before I started law school. One of my classmates actually turned 21 while we were in school. He'd graduated early from college & went straight into law school. I, on the other hand, gone to college, laid out for a few semesters, worked as a waiter & bartender, lived in Germany a couple of times, and supervised a team of road service dispatchers. Did that make me a better student or a better lawyer? I don't know, but it didn't make me a worse one, either.

On the subject of legal heroes . . . I've been looking at all those posts and it seems that my legal heroes are much closer to home. In no particular order, . . .

The Honorable Robert L. Brown of the Arkansas Supreme Court. I clerked for him right out of law school. It was a job that I landed in more or less by accident. In hindsight, if I could have chosen chosen the judge for whom I worked, I think I still would have chosen him. He has a remarkable feel for the evolution of the law in Arkansas. Perhaps more importantly, he gave every Arkansas Supreme Court case its full measure of his time and attention (and that of his clerks).

The Honorable Richard S. Arnold of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I can't think of any of his cases off the top of my head because most of the work I've done for the past two years has been in state court. Nonetheless, Richard Arnold was one of the finest legal minds to ever come out of Arkansas.

Only 30, Spats?! You'd have been one of the young ones in my classes. Mind you, I mainly attended evening classes along with others who were working full-time, so maybe that attracted a more mature crowd. As I say, I started law school at 39 and there's no doubt that life experience is a definite plus in this business.

On you legal heroes, brother, it's great to see you naming those who have influenced you close to home. Not many lawyers can actually name someone who has been for them something of a mentor and example (even if they didn't know that's what they were). Good to see you've got at least a couple.

I guess we're all an example of something to someone. Let's hope it's a good one.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

And Ahem Chaps & Chappesses

Where's the photos? Lids, pens, Vintage wine, anything at all! This page needs some visual appeal!

Which reminds me - where are the ladies?