My Daddy is a Lawyer & Other Lawyer Jokes

TWO LAWYERS

Today's joke of the day should be preserved:

My Daddy Is A Lawyer

While two families were waiting in line to see the Washington Monument, their two five-year-old boys were getting acquainted.

"My name is Joshua. What's yours?" asked the first boy.
"Adam," replied the second.
"My daddy is a doctor. What does your daddy do for a living?" asked Joshua.
Adam proudly replied, "My daddy is a lawyer."
"Honest?" asked Joshua.
"No, just the regular kind," replied Adam.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Godfather Lawyer

Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a lawyer?
A: An offer you can't understand.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Truck Driver, the Priest and the Lawyers

A truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he would see walking down the side of the road. Every time he would see a lawyer walking along the road, he would swerve to hit him, and there would be a loud "THUMP" and then he would swerve back onto the road. One day, he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.

He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"

"I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road," replied the priest.

"No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck." The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.

Suddenly the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him. But he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so at the last minute he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer. However, even though he was sure he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUMP". Not understanding where the noise came from, he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer."

"That's okay," replied the priest. "I got him with the door!"

------------------------------------------------------------------

Laboratory Lawyers

Why are laboratory scientists switching from rats to lawyers for their experiments?
1. Lawyers are more plentiful than rats;
2. The lab technicians don't get as attached to the lawyers,
3. There are some things a rat just won't do, and
4. This is one area where the animal rights activists won't get worked up over.


More another day.

The Ruinous Cost of Divorce in England

A lot of women if they can seek to have financial disputes on divorce determined in England. Perhaps, they fail to take account of the "ruinous costs" that can be incurred in this jurisdiction.

Mr Justice Munby has had yet another go at the level of costs sometimes spent in financial disputes in England. I say "yet another go" because Munby J does seem to get more than his fair share of this type of case.

In the title link case, KSO v MJO (8th December, 2008) he says:

Something must be done about the problems highlighted by this and by too many similar cases. We simply cannot go on as we are. The expenditure of costs on the scale exemplified by this and by too many other such cases is a scandal which must somehow be brought under control.

The way in which the litigation had been conducted had the following consequence:

The denouement was, in hindsight, perhaps not altogether surprising. The litigation simply collapsed under the unsustainable burden of paying costs which had long since become wholly disproportionate to anything at stake and which, by the time the parties arrived at the FDR, had swallowed up a grotesquely large proportion of the never very substantial assets. On 26 November 2008 I received the news that the husband had earlier that day been declared bankrupt on his own petition.

More poignantly Munby J explained:

The picture is deeply dispiriting. And it is not as if it is only the adults who suffer from the consequences of such folly. The luckless children do as well. The present case is a sobering, and for me deeply saddening, example. If, instead of spending – squandering – over £430,000 in costs, the wife and the husband had been able to resolve their differences at a more modest and, dare I say it, more seemly level of costs, there might very well have been enough left in the matrimonial 'pot' to house the wife and children and to enable the children to remain at their school, whilst still leaving something more than a mere consolation prize over for the husband. As it is, it is hard to see much being left from the wreck, not least after the trustee in bankruptcy has had his costs, expenses and remuneration. It is difficult not to be reminded at this point of Jarndyce v Jarndyce (see the Appendix). And the wife and the husband – and for this purpose I refer to them as the mother and the father, for that is what they are – are faced now with the wretched and thankless task of trying to explain to their daughters how it has all come to this.

Warring parents rarely take account of the effects of their battles on their children. Munby J has said these wise words now and he has said them before but I detect that he is becoming dispirited by the fact that parents, husbands and wives who presumably once loved one another, seem not to be getting the message.

Links to previous relevant cases can be found in paragraphs 77-79 of Munby J's judgment.

QUIZ QUESTION: In which case did the wife and her legal team get it so wrong that she had to pay the husband's legal costs to an extent that really wasted her whole application?

No WMD Cllaim: Breaking News

Go to The Times link immediately.

Politicians And God In The USA And In The UK

The title link sums up the position. An atheist simply could not be elected as President of the USA.

In England, religious faith is a handicap for a politician. Thus, Tony Blair did not do god whilst in office.

We like our politicians to be rational in all aspects of their life. You guys in the US appear to need your politicians to at least appear to believe in a supreme being otherwise, perhaps, you fear that they would be uncontrollable. You wish them to fear someone or something.

We do not mind a politician who has a vague religious belief; one that has never really been thought through. That is ok because probably most people do not give god much thought at all and simply tick a box on forms, stating belief of one kind or another, out of habit.

The conclusion I come to is that the UK's distrust of irrational beliefs in decision makers makes for a better chance of good decisions being made. The USA's insistence that their decision makers either hold or, at least, profess such beliefs means that they can only ever be governed by hypocrites and mad people.

I do not conclude that the UK government actually makes better decisions. However, I do prefer to be governed by people who, by and large, do not feel obliged to commit to a fundamentally childish set of beliefs that are beyond logic.

Beyond the Pale: Procul Harum Claim 38 years Too Late

The Court of Appeal has overturned Mr Justice Blackburne's 2006 decision to award 40% of royalties from the date he brought his claim to the organist Matthew Fisher for his contribution to A Whiter Shade of Pale. See the title link.

Matthew Fisher has commented on his own website that:

"This is a most peculiar judgment that will please nobody. It raises more questions than it answers. Having demolished every single argument advanced by Gary Brooker's legal team, Lord Justice Mummery suddenly produced an argument of his own, like a magician producing a rabbit out of a hat.

This argument is so obscure and oblique as to defy comprehension. It had never been anticipated, either by the two legal teams concerned, or by any of the many legal commentators who have written about the original trial. It will be interesting to hear the reactions of other specialist copyright lawfirms such as Clintons or Davenport Lyons.

Nevertheless, from my point of view this case was never about money - it was about getting my name on the song to which I contributed the most commercial and essential feature [i.e. the organ tune]".

He comments elsewhere that he went down 2-1 and he is right. However, the third Court of Appeal judge (Sir Paul Kennedy) did not give a reasoned decision and simply confirmed his agreement with Lord Justice Mummery.

Mr Justice David Edwards delivered a dissenting opinion. A clear invitation, if it is not about money, or, even if it is, to roll the dice in the House of Lords. Two reasoned opinions: one favourable, one unfavourable and a delphic coin toss.

However, I am surprised that neither legal team (as Mr Fisher says) anticipated this:

"In summary, my reason for allowing the appeal against declarations (2) and (3) is that Matthew Fisher's conduct makes it unjust that he should succeed in his claims to a joint interest in the Work or to have revoked the implied licence for the defendants to exploit it. The judge should have taken a broader approach to the application of the delay defences. In particular:

(1) Matthew Fisher is guilty of excessive and inexcusable delay in asserting his claim to title to a joint interest in the Work. He silently stood by and acquiesced in the defendants' commercial exploitation of the Work for 38 years. His acquiescence led the defendants to act for a very long period on the basis that the entire copyright in the Work was theirs. They controlled the commercial exploitation of the Work without any reference or reward to him.

(2) His acquiescence has made it unconscionable and inequitable for him to seek to exercise control over the commercial exploitation of the copyright in the Work. The combination of a declaration of a joint interest and a declaration of revocation of the implied consent would enable him to control future commercial exploitation by means of a final injunction against the defendants. For this reason declarations (2) and (3) should be set aside.

(3) If the implied licence has become irrevocable by acquiescence Matthew Fisher cannot claim damages for infringement of copyright, or any share of the monies collected by the copyright collecting societies, or obtain any contractual right for payment of royalties in the future as the price for granting an express licence for the exploitation of the copyright in the Work. For these reasons the order for an inquiry as to damages since 31 May 2005 should be set aside."

I am not a specialist in copyright law but this seems like pure common sense to me.

You simply waited too long Matthew.

Lawyers: A New Priesthood?

PETER KING

It is alright, Mr King, I have not prefaced the caption with anything that might in your belief system be associated with your christian name.

“This may sound ridiculous, but I do believe that I’ve been called to be a lawyer.” Peter King, a corporate partner at Shearman & Sterling in London, knew within two days of starting his law degree at Cambridge that he had found what he wanted to do for the rest of his life. “I don’t know why,” he says. “There was just some chemistry.”

It would be overly cynical to suggest that Christian faith and being a lawyer are mutually incompatible. I think of all the lost souls slaving for the Legal Services Commission. They certainly manage to combine being lawyers with holding irrational beliefs. I do not mean that they believe in a god. They may or they may not. But they subscribe to an even more improbable belief; namely, that the UK government will one day treat them fairly. The probability that this is true is much lower than the probability that a god exists. This proves only that some lawyers suffer from delusions. If I add that I have met many very able lawyers who used to or still do legal aid work then I must accept the proposition that there exist lawyers who are good at their jobs but cleave to irrational beliefs.

I have recently referred to Thomas Cromwell (Henry VIII's lawyer) in a post. He professed belief in god. But then he had to and was probably just a cynical liar and a hypocrite.

There is no compulsion on Mr King (i.e. no threat that his head will be chopped off if he does not at least pretend to believe in god) and I fully accept that his belief in god is genuine (albeit deluded). See my previous post on Dawkins.

I just find his thought processes somewhat confusing. He ascribes his "calling" to the law in terms of "chemistry" rather than "theology". What branch of chemistry is he referring to? The most likely answer would seem to be "alchemy". Mr King has certainly turned his talents (if not lead) into gold. Thus, if he does believe in alchemy, that may not count as an irrational belief at all.

Divorcing Reality: The Website

The Divorcing Reality website now exists. There is much more content yet to be uploaded but a working design has been achieved and some content is there.

Lack of Recent Postings

Not that anyone is interested, or looking, I have been trying to get the main site up.