One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
Top Posts
- THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
- COST BITES 374: IF THIS WAS A CBA THE UNILATERAL ABILITY TO VARY RATES WOULD HAVE LED TO IT BEING SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS IT WAS UNREASONABLE
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
“You are not your client’s ‘hired gun’ …”
Yet again, the SRA demonstrate how they exist in an ivory tower, appearing to be completely unaware of the reality of legal practice.
The sole reason many litigation lawyers are hired is that they ARE a hired gun – they are hired not for their legal brilliance but because of their ability to scare the wits out of the opposition.
And every lawyer knows that this hyper-aggressive approach can, and often does work very effectively, if only because the lawyer exaggerates the financial consequences of not backing down with threats of massive costs to be incurred.
This is how many firms make a very handsome living, especially in the area of defamation (no names, we all know who we’re talking about). Any lawyer in this field who opted for an `independent’ approach is very soon going to find himself out of business.
“I have been unable to find a single case where a judge has found that aggressive correspondence, and angry letters, from a party has persuaded that judge that the particular litigant was in the right.”
I’m not surprised. The whole point of “aggressive correspondence and angry letters” is to ensure the case never gets before the court, and the lack of reported cases where such correspondence is referred to simply proves how successful a tactic it often is.
The SRA and all the other incompetent and overpaid regulators of what used to be the legal profession have spent decades systematically destroying the concept of professionalism and issuing stupid and patronising directives about how we should do our job. They can’t therefore complain when lawyers behave like businessmen to whom the only thing that matters is getting the desired result.