$450+ per hour to check your own email?

how do you know he wasn't checking his clients email?

but seriously, how do you know that checking his email wasn't in some way benefiting his client? have you ever scratched your own nose at work? if a lawyer does is he being paid $450 an hour to scratch his nose?

jay

I was under the impression that communication with the outside world during a court session , especially in a High Court, was a strict No No....

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
how do you know he wasn't checking his clients email?

but seriously, how do you know that checking his email wasn't in some way benefiting his client? have you ever scratched your own nose at work? if a lawyer does is he being paid $450 an hour to scratch his nose?

jay

I don't know whether he was checking his client's email or not. I prefer to cast aspersions on peoples' characters without knowing the facts. It's no fun otherwise.

Criminal barristers generally charge by the day when in court. (BTW, the top legal-aid rate for a Queens Counsel in New Zealand is $14,500 per (court) day.) If I, as a client, am being billed for my counsel's time (in six-minute chunks of $$$), then that time ought to be spent attending to my file. If my lawyer stops for a fifteen minute nose-scratch then he ought to stop charging me and see an ENT specialist.

Criminal barrister. An interesting concept or a tautology?

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
Criminal barrister. An interesting concept or a tautology?

That's a terrible thing to say. It's like saying that politicians lie - when everyone knows they actually dissemble...

Yours may dissemble - ours just lie!

Probably something to way the truth goes down the plughole north and south of the equator!

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
how do you know he wasn't checking his clients email?

but seriously, how do you know that checking his email wasn't in some way benefiting his client? have you ever scratched your own nose at work? if a lawyer does is he being paid $450 an hour to scratch his nose?

jay

I don't know whether he was checking his client's email or not. I prefer to cast aspersions on peoples' characters without knowing the facts. It's no fun otherwise.

Criminal barristers generally charge by the day when in court. (BTW, the top legal-aid rate for a Queens Counsel in New Zealand is $14,500 per (court) day.) If I, as a client, am being billed for my counsel's time (in six-minute chunks of $$$), then that time ought to be spent attending to my file. If my lawyer stops for a fifteen minute nose-scratch then he ought to stop charging me and see an ENT specialist.

Common Deane, have you not picked your nose at work

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
I was under the impression that communication with the outside world during a court session , especially in a High Court, was a strict No No....

what?!

you mean.....no TV?

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

what?!

you mean.....no TV?

Oh, we've got TV in the courtrooms nowadays. They are not allowed to film the jury though. It constantly amazes me that the media in the US is allowed to interview jurors after a trial. Here, that would get all concerned - juror, journalist, cameraman etc - locked up very quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
I was under the impression that communication with the outside world during a court session , especially in a High Court, was a strict No No....

what?!

you mean.....no TV?

I was meaning active 2 way communication as opposed to either recorded footage or 1 way live broadcast.

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:

I was meaning active 2 way communication as opposed to either recorded footage or 1 way live broadcast.

Macker

I would think the issue comes under the judge's inherent jurisdiction. I can find nothing in the Judicature Act and I'm not sure where else to look. At a guess, I would say the issue is whether the communications are used to pervert the course of justice or in any attempt to affect the outcome of the case.

You raise a good point though and the more I think about it the more concern I have that you may be right. Perhaps the issue has not had cause to be raised yet. Certainly one wouldn't expect a lawyer to whip out a cellphone and start text-messaging in front of the judge - this is the same thing really.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Certainly one wouldn't expect a lawyer to whip out a cellphone and start text-messaging in front of the judge - this is the same thing really.

Isn't that the modern equivalent of the young junior running into court passing a little folded yellow piece of paper to an attorney which is quickly opened the tiny hand writing digested with a look of realisation that this critical piece of information in fact turns the case on it's head and leaning forward to interrupt the head honcho's last gasp clemency speech mid-flight and gesticulate knowingly that all will be revealed to the annoyed honcho who is indeed surprised and requests a five minute recess of the wizened but sprightly silver haired judge?

Damn I hate being wrong! Good thing it happens no more than once a decade.

Checked this out, and apparently the use of wireless broadband in court is quite permissable - especially at the stage of legal applications based on legal arguments. The judge often asks the lawyers for citations and passages etc and all of the legal databases are online. Full texts of cases are usually emailed to the subscriber of the database. I remember doing this myself (sheepishly admits) when I had access to the databases as a law student and still have the PDFs that I was emailed on file.

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
I was meaning active 2 way communication as opposed to either recorded footage or 1 way live broadcast.

yeah I know.

really. you are very serious for one who's using an xbox as his main source

.

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
I was in Court last friday as a prosection witness, my experience of the Barrister for the Prosecution is not flattering, to say the least.

He did not see me before I gave evidence; I had material evidence that could have affected the outcome but as he did not talk to me, I could not tell him.

How did it come about that the Police did not obtain this evidence during their investigation?

Jay...good point, my xbox is for convienience rather than musical purity...I look after 2 kids most days, ages 2 & 4...Enough of my CD's/cases are already wrecked so I am more than happy to put them away until the little one grows up a little..

Ironicaly I worked for the Ministry of Justice at the very court we are discussing ! (technical IT role)...

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:

Ironicaly I worked for the Ministry of Justice at the very court we are discussing ! (technical IT role)...

So, is it true that the judges have a driving range on the roof? It would explain why they're always late back from lunch - whole bucket of balls to get through...

If there was, I never saw it.....

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:

Ironicaly I worked for the Ministry of Justice at the very court we are discussing ! (technical IT role)...

So, is it true that the judges have a driving range on the roof? It would explain why they're always late back from lunch - whole bucket of balls to get through...

you're not a journalist are you deane? you seem to dig the dirt!

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
Jay...good point, my xbox is for convienience rather than musical purity...I look after 2 kids most days, ages 2 & 4...Enough of my CD's/cases are already wrecked so I am more than happy to put them away until the little one grows up a little.

ah so not so serious, just very practical!