From why lawyers are dreadful to work with to “military hunks” calendars.
By David Allen Green, Media Correspondent of The Lawyer
Last week Louise Restell told the blogosphere why lawyers are so dreadful to work with . One fears there is a lot in this. It is certainly the case that in most City law firms there is not a great deal of introspection and reflection going on, at least by those with practicing certificates. Louise may be a little unfair – some lawyers can write articles unaided, and liability in respect of what some published words can be taken to mean is a genuine concern. But her post should be read – and thought about – by every lawyer in private practice: yes, you are like that, especially if your knee-jerk reaction is that you are not. She also published an insightful post on lawyer complaints.
Elsewhere the “White Rabbit” shared his concerns about banning things (my own take on banning things was here), Richard Moorhead dealt sensibly with litigants in person and the experienced criminal defence lawyer Kim Evans provided an excellent and practical guide to what happens on arrest.
Media law blogging was busy last week. There was an interesting and informative post by Juliet Shaw on taking on the Daily Mail, the wise Steve Barnett wrote about the lessons the press could learn from the experience of regulated broadcasters, and a typically cracking piece by David Banks on how contempt of court deals with mainstream and social media.
Also notable last week was the incomparable Carl Gardner returning to legal blogging, though his playful post on a “sensible approach to the scope of human rights” seemed rather to suggest that the sensible scope is actually no scope at all. I am sure he cannot mean that. Carl and the legendary “Charon QC” also resumed their Without Prejudice podcasts – always worth a listen, especially as I can no longer be a regular.
One particular merit of legal blogging is to be able to hear voices often silent in the “usual” professional literature. In this respect, barrister’s clerk Jeremy Hopkins provided a great insight into the vexed question of pupillage applications . It is posts like this, which set out helpful information not otherwise readily available, which perhaps show the true value of legal blogging.
An extraordinary post last week was at the Olswang’s and Matrix Chambers’ blog dedicated to the Supreme Court, where they thoughtfully posted Joshua Rozenberg’s critique of the Supreme Court’s newest justice.
Other eye-catching “legal” posts last week were “Scrapper Duncan” completely dismantling the woefully lazy legal drafting of the Corporation of London , the blogging genius “Konnolsky” offering his subtle critique of the “TwitterJokeTrial”, and former lawyer “Peter” with a forensic look at the wonderful and evolving language of Twitter.
The superb “Law and Sexuality” blog followed its recent valiant effort to make “Joy of Sex” the subject of a legal blogpost, with this fine attempt about military hunk calendars.