Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
On 11/01/2026 15:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit
has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue
litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
Perhaps. It just removes one possibility of saving money.
A couple of other comments from the bailii report, which have nothing to
do with the ruling.
Firstly, are these reports not spell-checked? 17.4 refers to "the Fourth condition". However, (27?) vi and 28 misspell it as "Fourt". It is
correctly spelt in (47?) iv, 48, and 49.
Secondly, 7 notes "The commentary at White Book Vol. 2, para. 13-10 is inciteful:". Inciteful? Is this a misinterpreted homonym for
"insightful"? There's a world on difference between their meanings.
These seem careless errors to me. Are there any less obvious ones? I see
that this is referred to as "HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT". I
wonder if the original has these errors.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:28:28 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2026 15:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit
has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue
litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
Perhaps. It just removes one possibility of saving money.
A couple of other comments from the bailii report, which have nothing to
do with the ruling.
Firstly, are these reports not spell-checked? 17.4 refers to "the Fourth
condition". However, (27?) vi and 28 misspell it as "Fourt". It is
correctly spelt in (47?) iv, 48, and 49.
Secondly, 7 notes "The commentary at White Book Vol. 2, para. 13-10 is
inciteful:". Inciteful? Is this a misinterpreted homonym for
"insightful"? There's a world on difference between their meanings.
These seem careless errors to me. Are there any less obvious ones? I see
that this is referred to as "HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT". I
wonder if the original has these errors.
I have a rule - which has never been wrong so far - that finding one
error in something means the will always be another.
On 12/01/2026 16:53, Jethro_uk wrote:". I
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:28:28 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2026 15:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit
has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue
litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
Perhaps. It just removes one possibility of saving money.
A couple of other comments from the bailii report, which have nothing to >>> do with the ruling.
Firstly, are these reports not spell-checked? 17.4 refers to "the Fourth >>> condition". However, (27?) vi and 28 misspell it as "Fourt". It is
correctly spelt in (47?) iv, 48, and 49.
Secondly, 7 notes "The commentary at White Book Vol. 2, para. 13-10 is
inciteful:". Inciteful? Is this a misinterpreted homonym for
"insightful"? There's a world on difference between their meanings.
These seem careless errors to me. Are there any less obvious ones? I see >>> that this is referred to as "HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
wonder if the original has these errors.
I have a rule - which has never been wrong so far - that finding one
error in something means the will always be another.
That error was on purpose, right? In which case - hahaha.
It is an ongoing crisis in the legal profession that legal executives
and paralegals who until very recently have conducted litigation, might
now be deemed unable to do so and might face redundancy or a reduction
in their workload with associated reduction in pay and marketability.
There needs to be some clarification. Otherwise clients may find
themselves paying higher legal fees. I've met some legal executives who
were far better lawyers than the solicitors who were theoretically supervising them.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:28:28 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2026 15:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit
has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue
litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
Perhaps. It just removes one possibility of saving money.
A couple of other comments from the bailii report, which have nothing to
do with the ruling.
Firstly, are these reports not spell-checked? 17.4 refers to "the Fourth
condition". However, (27?) vi and 28 misspell it as "Fourt". It is
correctly spelt in (47?) iv, 48, and 49.
Secondly, 7 notes "The commentary at White Book Vol. 2, para. 13-10 is
inciteful:". Inciteful? Is this a misinterpreted homonym for
"insightful"? There's a world on difference between their meanings.
These seem careless errors to me. Are there any less obvious ones? I see
that this is referred to as "HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT ". I
wonder if the original has these errors.
I have a rule - which has never been wrong so far - that finding one
error in something means the will always be another.
It is an ongoing crisis in the legal profession that legal executives and paralegals who until very recently have conducted litigation, might now be deemed unable to do so and might face redundancy or a reduction in their workload with associated reduction in pay and marketability.
There needs to be some clarification. Otherwise clients may find themselves paying higher legal fees. I've met some legal executives who were far better lawyers than the solicitors who were theoretically supervising them.
On 12 Jan 2026 at 20:52:09 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 16:53, Jethro_uk wrote:". I
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:28:28 +0000, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/01/2026 15:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
Looks like the cut-price legal services model that creates the profit >>>>> has been kneecapped as courts decide you need grown ups to pursue
litigation.
(that's a lay persons summary :) )
https://www.bailii.org//ew/cases/Misc/2026/1.html
Perhaps. It just removes one possibility of saving money.
A couple of other comments from the bailii report, which have nothing to >>>> do with the ruling.
Firstly, are these reports not spell-checked? 17.4 refers to "the Fourth >>>> condition". However, (27?) vi and 28 misspell it as "Fourt". It is
correctly spelt in (47?) iv, 48, and 49.
Secondly, 7 notes "The commentary at White Book Vol. 2, para. 13-10 is >>>> inciteful:". Inciteful? Is this a misinterpreted homonym for
"insightful"? There's a world on difference between their meanings.
These seem careless errors to me. Are there any less obvious ones? I see >>>> that this is referred to as "HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
wonder if the original has these errors.
I have a rule - which has never been wrong so far - that finding one
error in something means the will always be another.
That error was on purpose, right? In which case - hahaha.
It is an ongoing crisis in the legal profession that legal executives
and paralegals who until very recently have conducted litigation, might
now be deemed unable to do so and might face redundancy or a reduction
in their workload with associated reduction in pay and marketability.
There needs to be some clarification. Otherwise clients may find
themselves paying higher legal fees. I've met some legal executives who
were far better lawyers than the solicitors who were theoretically
supervising them.
My reading of the judgment is that paralegals and legal executives employed by
the firm conducting the legal action and have thus at least potentially been "involved in the litigation" still have a right of audience, at least at the types of hearing where they have traditionally had that right. The person's refused right of audience are those who are hired by separate firms and sent to hearings to represent litigants they have not previously been involved with; sort of "unqualified professional advocates".
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:31:27 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |